When words are used to mask those awful truths

At midday on August 15, 1945, the bloodiest conflict in history suddenly turned into a tortuous war on words.

As millions of nervous Japanese gathered around radios across their devastated nation, Emperor Hirohito began twisting and obscuring the truth in a masterclass of spin and understatement.

The audio crackled with static as many listeners grew confused and bewildered by their ruler's high-pitched voice and convoluted language. A week earlier, atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had killed hundreds of thousands. Japan's civilian and military death toll was soaring past 3 million. But Hirohito, having finally agreed Japan should surrender, was in no mood for blunt honesty.

"The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage," the emperor informed his subjects, "while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest."

Hirohito's long-winded use of euphemisms - those little lies we so often employ to soften reality and camouflage the truth - was widely ridiculed back then. These days he'd be in high demand as a political speechwriter and marketing executive.

Creating euphemisms used to be the province of those with a passion for murdering language. The military replaced torture with "enhanced interrogation techniques." The corporate world's long-standing hostility towards sensible language gave us "strategic staircases" (business plans) which allow bosses to "cascade relevant information" (speak to workers).

But euphemisms - so often the ammunition in the putrid and ongoing culture wars - now litter everyday language. If you're struggling to keep up, you're not alone.

No one is poor anymore. They're financially disadvantaged. The hungry no longer starve. They wrestle instead with food insecurity. There are no homeless, only the unhoused. You're not obese. You're higher-weighted. In San Francisco, authorities no longer imprison felons but "justice-involved persons." And historians are now encouraged to refer to "enslaved people" rather than slaves.

"When did your brother die?" a character was asked in a movie I watched last week. "He stopped living a year ago," was the curt reply. A slight improvement, perhaps, on kicking the bucket.

Language is a living thing. It mutates and evolves. Many of its developments are positive, reflecting a greater respect for the dignity and self-worth of others. No one these days would dream of labelling someone suffering from cerebral palsy a "spastic" as we did so commonly just a few decades ago. And who could argue against the advantages of "disabled" over "cripple"?

But there's also something patronising and absurdly counterintuitive about many modern euphemisms. The US Planned Parenthood website, for instance, no longer refers to pregnant women but "people who are pregnant", while a congresswoman recently created confusion by referring to "birthing people".

Don't worry. There will be new phrases to learn soon. Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker calls it the "euphemism treadmill". Phrases and words that replace offensive terms soon become offensive themselves. This forces the introduction of more under the belief language heavily influences how we think - a theory discredited by most cognitive scientists.

Plain language allows us to describe and see the world clearly. Modern euphemisms like "birthing people" are not just jarring. They corrupt authenticity, obfuscate the obvious and blur original meanings. It's how we allowed pornography to become "adult entertainment" and gambling to adopt the much softer and alluring "gaming" moniker.

When language is changed to lessen the risk of causing offence or righting a perceived injustice, truth often becomes the real victim. It's the same way modern Hollywood mocks history by insisting on peering at the past through the modern lens of gender and race diversity.

Who doesn't support greater inclusiveness? Who isn't for recognising all sections of society, particularly those who have been voiceless, oppressed and overlooked for so long?

But subtlety and context is an underdone quality in this new war on language and ideas. It's why we end up with TV series like Bridgerton depicting every second Duke and Duchess in 18th century London as Black or Asian.

Mixed race couples hosting high society soirees might be more believable if they were also debating one of the most rancorous issues of the era in which the show is set - Britain's hearty endorsement of slavery.

But that would lead to controversy and our modern euphemism generators seek the opposite.

So let's be on guard in this war on language. If a new euphemism comes along that makes sense and bestows dignity on those without it, why not adopt it? But if it does more to confuse than clarify, ignore it.

Like wars, there will always be another on its way to replace it.

HAVE YOUR SAY: What's your favourite (or most hated) example of corporate jargon? Should filmmakers ignore the realities of history because of gender and race diversity quotas? Are there new euphemisms and words that have improved our language and the way we treat others? Email us: echidna@theechidna.com.au

SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:

- The wife of detained fighter pilot Daniel Duggan has compared his case to that of Julian Assange as the family fights to prevent his extradition to the US. Lawyers for Duggan argued on Thursday that a hearing to decide whether he should be extradited ought to be pushed back on the grounds that he is currently unable to fund his defence.

- The family of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom has backed a war crimes investigation into the Israeli military's conduct that led to her death. Israel's explanation of how the seven aid workers were killed has been labelled "insufficient and unacceptable" by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

- Parts of Kosciuszko National Park will remain closed for the next six months as aerial shooting is used to target brumbies and other feral animals. Tracks, trails, campgrounds, huts, picnic areas and accommodation in the affected areas of the park have been closed on Thursday and will remain so until October, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service said.

THEY SAID IT: "Euphemism is a human device to conceal the horrors of reality." - Paul Johnson

YOU SAID IT: Israel's killing of aid workers in Gaza and its PM's insensitive comment that mistakes are made in war have pushed the country further down the path to becoming a pariah state.

Ian writes: "I think Netanyahu does feel remorse, but not for the victims of the Israeli Defence Force killings. Rather, he is sorry that this episode has led to further condemnation of Israeli activities in Gaza. Surely, the Americans hold the key to stopping the present carnage. As long as they continue to supply bombs to the Israelis, this retribution for October 7 will continue. The longer this 'war' goes on, the harder it will be for the two sides to reconcile with each other."

"Whose lives matter most?" asks Paul. "Apparently Israeli lives. Then Australian lives as it took just one to get a serious response from Albo. When will the apologists for Israel realise that the loss of one innocent life is too much?"

Mark writes: "I think Australia has done all it can in relation to the Israel/Palestine saga. Unfortunately this war will continue as long as Hamas holds hostages. I don't get why they won't hand them back (unless they simply cannot) and then ask for a ceasefire. Meantime, I find it difficult to understand how anyone could support terrorism under any circumstances."

"It's naive to think that my people, persecuted for so long over so many centuries, would be compassionate and caring, but I believe that most of them are," writes David. "This latest war is the most despicable and unjust, not because I support Hamas but because it is predicated on the political survival of one man. A man who allies himself with the far right not to protect his country, but to safeguard himself from prosecution. I will never be ashamed to be Jewish but I have never been more ashamed of the state purporting to represent my interests."

Peter writes: "It's obvious to all who care that the death of the World Central Kitchen employees wasn't an unfortunate one-off accident as Netanyahu claims, but a coldly calculated and systematic attack on a clearly identified civilian target. That's not accidental - it's a criminal act. Shit does not happen in war. Shit is the direct consequence of poor discipline, incompetent decision making and a total absence of accountability. Those failures span both the military and civilian realms, going from the lowest grunt on the ground right up to the generals and the office of the PM."

"Is it a pariah fighting a pariah?" asks Stuart. "Was October 7 the act of a pariah? Is using the civilian population as shields an act of a pariah? Can an enemy expect any quarter from a community who remembers 6 million murders of their number? Don't expect war to smell like a rose."