Who Hates Whom

Ando a ler um livro sobre conflitos mundiais. Para deixar de estar sempre a perguntar ao Pedro "O que é que se passa no Kozovo? E no Paquistão? E com Israel?". Agora tenho um manual dividido por regiões do mundo onde estão explicados os principais conflitos mundiais de forma interessante, simples, clara, e até com algum sentido de humor. Estou fascinada com o dito livro. É mesmo útil. Dou por mim a fazer "ahhh!" de elucidação a cada duas páginas.
O autor deste livro - Bob Harris - não é exactamente um expert na matéria, e por isso o livro tem o ponto de vista do "olhar comum" e não de um analista ou politólogo. Por isso mesmo Harris escreveu uma introdução onde explica os seus pontos de partida, as opções que faz ao longo do livro, e até mesmo a forma como foi criado (fez os mapas no seu computador em casa e tudo). Não consigo resistir a transcrever uma parte deste pequeno texto inicial:

"I avoid the word terrorism, for moral and clarity reasons. For one, its common useage - violence against civilians by non-state actors as an absolute evil - subtly implies that officially sanctioned carnage is somehow more legit. Eek. Whether an air force blows up your village or rebels bomb it from ground level, the objectives and results are the same. (The UN definition makes no distinction between state and non-state terror, but popular usage does. No wonder governments like the word.)
Terrorist is also distorted simply to mean "enemy". Nepalese Maoists were "terrorists" right up until they helped abolish an abusive monarchy. They're now the prime minister's cabinet during a peacefull transition to democracy. While Nelson Mandela was fighting apartheid, the White House deemed his party "terrorist", but an anti-Castro militant accused of involvement in killing seventy-three civilians on a Cuban airliner went to work for Oliver North. And when rebels in Sierra Leone were hacking off people's arms specifically in order to terrify people, the word was rarely even suggested, although you couldn't ask for a more precise example. Even Amnesty International used terrorism to refer only to Al Qaeda, wich may have benefited from the blood diamond trade.
Worse, the word obliterates distinctions. "Terrorists" in Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Spain, and Peru almost sound like they're teammates, but they have literally nothing in common. Tossing complex, violent agendas into a giant bin called terrorism is both lazy and dangerous. Instead, let's force ourselves to use specifics: "nationalist rebels", or "drug-financed paramilitary death squads" or "sex-crazed vegetarian pacifists". Speaking of wich, not enough sex-crazed vegetarian pacifists are invading people. I checked.
Everyone knows how horrible 9-11 was. We don't minimize it by refusing to use a meaningless word. Instead, we force ourselves to think. This may be a usefull habit."

Bob Harris, Who Hates Whom

Para reflectir.