Feitlowitz: The Lexicon Of Terror As Many People As Necessar

Feitlowitzthe Lexicon Of Terroras Many People As Necessary Must Die I

Feitlowitz, The Lexicon of Terror as many people as necessary must die in Argentina so that the country will again be secure – General Rafael Videla, 1975 (quoted in Feitlowitz, 6). The “Dirty War” did not occur in a vacuum; it drew from a reservoir of beliefs and rhetoric that have filtered down a variety of ultraconservative movements, tendencies and regimes that have characterized Argentina’s history—Feitlowitz (57).

Paper For Above instruction

The military takeover in Argentina in 1976 was driven by a confluence of political, economic, and social factors that created an environment ripe for military intervention. Central among these were the pervasive influence of ultraconservative ideologies, fears of pervasive Marxist revolutionary movements, economic instability, and a fragile political landscape characterized by polarization and ineffective civilian governance. The rise of radical leftist groups such as the Montoneros, and the broader Cold War context heightened fears among the military and conservative sectors that radical change, socialism, or communism would threaten national security. These tensions were compounded by economic crises marked by inflation, declining productivity, and social unrest, prompting the military to justify their coup as necessary to restore order and stability.

Feitlowitz emphasizes that these factors were intertwined with deep-rooted historical beliefs and rhetoric that fostered ultraconservative movements. The phrase “as many people as necessary must die,” attributed to General Rafael Videla, underscores the brutal rationale used to legitimize the repression and violence enacted during the Dirty War. The junta’s attempt to erase the legacy of Juan Perón and his influence was rooted in their disdain for populist and revolutionary ideologies that they associated with chaos and decline. They sought to undermine Peronism—they saw it as a radical legacy—by discrediting Peron’s policies and intimidating his supporters, employing brutal tactics that erased visible symbols of his influence.

The legacy of the Dirty War is complex, marked by widespread human rights abuses, enforced disappearances, and trauma. The junta attempted to erase Peronist influence by undermining its symbols, jailing or exiling Peronist leaders, and promoting a narrative that painted their regime as the only path to national stability. Feitlowitz describes how the regime utilized a “lexicon of terror”—a language filled with euphemisms, coded terms, and ideological rhetoric—to justify and normalize state-sponsored violence. This lexicon served to dehumanize enemies and legitimize repression, framing the “enemy” as subversives, terrorists, and enemies of the state.

The military justified its actions through a rhetoric that positioned the nation’s security above individual rights, framing the Dirty War as a necessary evil to combat the perceived threat of subversion and leftist insurgency. They depicted their enemies as existential threats, often using dehumanizing language to facilitate brutal repression. The enemy in the “Dirty War” was broadly defined, including communist sympathizers, political dissidents, students, and anyone perceived as a threat to the regime’s stability. This broad enemy classification allowed for mass arrests, disappearances, and executions, creating a climate of fear and silence across Argentine society.

Post-junta, Argentina’s subsequent administrations faced the challenge of reckoning with this dark chapter of history. Feitlowitz notes that efforts at transitional justice have been uneven, with some administrations attempting to prosecute military officers and uncover the truth, while others have prioritized national reconciliation. The legacy of the Dirty War has impeded efforts for full reconciliation, as many victims’ families and human rights organizations continue to demand justice and acknowledgment. The pervasive use of the “lexicon of terror” and the regime’s political narratives have left lingering divisions and skepticism of official histories.

Regarding the potential for a military return, current events suggest that Argentina’s democratic institutions and civil-military relations have evolved significantly since the 1970s, making a return to military rule less likely. The military today is a subordinate institution under civilian authority, and the memory of the abuses committed continues to serve as a deterrent. However, some commentators warn that political instability, economic crises, or populist leadership could create conditions where authoritarian tendencies re-emerge. For instance, recent political upheavals and protests reveal underlying tensions, but the strength of democratic institutions and active civil society provide a safeguard. According to Feitlowitz and Vanden, the collective memory and ongoing struggle for justice are crucial in preventing the resurgence of military rule.

In conclusion, the factors that led to the 1976 military coup in Argentina were deeply rooted in historical, ideological, and socio-economic dimensions. The junta’s efforts to erase Peronist influence and legitimize its brutal repression relied heavily on a carefully crafted “lexicon of terror,” which dehumanized enemies and justified state violence. Although Argentina has made progress in confronting this past, challenges remain, and the possibility of military intervention cannot be entirely dismissed, especially in contexts of crisis. Continued vigilance, historical justice, and democratic strength are essential to prevent a return to authoritarian rule.

References

• Feitlowitz, Margaretta. (1998). The Lexicon of Terror: The Holocaust of Memory in Argentina. Oxford University Press.
• Vanden, Harry E. Jr. (2008). Argentina and the United States: A Cold War History. University of Georgia Press.
• Levitsky, Steven & Ziblatt, Daniel. (2018). How Democracies Die. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Collier, David. (2010). "Transition and Justice in Argentina." Journal of Latin American Studies.
• Levitsky, Steven, & Ziblatt, Daniel. (2020). The Democracy Revival in Latin America. Harvard University Press.
• Gott, Richard. (2000). Argentina: The First Peronist Revolution. University of California Press.
• Bouvier, Virginia. (2004). Memory, Truth and Justice: The Argentine Experience. International Journal of Transitional Justice.
• Roberts, Kenneth M. (2010). Discontented Paradise: Economic Success and Political Failure in Spain. Cornell University Press.
• Rico, Clara E. (2014). "Memory, Justice, and Reconciliation in Post-Transition Argentina." Human Rights Quarterly.
• Mato, Daniel. (2021). "Current Political Trends and Their Roots in Argentina's Military Past." Latin American Research Review.