Chapter 2: The Language of the Past: How English Frames History

Before we can analyze the stories history tells, we must first look at the building blocks of those stories: the words themselves. Language is never neutral. The words we choose to describe an event do not merely report on reality; they interpret it. They carry assumptions, points of view, and centuries of cultural baggage. Because English became the global language of power, the specific vocabulary of Anglophone history has profoundly shaped how the entire world understands the past.

This chapter will explore how the English language itself has been used as a tool to frame history in a way that favors an Anglophone perspective. The historical lexicon is filled with “word traps”—terms that seem objective but are loaded with bias. These words work subtly to legitimize the actions of colonizers and delegitimize the resistance of the colonized.

Consider these examples:

Discovery vs. Invasion: When European explorers arrived in the Americas, they were said to have “discovered” a New World. The word “discovery” implies finding something lost or empty. It erases the existence of the millions of people and complex civilizations that were already there, reframing their violent conquest as a noble act of exploration.
Settler vs. Invader: People who moved from Europe to colonize lands in North America, Australia, or Africa are called “settlers.” The word evokes images of peaceful families building homes on empty land. It is a comforting, domestic term that masks the reality of military invasion, land theft, and the violent displacement of indigenous peoples.
Tribe vs. Nation: European societies are described as “nations,” a word that confers legitimacy, complexity, and political sovereignty. Non-European societies, even vast and sophisticated ones, were often labeled as “tribes.” This word suggests a more primitive, small-scale, and less developed form of social organization, making them seem less worthy of the rights afforded to a “nation.”
Riot vs. Uprising: When a colonized people protest against their rulers, their actions are often labeled in the press and history books as “riots” or “disturbances.” These words suggest chaotic, senseless, and illegitimate violence. When a similar event happens within an Anglophone society against a foreign power (e.g., the Boston Tea Party), it is celebrated as a heroic “uprising” or “rebellion.”
“World War”: This term frames the conflicts of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 as global events in which all participants were equal actors. It masks the reality that for much of the world, the wars were a European affair into which they were dragged by their colonial masters. The “world” was involved not as a collection of nations, but as a collection of empires. The term itself is an act of historical framing that centers Europe and hides the colonial reality.

These are not mere semantic differences; they are instruments of power. By controlling the vocabulary of history, the Anglophone narrative controls its moral and political meaning. This chapter will deconstruct this lexicon of empire, showing how the very words we use to learn about the past have been carefully chosen to ensure we see it from the victor’s point of view.