curious usage note

[Victor Steinbok]

Evidence? Not sure I can find much. I just did a quick run through GNA
and, prior to 2000, "jihadist" appears almost entirely in Middle Eastern
publications and the BBC. Then in December 2000 (Vernon Loeb, 12/24,
starting with WaPo), there is a cluster of stories on large-scale
multiple planned terrorist attacks by the bin Laden network that had
been prevented in 3 countries (US, Jordan, Yemen--the Cole bombing being
a part of the planned activity that was not prevented). Richard Clarke
is quoted as using "jihadist", but only as an adjective--jihadist
networks.  Then the usage explodes following 9/11. I have not followed
it that closely from that point forward.

It's possible--even likely--that I have a selection bias here. But from
memory, I would say that for the following 7-8 years the expression was
used almost entirely in reference to, well, Muslim jihadists or Muslims,
in general, by people whose attitude toward Muslims has been less than
positive. Generally, reference to "jihadists" are made by people who
have a reason to describe someone as a jihadist. Clarke had a reason
because it was a part of his job description to monitor "jihadists".
But, for the most part, people do it because they see group X as
"jihadists". When someone wants to make a point that he's talking about
a /Muslim/ terrorist, he'll use "jihadist". So it is only natural for
people who have an ax to grind with Arabs and/or Muslims would resort to
labeling people as jihadists--rightly or wrongly. For them, it takes on
secondary meaning, beyond merely describing someone specifically
involved in a jihad--perhaps someone who is /potentially/ involved in a
jihad, anyone who has expressed anti-American sentiments, etc. What
happen to a description when it has a very strong negative connotation
for one group? Other people try to avoid that word in similar
context--so they might use "radical", "zealot", "fundamentalist" or
"terrorist" (if that is appropriate", without invoking the "jihad". So,
for a while, "jihadist" may well have been exclusive to anti-Muslim/Arab
speech, even if the speaker may not have been bigoted. But, as I was
saying earlier, the metaphorical and other non-literal uses now may
dominate. And because such a negative (although not "offensive")
connotation is added to the original, it is now the same for the
metaphorical uses as well. Somehow, it does not seem that there is going
to be a "neutral" meaning of "jihadist" any time soon.

I do disagree with the comments, overall, that you quoted. But that part
concerning the usage by people with prejudice may well have been
accurate for a few years, although it was not the original usage and it
is no longer the current usage. But why would any one argue that the
word itself is unnecessary??

     VS-)

On 3/30/2011 6:29 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>> I suspect, this might have been true only a few months ago--perhaps
>> one needs to go as far back as mid-2009.
> But what's the evidence that it ever was true?  Furthermore, the note seems
> to me to be unusually condemnatory.
>
> Yet the word is not labeled "offensive."  MW online defines the word without
> comment. Ditto OED (parent of NOAD) with n./adj. cites back to 1967, none of
> which appears markedly disdainful or dismissive to me, or used in a vehement
> "anti-Arab" or "anti-Islam" [sic: shouldn't it be "anti-Muslim"?] context.
>
> Surely anglicization itself is not now seen as racist or bigoted. Is it?
>
> JL

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org