Asking question about the word "separatism"
Beth Simon
simon at IPFW.EDU
Wed Jun 11 18:33:35 UTC 2003
while searching Diss Abstracts, I came across this:
Yesterday's 'separatists' are today's 'resistence fighters': A critical
discourse analysis of the representations of Iraqi Kurds in 'The Globe
and Mail' and 'The New York Times'
by Sheyholislami, Jaffer;, MA
CARLETON UNIVERSITY (CANADA), 2001, 160 pages
AAT MQ66854
beth
beth lee simon, ph.d.
associate professor, linguistics and english
indiana university purdue university
fort wayne, in 46805-1499
voice 260 481 6761; fax 260 481 6985
email simon at ipfw.edu
>>> zaki at CENTRIN.NET.ID 06/08/03 2:37 PM >>>
Dear friends,
I want to ask you about the words 'separatist' or 'separatism' or
'separation movement'. What do you think about those words? Is there any
'ideological meaning' in those words?
Seeing from the 'formal defintion' in some encyclopedia (i.e.
'separatist':
'an advocate of separation, esp. ecclesiastical or political separation'
(Encyclopedic World Dictionary) or 'a person who advocates the secession
of
a province, esp. Quebec from Canada' (Wordreference.com)) on in a
scientific
writing (like Daniel Tan Kuan Wei's "Investigating the Dynamics of
Separatism", in which he said 'separatism can be broadly defined as a
"process whereby territorial units consisting of a minority or
subordinate
ethnic group, or a coalition of ethnic groups assert themselves
politically,
challenging the scope of a particular authority and seeks to secede or
gain
autonomy from the control, de facto and de jure, of a central government
predominantly administered by a different ethno-linguistic and/or
religious
group'),
it seems that the words 'separatism', 'separatis' do not have any
'ideological meaning'. But reading the following documents of the ASNLF,
(Acheh Sumatra National Liberation Front, the organization in Acheh,
Indonesia, wich demands self-determination for the Achehneese people),
in
which they denied the word "separatism", it seems that the word
'separatist', 'separatism', 'separation movement', has an 'ideological
meaning':
'Secondly, to call the world's attention to the fact that the
question of Acheh Sumatra is not a question of "separatism" as
alleged by the Javanese/Indonesian colonialist regime and the
Western press, but a question of self-determination of the people
of Acheh Sumatra, and a question of decolonization of the Dutch
East Indies alias "Indonesia" which has not been decolonized
legally and properly in accordance with the purpose and meaning of
the Charter of the United Nations, with the principles and
procedures of International Law, and with the UN Resolution on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.'
Also, the above statement by the ANSLF is similar to the refusal of the
Tamil guerilla movement to be called "separatism", like in the following
news from Asia Times, November 29, 2001:
"Sri Lanka's Tamil guerrilla movement "is neither separatism nor
terrorism", the head of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
(LTTE) has declared. It is the closest a Tamil guerrilla leader
has come to suggesting that a homeland separate from the Sinhalese
majority on the island may not be essential to ending the bloody,
decades-long conflict."
"The Tamil people want to maintain their national identity and to
live in their own lands, in their historically given homeland with
peace and dignity. They want to determine their own political and
economic life; they want to be on their own. These are the basic
political aspirations of the Tamil people," Pirabhakaran said in
his annual Heroes Day speech on Tuesday. "It is neither separatism
nor terrorism."
>From what the ASNLF and the Tamil Eelam said, it seems that 'separatism'
has
a negative connotation, and so that's why they don't want to be called
'separatist'.
So what do you think, do the words "separatist", "separatism", or
"separation movement" have an 'ideological meaning"?
I think that's all for now. Thank you very much.
Best Regards,
Zaki
More information about the Discours
mailing list