I agree that the current common usages and connotations of “terrorism” are problematic, and I too have thought that if we’re going to use the term so widely, we should also use it for such entities as the U.S. “military-industrial complex” (if that term still works) and U.S. (and Israeli) foreign policy.
But context matters for what words mean, right? Dylann Roof commited his acts in the deep South, and in a state that still officially flies a distinctly white separatist, white “heritage” flag. It’s a place where people still hear that the most common allegation for lynching black men was rape of white women, and that lynching itself was a warning to black people to “stay in their place,” and of course, to be afraid – terrorized – of being lynched if they didn’t. A primary purpose of lynching was obviously to terrorize black people. Roof is reported to have said in part that he was about to kill because black men are supposedly raping white women – a clear echo of the familiar common allegation use to justify the terrorist act of lynching. Such white racists are actually terrorizing themselves, with their own racist fantasies about the supposed threat of black savagery and vengeance. And part of the fantasy is still the dream of effectively terrorizing black people so they’ll “stay in their place.” Today’s various white supremacist outlets – some of whom Roof undoubtedly paid obedient attention to – no longer have the threat of lynching to terrorize black people with, but they do have other means, including the threat of a “race war” (which again seems to be what’s actually scaring them).
Yes, “terrorism” as we now use it is a problematic concept that we would do well to use differently, but since it’s such a commonly deployed concept now, let’s not use it for only some terrorizing acts but not others.
4 Likes
Well that isn’t too much of mystery. People setting in church in a Bible class, or kids in school, or people in a theater are innocent victims. The murders in Chicago nearly all have ties to gangs and drugs, not exactly “innocent”. And soldiers signed up to go and fight and kill people, so that is in the job description.
So in this case I see the reason for the shock and out rage. It is warranted. The other deaths were equally horrible in their own way, but they reaffirm our cognitive biases, vs going against them.
ETA - and I do think something like this makes people uncomfortable because of the racism aspect, when most people prefer to see the issue as something they have put behind them, yet this shows that, even if it’s a minority, it is still real and relevant.
1 Like
Yeah, I think the ultimate thing is that “evil”/“a terrorist” is an othering tactic, it’s how you signify someone wasn’t “like us,” but I really think it’s important to realize that “terrorists” are like us, they are part of us, they are damaged, desperate versions of us. We can’t fix that problem by externalizing it, pretending we have no obligation to it. We can only fix that problem by accepting that it is something we can - and must - solve.
Calling this horrible human being a “terrorist” can be another way of saying “He’s not part of society, we aren’t responsible for what happens to him, and he’s the worst monster our modern society has in it.” But he is at one end of a bell curve that includes a million and one other points just next to him - by making him something exceptional, we say HE is the problem, from the outside, rather than doing the work of figuring out why WE create a world where such things can happen.
It’s the same question we should be asking in any “terrorist” case, it’s just easier for more people to do it in this case because of bias and narrative and whatnot.
3 Likes
Exactly.Thank you for bringing this up! Folks with mental illness are more likely to be harmed by others, as well as more likely to be a threat to themselves than anyone else.
4 Likes
What’s everyone using as the alternative here? “Non-white” terrorist attacks in the US are very rare. A quick Google brings up the Boston bomb, the Fort Hood shootings and 9/11.
Here’s a USA today article on the Boston bomber Details emerge on Boston suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
“It’s completely out of his character,” Aaronson said of Dzhokhar’s alleged role in the bombings. “Everything about him was wonderful. He was completely outgoing, very engaged, he loved the school. He was grateful not to be in Chechnya.”
“I don’t really know how to react to this….he was a funny, sweet, goofy kid,” said Colbath-Hess. “It’s not something you would expect from someone you know.”
And one on Fort Hood
http://www.wfaa.com/story/local/2015/06/22/13530754/
Grieger said privacy laws prevented him from going into details but noted that the problems had to do with Hasan’s interactions with patients. He recalled Hasan as a “mostly very quiet” person who never spoke ill of the military or his country.
“He swore an oath of loyalty to the military,” Grieger said. “I didn’t hear anything contrary to those oaths.”
This is just the sort of thing people say when you ask them questions about anyone. The reason we didn’t get these sort of comments after 9/11 is because all the people who could make them lived in the middle east and weren’t giving interviews.
The media often trots out a smear campaign for black murder victims - they’ve come up for reasons why children deserve to be shot, as they live in “bad neighborhoods, full of gang activity”. See also all the “no angel” remarks that come around.
But when it comes to out and out white supremacists, we hear from his white supremacist buddies how he didn’t seem that bad, he just liked to tell harmless racist jokes that everyone thought was funny…
5 Likes
I disagree with this on the basis of sheer numbers. 9 people being killed in a city/area of over 3 million people, versus 9 people (civilian, US military, or otherwise) being killed in a defacto war zone, versus 9 people being murdered at the same time in a city of 120 thousand. Murder is murder, but the social/economic/political conditions under which the murder occurs is unique in every case.
And people obviously care, otherwise the #blacklivesmatter (or any other robust social movement) wouldn’t happen in the first place. The problem, to my eyes, appears to be what we can do about these things. As I mentioned in another thread, we can ‘speak’ to our elected officials in any of a thousand ways, but they either don’t have a clue of what to do or they’re just unwilling to take the necessary steps toward fixing things.
Lastly, as to the racist coward scumbag who did this most recent piece of depravity in conjunction with wanting/succeeding in creating fear? Let the first racist coward scumbag stand up anywhere near myself or any of the folks I’ve spoken with in my community to rant about killing folks for whatever reason, and that person had better be prepared to get taken down, hard. Be it fist, boot, chair, or pint glass. I’d say that racist coward scumbag has succeeded in creating readiness.
Lastly lastly, I object to that song being used in conjunction with said racist coward scumbag.
But these get quickly forgotten because confirmation bias. So it’s just the white ones whom their friends defend, despite the evidence that everybody is.
Oh well.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
