The Subtle Power of Language: Analyzing Apartheid, Nakba, the Iraq War, and Other Conflicts through Passive Voice

In the complex world of journalism and sociopolitical analysis, language plays a critical role in shaping public perception. At Truthlytics, we delve into how linguistic choices, particularly the use of passive voice, can obscure realities and influence narratives. This article examines the use of passive voice in the contexts of Apartheid in South Africa, the Nakba in Palestine, the Iraq War, and other significant conflicts, revealing how such language can veil the actions of perpetrators and minimize the gravity of their actions.

Apartheid in South Africa: The Veil of Anonymity

During the Apartheid era in South Africa, media often employed passive constructions that obscured the identities of the aggressors.

• Example: “Demonstrators were shot.”
• Active Voice: “South African police shot demonstrators.”

This subtle shift in language shifts the focus away from the perpetrators, reducing the immediacy and accountability of their actions. By failing to name the agents of violence, such language diminishes the systemic nature of the state’s brutality against the black population, effectively softening the perception of Apartheid’s horrors.

The Nakba: Anonymizing the Aggressors

The Nakba, marking the mass displacement of Palestinians in 1948, is another instance where passive language obscures responsibility.

• Example: “Palestinians were displaced.”
• Active Voice: “Israeli forces displaced Palestinians.”

Reports often state, “Palestinians were displaced,” without clarifying that Israeli forces orchestrated this displacement. More precise language, such as “Israeli forces displaced Palestinians,” would make clear the active role played by these forces. This passive phrasing not only anonymizes the actions but also diminishes the catastrophic impact on Palestinian lives and communities, subtly influencing public understanding and historical memory.

The Iraq War: Softening the Impact

In coverage of the Iraq War, phrases like “The city was bombed” or “Civilians were killed” are commonplace.

• Example: “The city was bombed.”
• Active Voice: “U.S.-led forces bombed the city.”
• Example: “Civilians were killed.”
• Active Voice: “U.S.-led forces killed civilians.”

These constructions fail to specify that coalition forces, led by the United States, were responsible for the bombings and civilian casualties. For example, “U.S.-led forces bombed the city, causing civilian casualties” directly names the actors and their actions, providing clarity and accountability. The passive voice in this context serves to sanitize the violence and diffuse responsibility, which can lead to a skewed public perception of the conflict’s realities.

The Rwandan Genocide

The Rwandan Genocide of 1994, where approximately 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by extremist Hutus, is frequently described with passive constructions.

• Example: “People were killed during the Rwandan Genocide.”
• Active Voice: “Hutu extremists killed approximately 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus during the Rwandan Genocide.”

This passive construction hides the identity of the killers and the systematic nature of the violence, reducing the accountability of the perpetrators.

The Armenian Genocide

The Armenian Genocide, which occurred during World War I and led to the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, is often described passively.

• Example: “Many Armenians died during the events of 1915.”
• Active Voice: “Ottoman forces systematically killed approximately 1.5 million Armenians during the genocide in 1915.”

The passive voice here obfuscates the direct actions of the Ottoman government, minimizing the responsibility for the orchestrated mass killings.

The Pontic Greek Genocide

The genocide of Pontic Greeks by the Ottoman Empire during and after World War I is another instance where passive language is used.

• Example: “Pontic Greeks were killed during the genocide.”
• Active Voice: “Ottoman forces killed 300,000 Pontic Greeks during the genocide, amounting to 50% of this ethnic group.”

This passive phrasing obscures the role of Ottoman forces in the systematic extermination of Pontic Greeks, downplaying the severity and accountability of the actions.

The Bosnian War

During the Bosnian War (1992-1995), ethnic cleansing was a significant aspect, particularly in the context of the Srebrenica massacre, where more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were killed by Bosnian Serb forces.

• Example: “Thousands of Bosniaks were killed in Srebrenica.”
• Active Voice: “Bosnian Serb forces killed more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in Srebrenica.”

By using passive language, the specificity and the scale of the atrocity committed by the Bosnian Serb forces are downplayed.

The Holocaust

In discussions of the Holocaust, which saw the systematic extermination of six million Jews by the Nazi regime, passive constructions are also used.

• Example: “Millions of Jews were killed during the Holocaust.”
• Active Voice: “Nazi Germany systematically exterminated six million Jews during the Holocaust.”

This passive phrasing can diminish the explicit recognition of the perpetrators’ organized efforts and the scale of their crimes.

The Syrian Civil War

The ongoing Syrian Civil War has involved numerous human rights violations and atrocities, often described in passive terms.

• Example: “Civilians were bombed in Aleppo.”
• Active Voice: “Syrian government forces bombed civilians in Aleppo.”

Using passive language in this context removes the direct responsibility from the Assad regime for targeting civilians.

The Impact of Language Choices

The use of passive voice in these contexts has significant implications:

1. Vague Accountability: By not naming the perpetrators, passive constructions obscure who is responsible for the violence and displacement, making it harder to hold them accountable.
2. Diminished Severity: Language that does not specify agents of violence can make the events seem less severe, as the immediacy and direct impact of the actions are downplayed.
3. Public Perception and Historical Memory: The way events are reported shapes public understanding and collective memory. Passive language can lead to a sanitized version of events, which may influence policy decisions and societal attitudes.

The Role of Journalists and Analysts

At Truthlytics, we emphasize the importance of precise and active language in reporting and analysis. By clearly naming actors and actions, journalists and analysts can provide a more accurate portrayal of events, fostering greater accountability and understanding. This approach not only respects the truth but also honors the experiences of those affected by these events.

Conclusion

The careful choice of language, especially in contexts of conflict and oppression, is crucial. The examples of Apartheid, the Nakba, the Iraq War, and other significant conflicts demonstrate how passive voice can obscure reality and impede accountability. As we continue to navigate complex global issues, it is imperative that we use language that illuminates rather than obscures, ensuring that truth and justice remain at the forefront of our narratives.