Publisher: University of Queensland Press(Australia)
Category: Biography & Autobiography
The fascinating true story of Charles Bavier, a European born and raised in Japan during the most tumultuous decades of the 20th century. Thirty years ago when Hamish McDonald was Asia Correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald in Japan, he was given a box of papers by a departing journalist. The box contained a large manuscript and photographs that detailed the amazing life of Charles Bavier. Born in Japan in the late 1800s, the illegitimate son of a Swiss businessman, Charles was raised by his father's Japanese mistress. By the early 1900s, as turmoil builds with Russia and suspicion of foreigners increases, Charles' life in Japan becomes untenable. Over the following decades, Bavier fights with the revolutionaries in China, enlists in the Australian army and survives Gallipoli, becomes an agent for British Secret Service in Singapore and the Australian intelligence service in the Second World War. He was a man of two cultures and two countries - and yet claimed by neither. A War of Words is the account of the extraordinary life of Charles Bavier, based on his own diaries and three decades of research by Hamish McDonald.
When Kenneth Burke conceived his celebrated “Motivorum” project in the 1940s and 1950s, he envisioned it in three parts. Whereas the third part, A Symbolic of Motives, was never finished, A Grammar of Motives (1945) and A Rhetoric of Motives (1950) have become canonical theoretical documents. A Rhetoric of Motives was originally intended to be a two-part book. Here, at last, is the second volume, the until-now unpublished War of Words, where Burke brilliantly exposes the rhetorical devices that sponsor war in the name of peace. Discouraging militarism during the Cold War even as it catalogues belligerent persuasive strategies and tactics that remain in use today, The War of Words reveals how popular news media outlets can, wittingly or not, foment international tensions and armaments during tumultuous political periods. This authoritative edition includes an introduction from the editors explaining the compositional history and cultural contexts of both The War of Words and A Rhetoric of Motives. The War of Words illuminates the study of modern rhetoric even as it deepens our understanding of post–World War II politics.
Throughout history and especially during contemporary times, presidential rhetoric sets the foreign policy tone not only for Congress but mainly for the American public. Consequently, US foreign policy is actively marketed and spun to the American public. This book describes the marketing strategy of the War on Terror and how that strategy compelled public opinion towards supporting the spread of the War on Terror from Afghanistan to Iraq. The author investigates how President George W. Bush's initial framing of the September 11th attacks provided the platform for the creation of long term public support for the War on Terror and established early public support for U.S. action in Iraq. Mining public opinion data and nearly 1500 presidential speeches over a four year period, the book argues that presidential framing of threats and losses, not gains, contributed to public support for war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, and President Bush's successful reelection campaign. President Bush's initial framing of the terrorist threat was introduced immediately after the September 11th attacks and reinforced throughout the Afghanistan invasion. During this time period, presidential threat framing established the broad parameters for the War on Terror and enabled the president to successfully market a punitive war in Afghanistan. Second, the president marketed the strategy of preemptive war and led the country into the more costly war in Iraq by focusing on the potentially global threat of terrorism and the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. President Bush's previous war rhetoric was repackaged into a leaner, more focused format in which the Iraq war became part of the War on Terror, resulting in increased support for the president and a successful reelection campaign. Finally, the author examines the withdraw vs. surge in Iraq debate bringing the book up to date. The book shows the influencing potential of presidential spin and of risky foreign policy in the Middle East, and presents a systematic analysis of how a president effectively pursued a marketing strategy that continues to show an enduring ability to influence public support. Even two years after the Iraq invasion, 52% of Americans believed that the U.S. should stay in Iraq until it is stabilized. This finding bypasses agenda setting explanations, which prescribes issue salience amongst the public for only one year. The large speech database available with the study will also be an added benefit to scholars seeking to teach undergraduate and graduate level qualitative research methods.
A timely call for recovering the true meanings of the nineteenth-century terms that are hobbling current political debates Nationalism, conservatism, liberalism, socialism, and capitalism are among the most fiercely debated ideas in contemporary politics. Since these concepts hark back to the nineteenth century, much of their nuanced meaning has been lost, and the words are most often used as epithets that short-circuit productive discussion. In this insightful book, Harold James uncovers the origins of these concepts and examines how the problematic definition and meaning of each term has become an obstacle to respectful communication. Noting that similar linguistic misunderstandings accompany such newer ideas as geopolitics, neoliberalism, technocracy, and globalism, James argues that a rich historical knowledge of the vocabulary surrounding globalization, politics, and economics—particularly the meaning and the usefulness that drove the original conceptions of the terms—is needed to negotiate the gaps between different understandings and make fruitful political debate once again possible.
In a media age, wars are waged not only with bombs and planes but also with video and sound bites. War of Words is an incisive report from the linguistic battlefields, probing the tales told about September 11th to show how Americans created consensus in the face of terror. Capturing the campaigns for America's hearts, minds, wallets and votes, Silberstein traces the key cultural conflicts that surfaced after the attacks and beyond: the attacks on critical intellectuals for their perceived 'blame America first' attitude the symbiotic relationship between terrorists and the media (mis)representations of Al Qaeda and the Taliban used to justify military action the commercialisation of September 11th news as 'entertainment' when covering tragic events. Now featuring a new chapter on the Second Anniversary and Beyond, including: the war in Iraq, the backlash against former 'heroes' and accusations of presidential mendacity. A perceptive and disturbing account, War of Words reveals the role of the media in manufacturing events and illuminates the shifting sands of American collective identity in the post September 11th world.
This book examines a series of controversies surrounding Israel's use of force and its failure to prevent violence. Influenced by Weber's definition of the state as the 'monopoly of violence', politcial scientists and criminologists alike have focused their attention on the legitimation struggles of non-state actors who resort to violence. This book redresses the balance. Chapters are devoted to the public discourse about Palestinian and Jewish terrorism, the war in Lebanon, the alleged connection between verbal violence of government leaders and the physical violence of its supporters, and the use of history to justify the state use of force. The conclusion considers why these controversies play such a central role in Israeli politics and presents a number of suggestions as to the function they fulfil in other Western societies.
From a Western perspective, the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991 largely fulfilled the first President Bush's objective: "In, out, do it, do it right, get gone. That's the message." But in the Arab world, the causes and consequences of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and his subsequent defeat by a U.S.-led coalition were never so clear-cut. The potent blend of Islam and Arab nationalism that Saddam forged to justify the unjustifiable—his invasion of a Muslim state—gained remarkable support among both Muslims and Arabs and continued to resonate in the Middle East long after the fighting ended. Indeed, as this study argues in passing, it became a significant strand in the tangled web of ideologies and actions that led to the attacks of 9/11. This landmark book offers the first in-depth investigation of how Saddam Hussein used Islam and Arab nationalism to legitimate his invasion of Kuwait in the eyes of fellow Muslims and Arabs, while delegitimating the actions of the U.S.-led coalition and its Arab members. Jerry M. Long addresses three fundamental issues: how extensively and in what specific ways Iraq appealed to Islam during the Kuwait crisis; how elites, Islamists, and the elusive Arab "street," both in and out of the coalition, responded to that appeal and why they responded as they did; and the longer-term effects that resulted from Saddam's strategy.
A War of Words analyzes Jefferson Davis’s public discourse, arguing that throughout his time as president of the Confederacy, Davis settled for short-term rhetorical successes at the expense of creating more substantive and meaningful messages for himself and his constituents. Numerous biographies of Jefferson Davis have been penned; however, until now, there had been no substantive analysis of his public discourse as president of the Confederacy. R. Jarrod Atchison’s A War of Words uses concepts from rhetorical theory and public address to help answer a question that has intrigued scholars from a variety of disciplines since the collapse of the Confederacy: what role, if any, did Davis play in the collapse of Confederate nationalism? Most discussions of Davis and nationalism focus on the military outcomes of his controversial wartime decisions. A War of Words focuses less on military outcomes and argues instead that, in the context of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis’s rhetorical leadership should have been responsible for articulating a vision for the nation—including the core tenets of its identity, the values the nation should hold dear, the principles it should never compromise, and the goals it should set for its future. Undoubtedly, Davis possessed the skills necessary to make a persuasive public argument. It is precisely because Davis’s oratory skills were so powerful that there is room to judge how he used them. In short, being a great orator is not synonymous with successful rhetorical leadership. Atchison posits that Davis’s initial successes constrained his rhetorical options later in the war. A War of Words concludes that, in the end, Davis’s rhetorical leadership was a failure because he was unable to articulate a coherent Confederate identity in light of the sacrifices endured by the populace in order to sustain the war effort.
Tussen 1899 en 1902 woedde in Zuid-Afrika een oorlog tussen de Boerenrepublieken en het Britse Rijk. Veel Nederlanders steunden in die tijd de Boeren. Dit uitte zich in een vloedgolf aan propagandamateriaal om een tegenwicht te bieden aan de Britse berichtgeving over de oorlog. Dit boek bevat een grondige analyse van de Nederlandse pro-Boeren-beweging vanaf haar begin in de jaren 1880. Kuitenbrouwer gaat in op de organisaties die de banden tussen Nederland en Zuid-Afrika trachtten aan te halen en zo belangrijke knooppunten werden in een internationaal netwerk. Aan de hand van bronnenmateriaal toont de auteur aan dat de propagandacampagne voor de Boeren nog lang nagalmde in de twintigste eeuw.0.
Yasir Suleiman's 2004 book considers national identity in relation to language, the way in which language can be manipulated to signal political, cultural or even historical difference. As a language with a long-recorded heritage and one spoken by the majority of those in the Middle East in a variety of dialects, Arabic is a particularly appropriate vehicle for such an investigation. It is also a penetrating device for exploring the conflicts of the Middle East, the diversity of its peoples and the diversity of their viewpoints. Suleiman's book offers a wealth of empirical material, and intriguing, often poignant illustrations of antagonisms articulated through pun or double entendre.
"Although scholarly interest in metaphor as an aesthetic, linguistic, and cognitive phenomenon has long endured, Eubanks is among the first to consider metaphor in its sociohistorical role. Questioning major accounts of metaphor from Aristotle to the present, Eubanks argues that metaphor is not just influenced by but actually is constituted by its concrete operation.".
Sremac offers a penetrating look at how media-generated images and ideas reiterated throughout the Yugoslav civil war hindered Washington's ability to understand what was really happening in the region and made U.S.foreign policy a reflection of sound bites rather than sound reasoning. The process and ideology that guides Washington,in a post-cold war era has allowed special interest groups that understand how Washington works to put forth a message that appeals to tte media and receives endorsement by the U.S. foreign policymaking establishment. Foreign governments and thier supporters in the United States have increasingly tapped into this system. The Yugoslav conflict is one of the first and most important examples of how certain Yugoslav warring parties were able to play out a war of words in Washington to ultimately influence U.S. foreign policy toward the region.
Confederate States of America by United States. War Department
How did slavery and race impact American literature in the nineteenth century? In this ambitious book, Michael T. Gilmore argues that they were the carriers of linguistic restriction, and writers from Frederick Douglass to Stephen Crane wrestled with the demands for silence and circumspection that accompanied the antebellum fear of disunion and the postwar reconciliation between the North and South. Proposing a radical new interpretation of nineteenth-century American literature, The War on Words examines struggles over permissible and impermissible utterance in works ranging from Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” to Henry James’s The Bostonians. Combining historical knowledge with groundbreaking readings of some of the classic texts of the American past, The War on Words places Lincoln’s Cooper Union address in the same constellation as Margaret Fuller’s feminism and Thomas Dixon’s defense of lynching. Arguing that slavery and race exerted coercive pressure on freedom of expression, Gilmore offers here a transformative study that alters our understanding of nineteenth-century literary culture and its fraught engagement with the right to speak.