Editing Dehumanization (section)

===Language===
Language has been used as an essential tool in the process of dehumanizing others.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |date=March 26, 2021 |title=Dehumanizing Language |url=https://www.family-institute.org/behavioral-health-resources/dehumanizing-language |access-date=2024-01-15 |website=Family Institute |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last=Galer |first=Sophia |date=October 30, 2023 |title=The harm caused by dehumanising language |url=https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231030-the-real-life-harm-caused-by-dehumanising-language |access-date=2024-01-15 |website=www.bbc.com}}</ref> Examples of dehumanizing language when referring to a person or group of people may include ''animal'', ''cockroach'', ''rat'', ''vermin'', ''monster'', dog, ape, snake, infestation, parasite, alien, ''savage'', and ''subhuman''. Other examples can include racist, sexist, and other derogatory forms of language.<ref name=":6" /> The use of dehumanizing language can influence others to view a targeted group as less human or less deserving of humane treatment.<ref name=":5" />

In [[Unit 731]], an imperial Japanese biological and chemical warfare research facility, brutal experiments were conducted on humans who the researchers referred to as 'maruta' (丸太) meaning logs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sihra |first=Avani |date=May 4, 2018 |title=Unit 731 - Nuclear Museum |url=https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/unit-731/ |access-date=2024-01-15 |website=Atomic Heritage Foundation |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":7">{{Cite web |last=Dybbro |first=Danielle |date=September 28, 2017 |title=Marutas in Manchuria: Imperial Japanese Biological Warfare, 1931-1945 |url=http://www.pacificatrocities.org/1/post/2017/09/marutas-in-manchuria-imperial-japanese-biological-warfare-1931-1945.html |access-date=2024-01-15 |website=Pacific Atrocities Education |language=en}}</ref> [[Yoshio Shinozuka]], Japanese army medic who performed several [[vivisection]]s in the facility said, "We called the victims 'logs.' We didn't want to think of them as people. We didn't want to admit that we were taking lives. So we convinced ourselves that what we were doing was like cutting down a tree."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Horrors of Bio-war Haunt WWII Japanese Soldier |url=http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/135387.htm |access-date=2024-01-15 |website=www.china.org.cn}}</ref><ref name=":7" />

Words such as migrant, immigrant, and [[expatriate]] are assigned to foreigners based on their social status and wealth, rather than ability, achievements, or political alignment. Expatriate is a word to describe the privileged, often [[Light skin|light-skinned]] people newly residing in an area and has connotations that suggest ability, wealth, and trust. Meanwhile, the word immigrant is used to describe people coming to a new location to reside and infers a much less-desirable meaning.<ref>{{Cite news|title = Why are white people expats when the rest of us are immigrants?|url = https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/mar/13/white-people-expats-immigrants-migration|newspaper = The Guardian|access-date = 2015-12-08|first = Mawuna Remarque|last = Koutonin|date = 2015-03-13|archive-date = 2019-09-09|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190909012230/https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/mar/13/white-people-expats-immigrants-migration|url-status = live}}</ref>

The word "immigrant" is sometimes paired with "illegal", which harbors a profoundly derogatory connotation. Misuse of these terms—they are often used inaccurately—to describe the other, can alter the perception of a group as a whole in a negative way. Ryan Eller, the executive director of the immigrant advocacy group [[Define American]], expressed the problem this way:<ref name="Lee2015">{{cite news |author1=Esther Yu Hsi Lee |title=The Dehumanizing History Of The Words We've Used To Describe Immigrants |url=https://archive.thinkprogress.org/the-dehumanizing-history-of-the-words-weve-used-to-describe-immigrants-18dd39c90459/ |access-date=3 July 2021 |work=ThinkProgress |date=13 August 2015}}</ref> {{blockquote|It's not just because it's derogatory, but because it's factually incorrect. Most of the time when we hear [illegal immigrant] used, most of the time, the shorter version 'illegals' is being used as a noun, which implies that a human being is perpetually illegal. There is no other classification that I'm aware of where the individual is being rendered as unlawful as opposed to those individuals' actions.}}
A series of language examinations found a direct relation between homophobic [[epithet]]s and social cognitive distancing towards a group of homosexuals, a form of dehumanization. These epithets (e.g., ''[[Faggot (slang)|faggot]]'') were thought to function as dehumanizing labels because they tended to act as markers of deviance. One pair of studies found that subjects were more likely to associate [[Malignancy|malignant]] language with homosexuals, and that such language associations increased the physical distancing between the subject and the homosexual. This indicated that the malignant language could encourage dehumanization, cognitive and physical distancing in ways that other forms of malignant language do not.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Not "just words": Exposure to homophobic epithets leads to dehumanizing and physical distancing from gay men|journal = European Journal of Social Psychology|volume = 46|issue = 2|date = 2015-01-01|issn = 1099-0992|pages = 237–248|doi = 10.1002/ejsp.2148|first1 = Fabio|last1 = Fasoli|first2 = Maria Paola|last2 = Paladino|first3 = Andrea|last3 = Carnaghi|first4 = Jolanda|last4 = Jetten|first5 = Brock|last5 = Bastian|first6 = Paul G.|last6 = Bain|hdl = 10071/12705|url = https://eprints.qut.edu.au/90602/11/EJSP_dehumanization_uncorrected.pdf|access-date = 2019-12-09|archive-date = 2020-05-09|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200509131738/https://eprints.qut.edu.au/90602/11/EJSP_dehumanization_uncorrected.pdf|url-status = live|hdl-access = free}}</ref> Another study involved a computational linguistic analysis of dehumanizing language regarding [[LGBT|LGBTQ]] individuals and groups in the New York Times from 1986 to 2015.<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal |last1=Mendelsohn |first1=Julia |last2=Tsvetkov |first2=Yulia |last3=Jurafsky |first3=Dan |date=2020 |title=A Framework for the Computational Linguistic Analysis of Dehumanization |journal=Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence |volume=3 |page=55 |doi=10.3389/frai.2020.00055 |doi-access=free|issn=2624-8212 |pmc=7861242 |pmid=33733172}}</ref> The study used previous psychological research on dehumanization to identify four language categories: (1) negative evaluations of a target group, (2) denial of agency, (3) moral disgust, and (4) likening members of the target group to non-human entities (e.g., machines, animals, vermin). The study revealed that LGBTQ people overall have been increasingly more humanized over time; however, they were found to be humanized less frequently than the New York Time's in-group identifier ''American''.<ref name=":8" />

Aliza Luft notes that the role of dehumanizing language and propaganda plays in violence and genocide is far less significant than other factors such as obedience to authority and peer pressure.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Luft |first=Aliza |date=May 21, 2019 |title=Dehumanization and the Normalization of Violence: It's Not What You Think |url=https://items.ssrc.org/insights/dehumanization-and-the-normalization-of-violence-its-not-what-you-think/ |access-date=2024-01-15 |website=Items |language=en-US}}</ref>

[[File:Jean-Léon Gérôme 004.jpg|thumb|Depiction of a slave auction in Ancient Rome. Anyone not a Roman citizen was subject to enslavement and was considered private property.]]