I didn't hear about this till today, when a couple of friends, including one who is a grade school teacher was saying its a problem, since almost all of the 1960's guys (i.e. Malcom X, etc) were defined as, and defined themselves...as militants.
Precisely. It is unfair to lump a militant like Malcolm X in among the likes of the Weather Underground and the Symbionese Liberation Army, which were domestic terror groups that actually killed people in cold blood.
I don't believe for a second that people such as Hollins and Keshishian truly believe there is any imbiguity about the word "terrorist." The term simply describes a particular type of combatant, similar to the terms "guerilla" or "mercenary". The etymology is so simple a grade school kid could get it.
What the lefties like them don't want is the built-in prejudice that the word "terrorist" invokes. They either don't have the courage, the intelligence, or the honesty to make a comprehensive case that actions by Western nations may be just as "evil," so they just crank up the political correctness machine and try to equalize the indefensible.
Its not necessarily right, but Malcolm X always referred to himself as a militant, and he was proud to be called a militant.
Back then, everybody used the term.
What is going to be a hassle now, is that MSM is an attempt to stop the built in bias of the word terrorist, is that they not only failed, but not have transferred that bias over to other words like militant.
In the MSMs zeal to morally relavatize, they may have done more harm to themselves as good.
My friend who is a teacher is pulling his hair out, since he, has always referred to certain groups (i.e. Klan, neo-nazis, etc) groups as terrorists.......ironically last year some student asked him if it was true that one mans terrorists is another mans freedom fighter because he brought up the kkk and lynching.
He is already dreading those moments this year when he starts using PC words for all groups.