Objectifying the enemy has long been an endorsed practice of the American military almost as vital to winning the nation’s wars as the soldier himself. It is predominantly accomplished through slur or ethnic slander. Slander serves to dehumanize the enemy, making him an object, stripping from his right to live, and thus making him easier to kill. When treating the enemy as an object, as a soon-to-be-dead entity, all emotions that prohibit us from killing in arenas outside of war are suppressed. Without guilt, remorse and the fear of consequence, killing becomes an everyday activity as natural as taking out the garbage.
Since the inception of warfare, military leaders have recognized slurring to be of grand utility. However, since America play so large a part on the modern world stage, I only seek to justify the employment of objectification in the American theater of war, and thus will limit my argument accordingly. Furthermore, this piece will only discuss slurring in military engagements of the 20th and 21st century. All readers looking for interesting slang used against the redcoats, the yanks or the confederates may stop reading now. Those wishing to hear me slander the hell out of the Germans, Italians, Japanese, Russians, Vietnamese, Middle Easterners of various creeds, and nearly all other cultured populations of the Earth are encouraged to continue.
The Germans were persistently aggressive throughout most of the 20th century, with nearly all liability for the two world wars resting squarely on their shoulders. In both cases, the unyielding German advance against a fearful and quaking European continent forced American involvement. The First World War saw limited American activity due to our late entrance into the war. Consequently, racial objectification was limited and, to be honest, quite mild, at least in regard to terms which will be discussed later. One such popular term was “Herman”, a label obvious enough for its assonant relation to the word “German”. All German soldiers subsequently became “Herman the German” and were referred to as such. I must again reiterate the effectiveness of this practice. By giving the enemy a singular label, a singular face and the same monstrous characteristics, he is stripped of the emotional construct that makes him human. The German individual was never killed; it was always just “Herman”. The term “Kraut” was quite popular as well. As a slur, “Kraut” is attributed to the German preference for sauerkraut as a culinary dish. Also used to describe Germans was “Hun”, a term that harkens back to the Germanic tribes of the middle ages, whose relentless advance on mainland Europe is accredited a significant portion of the continent’s cultural destruction. Students of European history may be quick to recognize the Huns as a beastly race bent on the total obliteration of all things civil in favor of a lifestyle more barbaric and disorganized. Killing such an enemy as the Huns of World War I was therefore quite easy and non-disruptive to the conscience.
The Hun again reared his ugly head in World War II and, once more, Americans readied themselves to slander and kill him. Slurs thrived on the home front with the assistance of carefully-drawn renditions of Herman. Advertisements encouraging Americans “Stop the Hun” by purchasing war bonds were plastered across the country. Abroad, our troops fought bravely against the little Adolfs whom threatened our free and democratic society.
Fortunately enough for the business of racial objectification, World War II broadened its international reach, as the Italians and Japanese stood ready to lend the Kraut a helping hand. In response, slurs came standard issue and were put into effect with fervor. On the Italian peninsula, American soldiers terminated thousands of fascist dagos, wops, goombas, guidos, guineas, eggplants and cannolli-rollers. In the Pacific, Marines engaged and destroyed the Jap and his brothers, to include Gook, Slant, Yellow Bastard, Harbor-Bomber and Zipper-Head. Needless to say, the United States triumphed in all of these conflicts, thanks in no small part to the utility of racism.
In closing out the discussion on World War II and beginning a brief discussion on the conflict with the U.S.S.R., I’d rather not argue whether or not the Cold War was truly a war. We may admit, however, that our struggle against the U.S.S.R. was a prolonged altercation of ideologies in which those red, commie bastards lost miserably and, in the end, received a deservedly flawed and broken form of democracy that ails them still. Though violent conflict never existed, nor did a standardized version of ethnic slurring, I’m sure any such armed conflict would have produced numerous references to the Russian’s overindulgence in vodka and prostitutes, in addition to the several other slanders with regard to communism that evolved from the red scare, to include Pinko, Rubble-Head and Sputnik.
East-Asian slander was reborn in Vietnam, as the gooks once again came to the forefront of racial objectification. Paradoxically, racism was a less chosen method of objectification in comparison to the conflict of twenty years prior. The enemy in Vietnam was more widely referred to as Charlie, this being an abbreviation of the alpha phonetic term for the Viet Cong, or the Victor Charlie. As in previous wars, the enemy took on a singular persona. Charlie was everywhere: in the bushes, in the trees, manning a machine gun under the guise of a fourteen-year old girl. Charlie was the enemy, the object of our hatred, and Charlie had to be stopped. This was done by calling him Dink, Gookaniese, Mung, Nammer, Tunnel Digger, Uncle Ben’s Boy and Yellow Monkey. This does not include the many Pinky Poops that were born to Vietnamese women as a result of their sexual liaisons with black, American soldiers.
Our embarrassing withdrawal from Vietnam put a halt to the war machine for a while. Indeed, there did exist small skirmishes throughout the world that demanded American involvement. None of which, however, necessitated fresh and colorful instances of slander. That is, of course, until the First Gulf War, at which time the U.S. combated a new breed of enemy, one who made his home in the sand and wore an odd sort of man-dress. Arguably, this was America’s first real engagement in the Middle East, excluding several battles fought against the Nazis in World War II and against rogue Tripoli in the Tripolitan-American War that lasted from 1801 to 1805. Consequently, the Gulf War created a need for new ways to label the enemy. This came all too easy. The enemy in Iraq wore a strange head-scarf and traveled by camel. As a result, the terms “Diaperhead”, “Towelhead” and “Camel Jockey” became quite popular. Despite a large and growing population, the enemy tended to share the same name, most often something silly like Abu, Aziz or Mohammed. It was only befitting that these names also be used to stereotype the Iraqi soldier. The term “Sand Nigger” was proposed and used briefly, but, due to the fact that taboos in war are not acceptable in peace, and surely taboos in peace are not acceptable in war, this proposal was shot down. No matter, the U.S. and its allies emerged victorious over this less than fierce nation of rag heads. The fires of freedom burned brightly in the Middle East for all the Habibis to see.
Since the United States acted as a peacekeeping force in both the Balkans and Somalia and because we were not true combatants with regard to an actual declaration of war, no references to Bosnian Bob or the Skinnies of Mogadishu will be discussed in this paper.
The U.S. now finds itself fighting the wars of the 21st century against an enemy who employs both religion and terror as a weapon. American soldiers fight him in Afghanistan and they fight him in Iraq. Fortunately for the American military, labels of the past are easily recycled. Take Afghanistan for instance. Because the Afghanis share many of the customs of their Arab brethren, the slurs “Towelhead” and “Gas-Station Attendant” have attained a new vitality. If I may go onto a bit of a tangent, I must inform the reader that we have never fought the Afghanis, or even the country of Afghanistan. Rather, we have fought the Taliban and Al Qaeda, two non-sovereign entities undeserving of Geneva Convention rights and privileges. In my opinion, this further justifies our current practice of labeling, since the terms Taliban and Al Qaeda have proven far too difficult for even the leader of the free world to pronounce. The enemy, no matter how varying, must have one face and one name, one which our honorable leader can articulate without too much difficulty. He is a terrorist and must be referred to as such. It is imperative that we always remember: we are fighting a war on terror. Therefore, all enemies found blocking the path to freedom will be destroyed and dismissed as the rug-riders that they are.
Besides being a terrorist, this southwest Asian enemy may be distinguished as “Haji”. This is a popular term widely used by American soldiers serving in terror-ridden war zones. For those readers unversed in the readings of the Koran, I shall explain. The Haj is a sacred pilgrimage to the holy Muslim city of Mecca that all Muslims are required to make. Muslims who succeed in this journey may take on the name “Haji”. Most inhabitants of our current war zones are Muslim. Accordingly, the title of Haj is quite common. Since the enemy also employs religion as a weapon, it is only natural to stereotype him with this most expedient slander. Not only does it dehumanize Haji, it also subtly invokes the obvious superiority of the Christian faith over the Islamic faith. I mean, honestly, if their god were really so superior, they’d be winning this whole war thing, now wouldn’t they?
I feel it safe to declare that we have a firm grip on racial objectification at present. Yet I fear we are inadequately prepared for the future. The honorable leader of the United States has firmly stated his support for all beleaguered nations who find themselves suffocated by tyranny and oppression. Accordingly, Americans must stand ready to combat these tyrants, and to slander them. For the benefit of the nation’s uniformed services, I have taken the necessary initiative to create a list of possible slurs in hopes of relieving these brave men and women of such a tedious burden.
First on my list is Iran. When developing potential labels for the Iranians, one must remember that they are not Arabs, but are in fact descendants of nomadic Aryan tribes. Therefore, all terms related to Arabism become null and void. Yet, because the majority of Iranians are Shia Muslims, terms that stereotype Muslim culture are indeed acceptable. Haji is still in the ballgame. Zoroastrianism was born in the land that is now modern-day Iran. It failed grievously as a religion, so I thought to make fun of that. In doing so, I at first invoked the term “fake-Muslim Zoroastrian”, but realizing it could be a tad displeasing to the tongue, I settled instead on “Former Fire-Worshipping Bastard”. I think it serves to objectify quite nicely, while adding a certain poetic zing yet to be found in all other forms of slander.
Next up: the North Koreans. It is our good luck that the North Koreans are both Asian and communists, making any and all combinations of these characteristics fair game. “Gook-commie”, “red-slope”, “slope-bastard”, “commie-bastard” and “red-gook” are all splendid selections. The North Koreans are also prone to eat dog. This provides an easily exploitable topic of slander. We must be delicate, though, since our South Korean allies are also apt to dine on Rover from time to time. To lessen the offence, it must be strictly ensured that references to canine consumption always be combined with some form of communist rhetoric. South Korea is a democracy and will receive no offence if the proposed standards are maintained.
The Iranians and North Koreans appear to be the only enemies that present a problem in the near future. Despite this, preparation is in order for wars that are sure to come. As a precaution, I have developed a short-list, sufficient enough, I believe, to cover all American wars in the next century. In no particularly politically-forecasted order, the slurs are as follows:
China – Red, Bamboo Coon, Rice-Eating BastardsMexico – Bean-Eating Border Hoppers
Ireland – Mick Harpy Wife-Beaters
Scotland – Golf-Inventing Sheepfuckers
Australia – Kangaroo-Humping Bastards
Canada – Wannabe Americans
Switzerland – Neutral Pussies
Any and All Middle Eastern Countries – Carpet Piloting Sand Moolies
South Africa – Quitters/Apartide Abandoners/Little Mandelas
Mongolia – Khan!!!
India – Dot-Headed, Overpopulating Bastards
France – No names needed because there would be no war; France would just surrender.
Iceland – Ice Niggers
Colombia – Little Juan Valdezes
Sweden – Funny-Talking, Meatball-Making Motherfuckers
By no means is this list all-inclusive, but it will grow exponentially as the American propensity for war increases. I do implore the reader, and the federal government for that matter, to not take my list at face value. I am merely an amateur at this naming scheme and not part of an official naming body. I do, however, think it is the duty of the American government to invent such a body, perhaps as part of the Department of Defense. Its tasks may include retiring old slurs or slurs that once referred to our present allies, to make slur slogans, such as those used in World War II, to gauge the merit of proposed slurs, and to develop a program of education for the proper use of slurs. Such an arm of government would increase the efficiency of the war-machine, thus enabling our nation’s war fighters to slander with great stealth and deadliness.
Though the horrors of war are grand and many, they are easily embraceable when proven to be of advantage to the American soldier. Racial objectification is a wondrous tool that is quite handy in quelling the conscience of our camouflaged killing man. Let us hope its practice continues as America prepares to fight the many wars that will surely birth from our foreign policy. And I say to you, enemies of freedom, beware, for the guardians of democracy stand ready to slander you, if you dare deviate from the political stance the U.S. government insists you take.
You can contact Marshall Smith at marshallsmithwriting@yahoo.com.