I thought I would write a quick blog since Austin has been all over the news recently. Unfortunately it wasn't the progressive technology rich aspect of the city that made news, it was the violent extreme right-wing element that caught the nation's attention.
The most interesting aspect of the attack to me was not the rants or motive of the assailant, but the official and public reaction. After the initial panic caused by 9/11 flashbacks, everyone I know was immediately relieved that it was just a rankled anti-tax nut. "Whew, I thought it was a terrorist attack" was a common refrain. What? Isn't this terrorism? A violent act against the state, right? When I questioned people, it became clear that the term terrorism is inextricably linked to Muslim perpetrators in many people's minds. Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the race or religion of the perpetrators.
Here is an article, I'm sure there are better out there, but this is the best I could find that touches on the inherent racism that the terrorism label has developed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think your definition of terrorism needs some work. "A violent act against the state" - if this is our working definition, then any future war we engage in will be fought against "terrorists". This includes past wars as well.
If the Unites States and, say, Russia ever went to war, would it really be appropriate to declare the Russian's "terrorists" the first time they bomb one of our government buildings (Congress, White House, etc.)? If so, then the term "terrorist" seems completely useless and becomes almost a synonym of "enemy" or "bad guy".
I much prefer the standard dictionary definitions: "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon"...or something along those lines.
Basically I think it comes down to his motivations. Was he trying to insight terror into the general population by this act? Or was he, in his own sick way, trying to 'get back' at those he felt wronged him(the IRS). If the former, then I'll agree he's a terrorist. If the later, a murderer.
I appreciate the thoughtful comment, and you're right, "a violent act against the state" is an overly simplistic definition. I do think, however, that using the perpetrators' motivation as the method of classification is fundamentally flawed. For example, did the 9/11 hijackers only want to incite terror in the US or to "get back" at the US for its presence in the Middle East? I think most would agree that it is a combination of both.
The perpetrator of the Austin incident was a terrorist because he sought to damage the government's ability to function, he even wrote in his manifesto that he hopes other "zombies" will wake up and do the same. He may have acted alone, but his aim was to provoke e a widespread violent rebellion against the government. I don't see how that can not be deemed terrorism, and although I'm no expert, I have a suspicion that if an identical event occurred with a Muslim man who was a member of a mosque, the word terrorism would not be tossed aside so quickly.
Post a Comment