Necropolitics And The Language Of Death: How Military Talk Turns Recruits Into Killers
Janet McIntosh ~ Kill Talk: Language and Military Necropolitics
Oxford University Press 2025 – Online ISBN: 9780197808054
Print ISBN: 9780197808016
08-28-2025 ~ From boot camp battle cries to euphemisms on the battlefield, the U.S. military relies on “kill talk”—a robust linguistic infrastructure to strip individuality, suppress empathy, and normalize violence, long before they ever fire a shot.
Night after night, the buses pull up on the tarmac outside the Parris Island Marine Corps recruit training center in South Carolina. Usually, they are full of young men—still boys, by some measures—with a nervous feeling in the pit of their stomachs. They will have sensed the air getting heavy and sticky, and they might have noticed a swampy stench. They’ve seen enough movies to know what comes next, but they still find it startling.
A drill instructor storms the bus, shirt tight around his muscles, belt seeming to float around his flat abdomen, roaring at the neophytes from under his circular hat brim.
“SIT UP STRAIGHT! From this point forward, you will only answer me with a YES, sir, NO, sir, AYE-AYE, sir. DO WE UNDERSTAND?”
“YES, SIR!” yell the recruits.
“Now get OFF MY BUS! NOW, NOW, NOW!”
The young men hustle to plant themselves on a row of yellow footprints painted on the road. The yelling follows them, an acoustic assault so thick and fast and strangely inflected that each recruit has to listen hard and use herd behavior to know what to do next.
They know they’re about to be transformed, but they are unlikely to recognize all the subterranean dynamics of this change and how the acoustic qualities of boot camp will reshape them into hardened killers. These qualities will also model the disintegration of their personhood and their necropolitical abjection—that is, their killability in the eyes of the state.
Military Language
In the face of war’s brutality, language might seem like an incidental detail. But United States combat veterans who pay attention to it will attest that embodied ways of speaking—from yelling to cursing to joking, and beyond—can be intimately bound with experiences of kinetic violence.
By attenuating thought and agency, yelling can alter recruits’ sense of self. Drill instructors in the Marine Corps also tinker with recruits’ idea of selves by announcing shortly after their arrival that “the words ‘I,’ ‘me,’ ‘my’ are no longer part of recruits’ vocabulary. Instead, they are to refer to themselves as ‘recruit [last name]”. Drill instructors agree this lexical system is designed to foreclose egocentrism and stop recruits from thinking of themselves as individuals.
In 2016, Sergeant Jennifer Duke explained to PBS NewsHour, “We need to break down these individualities that they come with, of self and ‘me’ and ‘I.’ We need to break them down to basically nothing so we can build them back up… as one team, one element, to join our Marine Corps. It’s not my Marine Corps, or his Marine Corps, it’s our Marine Corps.”
In Marxist theorist Louis Althusser’s terms, we could say that recruits must “self-interpellate” as cogs in the military machine. Drill instructors never use recruits’ personal names; instead, official regulations permit them to call recruits “recruit [last name]” or to address them by their billet or job, such as “scribe” or “guide.” This practice carries a whiff of military necropolitics, whereby each individual serves a role in the military machine and is easily replaced if they become ineffective or are killed.
To facilitate state necropolitics, U.S. military culture is saturated by “kill talk” among those who serve as instruments of combat. The defining feature of kill talk is its refusal to acknowledge the full relational humanity of and the terrible loss suffered by those on whom potentially deadly violence is inflicted.
I think of kill talk as a kind of linguistic infrastructure—a loose collection of disparate verbal strategies that guide soldiers in how to perceive, feel, think, and ultimately act in combat. This infrastructure underpins the experience of having what the philosopher Judith Butler calls a “frame of war,” which, in simplest terms, is a structure that selectively carves up experience, fostering indifference to certain deaths. Read more
Gratitude Journaling: A Guide For Caregivers
08-28-2025 ~ Unpaid caregivers often face burnout and stress, but science shows that gratitude journaling can boost well-being and help them find strength, meaning, and peace.
Informal, unpaid caregivers play a vital role in society by attending to those who require care due to age, illness, disability, or psychiatric disorder. According to AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving, 63 million caregivers in the United States provided care for another adult or child with special needs in 2025—a dramatic 45 percent increase from 2015. Among the 59 million caregivers of adults, 24 percent devoted a staggering 40-plus hours a week to caregiving. In addition to looking after a loved one, many caregivers also face the pressures of working and raising children. Moreover, most caregivers lack relevant medical skills training, which can make their roles even more taxing. As a result, caregivers experience chronic stress, exhaustion, anger, depression, anxiety, and guilt. This can deteriorate their physical and mental health, their relationships with others, and their overall quality of life.
One way caregivers can reduce this burden is by cultivating gratitude, as research in the field of positive psychology shows that gratitude can have a powerful impact on people’s overall well-being. Robert Emmons, professor at the University of California, Davis, and the world’s leading scientific expert on gratitude, contends that gratitude consists of a two-part cognitive process. First, it is a recognition that there are positive things and blessings in our lives. Second, it is an acknowledgment that these blessings come from sources outside ourselves. These sources may include the people in our lives or even a higher power.
One popular means of expressing thanks is through gratitude journaling, which is the practice of writing about things one is grateful for. This type of journaling can be a convenient way for caregivers to cultivate gratitude, as it can be private, flexible, and cost-effective, while also offering numerous health benefits.
Gratitude Journaling
Studies show that gratitude journaling can serve as an outlet for individuals to enhance mindfulness, gain insight, boost mood, and increase overall happiness. This is because it fosters an appreciation for the positive things, people, and experiences in our lives. It shifts our focus from what we lack to all the blessings that surround us.
In his book, Gratitude Works!: A 21-Day Program for Creating Emotional Prosperity, Emmons contends that writing about our blessings instead of simply thinking about them enables us to acknowledge them more and strengthens their psychological impact:
“Writing helps to organize thoughts, facilitate integration, and helps you accept your own experiences and put them in context. In essence, it allows you to see the meaning of events going on around you and create meaning in your life. Gratitude journaling may help you bring a new and redemptive frame of reference to a difficult life situation.” Read more
Can We Protect Our Children From The Government?
Sonali Kolhatkar
08-27-2025 ~ As part of back-to-school preparations, teachers are patrolling their schools against ICE arrests of students and their families.
As summer winds down, kids all over the United States are starting the school year. In addition to the standard back-to-school trepidation, children of color are facing the unimaginable terror of being snatched by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
In Southern California, which has been an epicenter of ICE activity since early summer, federal agents handcuffed a 15-year-old boy with disabilities at gunpoint on August 11, 2025. The boy, a student of San Fernando High School, was waiting in the car outside Arleta High School with his mom while his sister finished registration for the new school year.
It was apparently a case of mistaken identity, and the ICE agents ultimately released him. But LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvalho told the press, “The trauma will linger. It will not cease.” Those children who witnessed the incident while attending their school orientation were also likely terrified and will remain psychologically scarred.
ICE officers are snatching children and their families without warrants, traumatizing them first and asking questions later. And, they aren’t going into private, whiter, and wealthier schools to check if foreign students might have overstayed tourist visas. They are targeting low-income, brown-skinned public school children and their families. As a mother of two brown-skinned boys who take a city bus to public school in Southern California, this inspires a visceral horror in me.
Parents are also being violently separated from their children. In San Diego, California, there have been numerous documented cases of federal agents snatching parents near schools. One man, grabbed by federal agents in Linda Vista Elementary in August, was waiting to pick up his son.
Agents picked up another San Diego man in Encinitas near his child’s elementary school. “Let him say goodbye to his family,” a bystander filming the incident is heard saying. The man was on his way to work when agents separated him from his family as his daughter wailed in distress.
Traditionally, schools and their surrounding areas have been off-limits to ICE agents and considered “protected areas” from immigration enforcement. Such areas have included churches, courthouses, and hospitals. “Schools should be completely off-limits in any kind of issue around immigration,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). “And, even in the first Trump administration, they were.”
But on the day he began his second term on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump rescinded that rule. In an indication of how much worse things are today than they were during his first term, a DHS spokesperson said, “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”
The Trump administration is labeling innocent children “criminals” based on their skin color and national origin. Moreover, trusting agents to use their “common sense” within this out-of-control fascistic landscape offers little comfort.
ICE agents began persecuting public school children as early as this April when federal agents attempted to enter two LAUSD elementary schools in the first such incident of its kind. In their quest to snatch five first- through-sixth-grade children, the agents lied to school authorities, saying they were checking on the students’ well-being and had parental permission. The children remained safe only thanks to the school authorities’ diligent protection. Read more
Israel’s Conduct In Gaza Amounts To Genocidal Acts With An Intent To Commit Genocide
Melanie O’Brien – Photo:
Lisa Miller | University of Minnesota
08-27-2025 ~ Beyond a shadow of a doubt, what we are seeing in Gaza amounts to the gravest of crimes.
Israel is committing genocide beyond a shadow of doubt, and all states party to the Genocide Convention “have an obligation to prevent and punish genocide,” says Dr. Melanie O’Brien, a renowned scholar of International Law, in the interview that follows. O’Brien is Associate Professor of International Law at the University of Western Australia; President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars; and Visiting Scholar at the University of Minnesota Human Rights Law Center.
C. J. Polychroniou: The two major international courts, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), though they differ from one another, both exercise jurisdiction over the issue of genocide. The ICJ can consider whether a state has committed genocide under the UN Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide but cannot consider other crimes, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC, on the other hand, prosecutes genocide committed by individuals but it also has jurisdiction over other crimes, like the ones mentioned above. Now, in January of last year, the ICJ ruled that the claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible,” although an actual verdict is not expected until probably the end of 2027. Much later in that same year, in late November to be exact, the ICC issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant, together with a former Hamas commander, citing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity on the basis of “reasonable grounds.” In addition, a report that was released in March 2024 by the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories also accused Israel of violating at least three of the five acts listed under the Genocide Convention. Since then, we have seen an increasing number of international law experts, genocide scholars such as Israeli-born and former IDF soldier Omer Bartov, and international human rights organizations making the case that Israel is indeed committing genocide in Gaza. Can you spell out the legal definition of genocide as found in the Genocide Convention and then tell us how the the “plausibility” standard applied by the ICJ compares to the “reasonable grounds” standard used by the ICC to issue arrest warrants?
Melanie O’Brien: The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as a list of five crimes committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The crimes are: killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births, and forcibly transferring children to another group. This is the same definition that is found in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) adjudicates disputes between states and therefore is a court for determining state responsibility for wrongful acts. The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes and judges individuals accused of committing international crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, aggression). Thus, by their nature, these two courts have different standards applicable in their processes. The ICC follows common standards of proof found in domestic criminal law systems around the world. The “reasonable grounds” to believe an individual has committed a crime, which is required for the issuance of an arrest warrant, is a lower standard than the standard required to convict that same individual, which is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The concept of “reasonable grounds” to believe means that, to obtain an arrest warrant, there must be sufficient facts and circumstances that would make a reasonable person believe the suspect has committed a crime.
The standard of “plausibility” applied by the ICJ is a standard used in the initial stages of a case. Before a case goes to the merits stage (where the Court would determine if a state has breached its international law obligations), there are procedural actions that can be taken by the parties to the case. One is the request for provisional measures, usually made by the state that has brought the case to the Court. The idea behind provisional measures is to freeze the situation as it is (i.e., so it does not worsen). The legal terminology used by the Court at this stage is that it decides whether it should issue an order to protect rights. This does not mean “human rights,” but general “rights” under law that may be claimed by the state that is asking for these measures. At the merits stage, the Court will have to make a definitive determination, but at the provisional measures stage, the standard is lower. The Court must only determine that it is “plausible” that there are rights and that those rights need preserving before the merits stage is reached. If so, the Court will issue provisional measures orders that certain conduct be or not be carried out. Such an order has no impact on whether the case progresses to the merits stage or on the decision at the merits stage. In the case of South Africa vs. Israel, the Court agreed that there was a need to issue orders to protect the plausible rights of Palestinians to be protected from acts of genocide. At the time it issued these orders in early 2024, the ICJ did not state that Israel was committing genocide, but that there was a serious risk of the situation deteriorating. Part of the orders was for Israel to provide unhindered humanitarian aid to Palestinians, including through land crossing points. Read more
Looking Back At The Positions On South African Apartheid Taken By Ambitious Democrats
John P. Ruehl – Independent Media Institute
08-22-2025 ~ Certain prominent Democrats led efforts in the 1980s to help end apartheid, but the political costs and benefits were uncertain at the time, and some remain debated today.
By the early 1980s, South Africa’s system of racial apartheid had evolved from an issue of limited concern to becoming a major issue globally. Years of campaigning by anti-apartheid activists, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), and student-led divestment movements were beginning to bear fruit. This momentum, however, stalled due to the conservative turn in U.S. politics after Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election victory. His constructive engagement policy toward South Africa “prioritized resistance against communist expansion over efforts to end human rights violations internationally,” stated the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
Moreover, Cold War concerns over some anti-apartheid groups’ links to radical or communist entities made the cause politically sensitive for many Democrats. The breakthrough came with the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act (CAAA) of 1986, when Congress overrode President Reagan’s veto to impose sanctions on South Africa, a result of years of pressure from progressive lawmakers and Democrats. It marked a turning point that would help see apartheid officially dismantled by 1994, assisted by the easing of Cold War tensions and the end of Soviet backing for South Africa’s liberation movements.
Apartheid was never a decisive electoral issue for most Americans. For Democrats with presidential ambitions in the 1980s and early 1990s, support for ending it was strongest in liberal centers like New York and on university campuses, where protests and local resolutions aligned with activist solidarity. Nationwide, however, the cause risked alienating some conservatives and foreign policy hawks. Still, prominent Democrats helped normalize legislation against South Africa, including bans on state entities doing business with companies operating there. Their pressure on the Reagan administration cemented a Democratic brand of foreign policy based on moral conviction. But having claimed a leading role in dismantling apartheid, this legacy has increasingly come back to haunt them.
Carter to Reagan
By the 1970s, events like the 1976 Soweto uprising and the rise of independent trade unions created a link between South African struggles and U.S. civil rights, student activism, and labor movements. For many Democrats, condemning apartheid was becoming a public litmus test for moral internationalism and prioritizing genuine social change abroad over realpolitik. President Jimmy Carter’s administration favored heavier pressure against South Africa, backing the 1977 UN-sponsored arms embargo and restricting exports of certain products.
Carter’s defeat in 1980 led to a policy turnaround. Ronald Reagan’s administration viewed South Africa’s liberation movements—the African National Congress (ANC) and the United Democratic Front (UDF)—as too closely tied to the Soviets, and embraced the constructive engagement policy with the South African government. Seeking gradual reform while maintaining political links, the White House downplayed apartheid as a priority in favor of retaining South Africa as a Cold War ally.
Some Democrats continued to see the issue as both morally and politically urgent. In 1983, Representative Stephen Solarz introduced H.R. 1693 to limit U.S. financial assistance to business operations in South Africa and ban the import of certain goods from the country. The bill failed, but Solarz emerged as a prominent foreign policy force throughout the 1980s. Read more
How The Youth Are Shaping And Advancing Human Rights In Nigeria
Adekunle Olajide – Law Student & Youth Advocate
08-21-2025 ~ We, as youth, must now be the change that we seek. If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.[i]
Introduction
Whenever the topics of youth activism and human rights in Nigeria arise, Rinu Oduala is the name that naturally comes to mind. I vividly remember October 2020, when she and thousands of other Nigerian youths took to the streets of Lagos. They carried banners and placards that read #EndSARS, protesting against police brutality and calling for a Nigeria free from institutional oppression. I remember it as if it happened yesterday. How could I ever forget?
Rinu (officially Olorunrinu Bolatito Oduala) was among the first young women to boldly protest after a video of the man that was allegedly killed by officers of the notorious Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) went viral. The incident led to a public outrage that quickly escalated into a nationwide protest. Rinu, along with many other youths, mobilized support on social media and organized peaceful protests. They camped outside the Lagos State Government House for 72 hours before being attacked by police officers.[ii] Despite the numerous death threats that was sent to her, Rinu refused to back down. Her fight for justice instantly made her a national and global symbol of youth resilience, civic courage, and a beacon for youth-led change.
But Rinu’s story is only one out of the many. Time and again, the Nigerian youths have proven themselves to be the conscience of the nation. Their raw candour and ability to see things for what they truly are make them powerful agents of societal change. Sadly, they are often faced with repression from all angles. Many Nigerian youths are being surveilled and silenced for daring to demand a better Nigeria. The #LekkiMassacre is a painful reminder of this harsh reality. Bu despite their dreams being crushed beneath the weight of systemic dysfunction, they rise again and again. Their resilience is reflected in the stoic words of Nelson Mandela who once said: Sometimes, it falls upon a generation to be great. You can be that great generation. Let your generation blossom.[iii]
This essay highlights the important role Nigerian youth play in promoting human rights and social change. It gives a historical background of youth activism in Nigeria and goes on to highlight notable institutional efforts aimed at promoting human rights advocacy among the youths. Finally, the essay discusses the unique challenges faced by Nigerian youths today and offers policy recommendations that empower them as defenders of civil rights and social justice.
Youth as Catalyst for Civil Rights Advocacy and Social Change
What makes the youths an influential force for social change? Is it their age, their energy, or perhaps their idealism and refusal to accept the status quo? The answer is all of the above.
Globally, youth are recognized as a unique demographic in the wider society. The United Nations describes youth as persons between approximately 15 and 24 years of age.[iv] The African Youth Charter defines youth as individuals between the ages of 15 and 35.[v] Meanwhile, the revised Nigerian National Youth Policy (2019) sets the age range for youth as between 15 and 29 years.[vi]
But beyond the numbers, youth are widely recognized for their hunger for change and their willingness to fight for it. Unlike older generations, they dare to defy. Where older generations see dead ends, they see opportunities for breakthroughs. They are not burdened by long histories of compromise neither are they willing to suffer in silence. On several occasions, Nigerian youths have courageously lent their voices to speak out against social injustice, even in the face of danger. A recent example is NYSC member Ushie Rita Uguamaye (“Raye”), whose viral TikTok criticizing Nigeria’s economic crisis and President Tinubu sparked a nationwide debate.[vii] Despite receiving official threats and summons, Raye remained steadfast and exercised her constitutional right to freedom of expression. Her fearlessness was later celebrated as a powerful act of youth resilience and bravery.
But this rising wave of youth advocacy is not new. Its history dates back as far as 1952, when Nobel Laureate Professor Wole Soyinka co-founded the Pyrates Confraternity (also known as the National Association of Seadogs) at the University of Ibadan.[viii] The Confraternity was one of Nigeria’s earliest youth-led human rights movements and was established out of a desire to combat elitism and social injustice. Prior to that, young nationalists such as Herbert Macaulay, Nnamdi Azikiwe, and Obafemi Awolowo were already actively organizing mass protests, editing newspapers, and mobilizing grassroots support. Their efforts played a crucial role in dismantling colonial rule and ultimately securing Nigeria’s independence in 1960.
That same spirit of principled rebellion carried through to the Ali Must Go protests of 1978, when university students across Nigeria rose up against the sudden and controversial decision by the Olusegun Obasanjo-led military government to increase the cost of students’ meals from ₦1.50k to ₦2.00.[ix] Up until the #EndSARS protest, the Ali Must Go protest of 1978 was the most significant youth-led agitation in Nigeria’s history. In the later 1980s and 1990s, youth activists played a crucial role in challenging military dictatorships, calling out state repressions, and demanding for democratic reforms. Their courageous efforts often came at great personal risk that included imprisonment and death. These early agitators laid the foundation for Nigeria’s return to civilian rule in 1999.
Fast forward to today, and it is evident that youth activism in Nigeria has evolved significantly. The youth now utilize art, creative expressions, social media platforms, and technology to expose social injustice and human rights abuses. Today, you see young lawyers taking up pro bono cases of unlawful detentions, and investigative journalists risking their safety to expose police misconduct. Artists use music and satire as mediums to constructively criticize the unjust actions of the government. A notable example is the conscious song “Mr. President” released in October 2000 by Chinagorom Onuoha, popularly known as African China. The song critically addresses the government’s failures and their impact on the Nigerian masses.[x] Read more