by eslobrown on November 30, -0001
In Other Words: Rebels Or Guerrilas
Discuss this euphemism in the comments below.
Freedom Fighter is not a Euphemism. It is actually quite literal. As the word euphemism is defined freedom fighter does not fit the context. Referring to someone as a freedom fighter, is not a way to substitute the harsh/blunt titles of rebel and guerrilla. It simply means one who fights for freedom!
Yes, the term FREEDOM FIGHTERS is a EUPHEMISM employed to negate or neutralize the actual and implied violence involved in radical, revolutionary, armed civilian resistance.
Per example:Think of the oath ” …that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic….” An American “FREEDOM FIGHTER” may fall under the label of “DOMESTIC ENEMY” or “DOMESTIC TERRORIST,” particularly if his or her personal agenda and interests are in direct opposition to that of the US Federal and state governments.
To elaborate upon my interpretation and definition of FREEDOM FIGHTER term:
FREEDOM FIGHTERS implies a group of typically NON-GOVERNMENT and NON-MILITARY AFFILIATED PRIVATE CITIZENS; that have voluntarily formed an ARMED CIVILIAN GROUP or army, most likely unpaid, for the expressed purpose of furthering a RADICAL UNDERDOG CAUSE. Possibly, a cause born of fanatical and extremist mentality, as a direct response to REAL or PERCEIVED VIOLATION of NATURAL and BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, and consequently severe outrage.
A cause which is typically polar liberal or conservative in nature, though ALMOST ALWAYS RADICAL, and ALMOST ALWAYS IN DIRECT OPPOSITION to OFFICIAL POLICIES and PROCEDURES ENDORSED BY FEDERAL and STATE GOVERNMENT POWERS and AFFILIATED AGENCIES i.e. LAW ENFORCEMENT and GOVERNMENT MILITARY FORCE. Occasionally, a government power may enable freedom fighters to carry out armed resistance and militant activities to further ex-official government policies and agendas; however, that is not the norm.
A FREEDOM FIGHTER has been indoctrinated to utilize any and all necessary violent force to protect and defend his or her organization. In other words, FREEDOM FIGHTERS ARE SOLDIERS FOR THE CAUSE THEY REPRESENT.
History provides POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, and NEGATIVE instances of FREEDOM FIGHTERS. Per instance, one could argue that GENERAL GEORGE WASHINGTON or MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. were freedom fighters and praise the consequences of their actions.
While FREEDOM FIGHTERS remains a highly arbitrary term, which may be interpreted in a positive light, the actual and implied violence involved still gives a NEGATIVE CONNOTATION to this term.
FREEDOM FIGHTERS is a EUPHEMISM employed to negate or neutralize the actual and implied violence involved in radical, revolutionary, armed civilian resistance.
A few examples of usage of this term NOT AS A EUPHEMISM, but in some way LINKED to the MEANING of its EUPHEMISM DEFINITION:
-Sometimes the term FREEDOM FIGHTERS is used to exaggerate the actual level of armed capabilities of a group or individual to generate an impression of threat to the general civilian population.
-Sometimes the term FREEDOM FIGHTERS is used by those who are of the mind set that armed violence is somehow artistic or edgy, and the writer may believe that using this term will generate appeal amongst younger, yet matured, and active, (as in under age 65; though particularly under age 25) members of the general population. Particularly when the term is paired with, in actuality, NON-VIOLENT and NON-SOLDIER activities, such as: Public speaking utilizing simple right to free speech, or artistic achievement demonstrating simple right to creative talent.
-Sometimes the term FREEDOM FIGHTERS is used to describe mercenary, or PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS who are, in actuality, employed by a government agency or private military government subsidiary. Those soldiers are not officially fighting for his or her personal causes, they are fighting for the causes of his or her government; which may be a personal matter to them, surely. The writer may be trying to imply independent or divergent thought in the soldiers described, to, in essence, point out how the mentality diverges from the norm—as in, the normal mentality amongst civilians, or, the normal mentality amongst fellow soldiers—to point out some kind of excellent or outstanding quality, generally, a positive. This can be used in a positive light; however, the correct terminology is simply SOLDIER. That is enough for most people to understand, and there is no need to actually DEFINE what kind of soldier beyond linking his or her organization or nationality to the term SOLDIER. Per instance, certainly, the US Government really believes that their paid professional soldiers are fighting for freedom, as do the majority of US civilians, so that is just understood to Americans. There is no need to add FREEDOM to that. I mean, nobody ever says FREEDOM SOLDIERS that would sound dumb.
-HERE IS HOW THIS TERM IS A EUPHEMISM:
-Sometimes FREEDOM FIGHTERS is a used as a EUPHEMISM employed to negate or neutralize the actual and implied violence involved in radical, revolutionary, armed civilian resistance.
A freedom fighter is (usually) a terrorist.
The IRA viewed themselves as freedom fighters.
Che Guevara is often considered a freedom fighter, when in truth he was a Marxist revolutionary.
The IRA and Che Guevara were both fighting for freedom, you idiot. And just because he tried to make Cuba a pseudo-Marxist nation, doesn’t mean he wasn’t fighting for freedom.
The ones who are being denied their freedom are the ones who have to be the rebels. Such as the right to vote in Pennsylvania and other States.
©2009-2013 All Rights Reserved.