To the extent there is an element of protest in most terrorism it is often not primary
Yes, exactly, which is why I am not in favor of using the words interchangeably. I took the word 'protest' as far as I could to see when it would break for me in an effort to understand all of the opinions expressed--X's and Kholt's and MD's.
And so often meanings fall apart for people at different points for different reasons. For you, it becomes absurd to use the word protest when it is so internalized that it is more of what someone called a tantrum perhaps, or when it is action based on personal desire, and not really the formal declaration of opposition.
Even when I thought I had solved it etymologically, I ran into trouble. "Protest" derives from the Latin protestare- "to declare publicly, to testify" and the old French-- protester- "to declare or state formally". Even in the 1960s, when protest marches began, it still had an element of formality to it- "demonstrator, public opponent of the established order". Your meanings indicate the same thing-- formal declaration. Aha! I thought. But then I remembered how terrorism is also very organized and formal- think of Osama's tapes and the flowery declarations of El Qaeda we read, condemning our actions. Their acts were the fruit of their protest. Personally, I prefer the more accurate descriptor terrorism for those acts. "Protest" breaks off for me at some point in there emotionally.
Still, I have no problem with understanding the differing views. I also have no problem understanding why it is upsetting when people go too far in NOT labelling terrorism what it is. What I don't get is why it's so hard to hear other people's POVs and see the possibilities.
I appreciate your explanations- and all of the discussion. |
