Talk:Freedom fighter: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:20, 19 September 2001

This seems too narrow [1].

I don't know, but I suspect that the dictionary.com definition is an example of hidden bias--not explaining the background. I could be wrong, but I believe (though I have not done any real resarch) that freedom fighter is a Cold War term. --The Cunctator

Cambridge International Dictionary of English [2] suggests: A freedom fighter is a person who uses violent methods to try to remove a government from power. --css

I thought a freedom fighter was someone who fights for freedom--call me silly... :-) Maybe we shouldn't be satisfied with dictionary-definition length entries about complex topics. Obviously, unless somebody just knows this, we're going to have to research exactly who used the term first, how and why it was used, who used it, etc. --Larry Sanger

Sure they fight for freedom. Freedom from domination by those particular leaders. There have been few if any figures in history who wanted freedom for all people from all domination. Gandhi and maybe MLK come to mind, seems like Malcolm X was headed that way when he died. Arguably some of the U.S. founding fathers wanted this, but were obviously willing to compromise. Gautama Buddha is another good guess. Seems like those who want complete freedom for all often renounce violence. --JohnAbbe

I have searched a bit, but couldn't find any reviewed definition/history of the term so far. I don't think this link will qualify [3] ;-) --css

Larry, perhaps an article about freedom would enlighten this page? But that os one nest of snakes I won't be putting my head into :-) --Anders Törlind

I'm changing that "used by nations" part of the def. since plenty rebels call themselves freedom fighters. --The Cunctator

Looking good--I'm just going to reduce some of the circumlocution. For example, by stating that something is a propagandistic term, we don't also have to say that it's not used in a careful, precise way. That's what it means to be propagandistic. --The Cunctator

The Oxford English Dictionary is the place to go for eytmologies; I'll contact a friend and see if he'll do me the favor of looking it up. --KQ

George Carlin has the perfect definition, in form of a question: "If crimefighters fight crime, and firefighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?" ;) --Magnus Manske

Here's what the OED says:

15. ... freedom fighter, one who takes part in a resistance movement against the established political system of a country ....

...

1942 J. LEHMANN 40 Poems 32 Their freedom-fighters staining red the snow. 1958 Listener 13 Nov. 786/1 The Hungarian ?freedom fighters?. 1962 Listener 20 Dec. 1042/2 The Information Minister [in Jakarta] had urged the press to support the freedom fighters in northern Borneo. 1964 Ann. Reg. 1963 113 Mr. Obote had played a prominent part in the Addis Ababa conference..offering training grounds for ?freedom fighters? against South Africa. 1969 Daily Nation (Nairobi) 31 Oct. 16/1 Freedom fighters ring Portuguese territories and Rhodesia with the support of African governments, if not always full acknowledgement. 1969 M. PUGH Last Place Left vii. 45 She was a freedom fighter in the sex war.

All right. I'm asserting that

A freedom fighter is a positive term for a political rebel who uses violence to attempt the overthrow of the established government. With its use of the positive term freedom, this term is subjective and propagandistic, implying that the established government is oppressive and illegitimate.

means the same thing as

A freedom fighter is, literally, a person who fights for freedom in a particular place. But, due to the ambiguity of and disagreements over the meaning of the term "freedom," the literal meaning of the term is not particularly helpful. The term has been used and spread in propaganda, and as a result it has usually not been used in any very careful, precise way. It is probably most accurate to say that a freedom fighter is a political rebel who uses violence to attempt the overthrow of an established government considered, by the person using the "freedom fighter" label, illegitimate because it is oppressive of (that person's conception of) freedom.

but is much more concise and correctly emphasized. I believe that it is correct for the entry to begin with the definition of the term, not a literal parsing of the words.

I totally disagree, which is exactly why I changed it back. The clearest, most straightforward way to present the meaning of the term is to explain first its literal meaning and then tie that in with how those words, literally understood, are used. I think your approach is, if briefer, far less clear.

For example, I wouldn't begin a definition of the Cold War as "The Cold War is, literally, a military conflict of a low temperature."

Of course not, because no one would possibly be confused along those lines. They might indeed want to know, from the very start, why a war is a cold war and not a "hot" war.

I'd start more like the current entry: "The Cold War is an umbrella term for the political, economic and military conflict following World War II between the United States and the Soviet Union, and the nations under their respective influence."

I disagree. I think we should give the general concept before giving its application.

Later I'd talk about why it's called the "Cold" "War". First define the term, then explain the definition. What's going on right now with "freedom fighter" is the reverse.

Again I disagree! In my version we do define the term first, and then explain how it is used. In your version, we are dropped down onto the (admittedly) common way of understanding the term, but without the basic background that makes this clear.

I feel very strongly about this. I have spent most of my academic life writing with the aim of making ideas as clear as possible, and I think I know how it's done. I'll keep arguing with you about it, if you like.

And

With its use of the positive term freedom, this term is subjective and propagandistic, implying that the established government is oppressive and illegitimate.

serves the exact same purpose as

But, due to the ambiguity of and disagreements over the meaning of the term "freedom?," the literal meaning of the term is not particularly helpful. The term has been used and spread in propaganda, and as a result it has usually not been used in any very careful, precise way....[the freedom fighter fights] an established government considered, by the person using the "freedom fighter" label, illegitimate because it is oppressive of (that person's conception of) freedom.

in much fewer words. All the second selection does is circumlocute the basic point that this is a loaded term.

What can I say? Again I disagree. What you have done is essentially given a brief and more obscure summary of what I have carefully unpacked. I think that, in an encyclopedia article that tries to make the concept clear, it is important that it be carefully unpacked. --Larry Sanger

While your text is more detailed, Larry, I do think that it is awkward and repetitive, and doesn't really convey much more than the shorter version. But we are not paper here, so I agree with you that it's more important to be precise than concise. I'll see if I can clarify it. --Lee Daniel Crocker

That was not an improvement, Lee, in terms of clarity. I'll wait until tomorrow before I touch the article again, though. --LMS

Really? I must disagree that my version isn't clearer--it's much clearer. The way I read it, it says exactly the same thing your version does, but more simply and precisely. It may not say more clearly what you want said, and if that's the case, you'll have to figure out some way to communicate what that is, because your text doesn't do that. What information or impression do you want to convey that you think is missing? --LDC (BTW, I'm only talking about the first-paragraph definition here. The rest of the article is still needs some work).

It's really very simple, Lee. Your version simply doesn't say everything that does need to be said about the term, and mine does. The things your definition does not say explicitly, which mine does, are things that I think need to be stated explicitly. I'm going to restore it and rewrite it slightly, unless someone can convince me otherwise. --LMS

I like MRC's version, and if you do as well I suppose we're settled. It says the same things but with less philosopher-speak. But you're still just blowing smoke up my ass unless you say what it is, specifically, that is expressed by your version or his that wasn't in mine, and your meaningless statement above is just more evidence. I'm sure you really do understand something I don't here--you're the better philosopher--but you're not making it clear. I'm a writer. I good at making things clear, but I have to understand them first. --LDC

Did the Soviet Union ever call the Sandinistas "freedom fighters"? If not, I don't think it's quite accurate to say what the article says right now. --LMS

Well, I'm throwing my hat in the ring. I really think I said everything Larry wanted said, without the awkward (to non-philosophers) talk about literal meanings, and semantic imprecision.

Two changes I'd like to see: 1) something about propaganda a bit earlier in the article (it seems a bit tacked on at the end, and I think it's essential to understanding the meaning of freedom fighter), and 2)I think we should at least mention that men like MLK and Ghandi are not commonly referred to as freedom fighters -- in spite of the literal meaning of the words. MRC

Hi Mark, that strikes me as a good resolution. Thanks! --LMS

The mention of "guerrillas" as a negative term is incorrect, at least historically. Most of the Marxist revolutionaries in the Cold-War era used that term to describe themselves, including Che Guevara and Vo Nguyen Giap, who both wrote about using guerrilla tactics. We've got this set of loose synonyms: rebel, freedom fighter, guerrilla, terrorist, and revolutionary. (Maybe you can think of more...) And then there's activist, protester, marcher, hippie.... --The Cunctator

Larry's edit of Mark's text was good; your edit may have been a bit more complete but it was confusing, so I rearranged it and I think clarified. Also, Larry's "an often propagandistic term" is far superior to your "a propagandistic term", because the latter is non-neutral; it expresses the opinion that use of the term is always propaganda, which is not true. It is true that terms like "freedom" and "oppression" are ambiguous, but they do have real meanings and real examples, and the term can be used in a straigtforward and meaningful way. Finally, I deleted the links to dictionary articles. I don't think such links are a good idea for Wikipedia in general--the reason we put an article here is because we have more to say about it than a mere dictionary entry. I might be convinced otherwise. --LDC

Well I can see that this page has had some contention around it, so let me just point out that the first and third sentences of the first paragraph are redundant, and should probably be combined and left at one location or the other. I'll leave it to someone else to decide where that sentence should go, if the two are combined. --Koyaanis Qatsi

The Cunctator edited out some of the content of the third sentence of the first paragraph, which made it almost identical to the first. Originally they were different. I've tried to tighten them up, and restore the original content. Just so that we are all on the same page about what the essential content is, let me explain in greater depth why the paragraph reads as it does now, and why I think this communicates what Larry wanted to say, as well as what The Cunctator and KQ want (which only works because both sides have valid and important points to make.)

As I see it Larry thinks it is important to at least point out that 1) Freedom Fighter is a politically loaded term, 2) the literal meaning and the actual use are somewhat divergent, and 3) the standard "a political rebel who uses violence to attempt the overthrow of the established government" is not a precise logical definition, but is merely an indicator of common use.

I'm reading a bit between the lines in Larry's paragraph to get this, so some of it may reflect my own bias. However, I think it is essential that we do point out these things. In particular I think it is essential to point out the subjectivity involved in many definitions of freedom and oppression, and to make it clear that we are relying on common use to arrive at the aforementioned definition. I personally would also like to make a much stronger point about the political doublespeak and propagandistic uses of rhetoric which surround the use of this label, but I purposely moved that to the end of the article to improve the flow, in spite of my feeling that it is more important than some of the stuff about the cold war which precedes it.

I think it's essential that at least some hint of the subjective and ambiguous nature of the term be provided in the first paragraph. I also agree with KQ and The Cunctator that it is essential that we make the standard definition as central as possible. Balancing all of these concerns is not a simple process, but I think we're in far better shape than we were yesterday.

I'd still like to see more on the history of the term, and I'd like to see the propaganda paragraph expanded to clarify some things, and to include examples. MRC

Hey, this is looking better. --LMS