1.

What are some of the ways in which the first article ("Dehumanizing People and
Emphasizing War") cites as examples of language used to dehumanize groups of people?
What are some examples of the ways in which this has been happening in the last 15 years?
(Larger context: how language is used and why)
The first article connected a lot of history under Reagans presidency and the
doublespeak used in government. Bosmajian says, Although Mr. Reagan is out of office and the
Cold War is over, this essay serves as a reminder that in our dangerous world, language is still
the mightier weapon. Language that was used ultimately influenced others to create this stigma
towards certain groups of people. Which resulted to basically dehumanizing them and taking out
the very serious realities. Its very unsettling that this still does happen today. Some arent even
aware about the amount of doublespeak used when it comes to people in power. They are going
to say either what the majority wants to hear or use their authority to influence others for the
wrong reasons. Some examples more recently are mostly targeted towards minorities that are
usually African American or Muslims. On a systemic level, I connect this to a lot of the police
brutality we hear about around the U.S, targeting the black community. Not only this, but people
have heavily dehumanized the Muslim community, thinking theyre out to harm. These instances
have happened due to our government playing a role in using language. They have fed into the
thoughts of others that think alike, and just like Bosmajian said, dehumanizing metaphors are
more than just figures of speech; they affect our thoughts and behavior. People all over the
world are influenced somehow by language. Even in more recent cases, the class discussed the
Charleston church shooter, Dylann Roof, and how he was persuaded to do what he did because
of the language he saw and that was portrayed on a website.
2. In the second article, a tweet from Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) read "We bomb your
country, creating a humanitarian nightmare, then lock you inside. That's a horror movie,
not a foreign policy." What does this mean to you? Do you agree/disagree with his
sentiment. Explain. (Larger context: Post 9/11 foreign policy)
As a nation, we have built up this huge stigma against people of Muslim countries.
Terrorism in itself has been around forever. The push for radical ideologies and political views in
a violent way. Since 9/11, Americas people in power ultimately put Muslim communities to
blame and didnt even look at them as real people. This topic is very hard to analyze and make
clear decisions about because there are so many factors. Its been build up of tension and hate,
and I just dont understand how America tends to fight or end terrorism if we only
discriminate against one group of people. I had already brought this point up in class, but if we
know that terrorists do these acts because they think it is rightful to them, then why arent we
focusing on that point? Why arent we helping these countries instead of bombing their soil, then
wonder why such acts happen? I think most Americans have become so westernized. We
dehumanize and desensitize so much that we dont even realize there is more life outside of this
country and how some choices that the people in power make, actually affects human beings.