Political violence
tough questions
forces
The recent shooting in Arizona has sparked a media maelstrom
and a cacophonic debate. Accusations of hyperbolic political
rhetoric are being tossed around. Gun laws are being
reconsidered. The role of violent video games is receiving
attention yet again. Gunman Jared Loughner’s use of marijuana
has raised eyebrows. Even the hateful members of the Westboro
Baptist Church are threatening to protest the victims’
funerals.
But amidst the yammering of the political pundits, what seems
to be less of a topic of debate is the use of the word
“terrorism.” When a mentally ill, white male targets a
politician and commits mass murder, terrorism is not a word
the media chooses to use.
When Joe Stack, a white male, wrote a manifesto denouncing the
US government and crashed his private plane into a federal
building in Feb. 2010, he was not a terrorist. He was just an
unstable guy, angry with the IRS.
When Clay Duke, a white male, brought a gun to a Florida
school board meeting in Dec. 2010 and shot at board members
before turning the gun on himself, he was a relatively normal
man that just cracked one day.
When Michael Enright, a white male, slashed the throat of a
Muslim New York City cab driver in Aug. 2010, he was by no
means a terrorist. According to his friends, Enright had a
terrible drinking problem.
When Byron Williams, a white male, opened fire on police
officers in California during a July day in 2010, he was
depicted as a disgruntled, unemployed, right wing felon, not a
terrorist. Never mind that after he was arrested he admitted
he was on his way to the offices of a liberal foundation and a
civil liberties organization with the intent to kill people.
When James von Brunn, a white male, entered the Holocaust
museum, shooting and killing a guard in June of 2009, he was
not recognized as a terrorist either. He was just some antiSemitic nutcase.
Yet if any one of these white males had been Arabic or Muslim,
there is no question as to how the media would have labeled
them. The news channels would practically be chanting the word
“terrorist.”
Are the actions of the white men mentioned any different than
those of some bitter, darker-skinned males who hatched
unexecuted plans to knock down the former Sears Tower, or blow
up an airport, or buy missiles?
Perhaps the dominant group within American society, white
males, is too big to define using only one term. We can’t just
lump neo-Nazis with unstable alcoholics and crazy loners with
anti-abortion extremists. To do so would be useless, right?
There are just too many types of white male terrorists. I mean
mentally unstable white males.
It is easier for Americans to reduce Muslim extremists to a
single, imaginary group. Sunnis, Shiites, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda,
Taliban, Saudi Arabian, Pakistani, Saddam, Bin Laden — it’s
all the same. No?
No; there are different sects of Islam, many Arab
nationalities have various lists of grievances — not to
mention the fact that many of these people falsely lumped
together actually despise each other.
Of course, the use of the term “terrorism” boils down to
semantics. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines
terrorism as “the use of violence or intimidation in the
pursuit of political aims.” It is an “ism” that hints at
something almost pandemic.
The word conjures up the image of an elusive, dangerous threat
lurking somewhere unknown. Terrorism could happen anywhere, at
anytime. The use of this term magnifies the most pathetic
threat, making minuscule plots become bigger and scarier. The
word is a self-rationalization.
The white males’ acts of terror, in contrast, are depicted as
“hate crimes” or “tragedies.” These terms more so depict
isolated events. Those who commit such acts are thereby seen
as individuals rather than lumped together as some
collaborative, menacing threat.
Some may think squabbling over such a word is unnecessary.
However, language informs peoples’ thoughts and actions; and
therefore popular terms repeated in the media must be
accurate. Everyone would benefit if we started choosing our
words more carefully and articulating ideas more precisely.
—Stephen Bartholomew is an IC columnist and an English
education student at UT.