Sarah Palin’s recent denunciation of collective blame regarding the Tucson shootings is something persecuted peoples have been claiming for years. With respect to Japanese-Americans in the 1940s or Muslim people today, history has shown that when a few people do something wrong or are otherwise targeted for some reason, our minds find it easier to generalize against their ethnic group rather than distinguish between innocents and those who may rightfully be guilty.
The fact of the matter, however, is that unbalanced people exist in all schools of thought, and history has shown that the urge to associate them with the entire group is backward and ignorant.
I was pleased to find the irony of Palin’s plea to be fair and kind to people perhaps associated with Jared Loughner (e.g. Republicans) had not gone unnoticed. Many articles and links argued she herself has not been so fair in associating innocent people with the enemy, particularly with Muslims.
Putting Palin aside, although I would like to think that false generalizations are behind us, a single word contradicts that optimism: terrorism.
The term “terrorism” has been extremely skewed, and it deserves some clarification. Instead of calling the events of Tucson, Ariz. simply a “shooting,” as many news stations did, they are more properly identified as acts of terror.
Speaking with a friend, I referred to the event in Tucson as exactly that, to which my friend replied, “Wait, he wasn’t Muslim, was he?” I was shocked. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines terrorism as “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.” In layman’s terms, I understand it to mean any use of violence upon innocent civilians.
We can agree that Sept. 11 most definitely falls into this definition, along with many other acts, including Tucson. That the word has lost its meaning and is associatied with a particular group fuels ignorance, hatred and collective blame.
There is no doubt that some terrorist acts are carried out in the name of religion, however falsely, as well as beliefs — such as the need to overthrow a ruler or fight for someone’s supposed rights. Either way, I find that we live in a world where the type of terrorism largely making headlines is that of men with beards who claim to cite the Quran, and that has become tied to the definition of the word.
A version of this article appeared in the Jan 27 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 16 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Another good example, the KKK is a terrorist organization but ethnic gangs like the crips and MS13 are not. The LAPD will not patrol entire neighborhoods out of fear of being killed. Yet the Crips aren't targeted by federal agencies like White Supremacist groups. We need to overcome our uncomfortably with race, that is the common root of all this double standard.
Reply to this Top
Man, you lost me when you cited Paul Krugman. The Tuscon shooting was not "political terrorism" because the guy was not into politics at all. Instead of watching commentators on Fox and MSNBC, watch his YouTube videos-- he was mentally deranged, end of story. Political rhetoric had nothing to do with his motives.
Overall I agree with your column though. Because Saddam is a bad guy, we label the entire country bad and kill a million Iraqis. This is just wrong. And I also agree with you that political violence will rise. How could it not? For four years one president/party screws over half the population, and then the next four years another president/party screws over the other half. This is also wrong. The Founders warned against democracy (we are a republic) because screwing other people is wrong. And, of course, it will cause people to hate government even more than they already do.
Reply to this Top
You're going to have to present a better argument than, "he was mentally deranged, end of story," to convince anyone that the premeditated shooting of a congresswoman had nothing to do with politics.
Reply to this Top
No, dude, the burden of proof is on those who claim there IS a link. There has been none, in fact quite the opposite. Just because you don't like Republicans and despite Krugman's gleeful attempts to do so, there is NO link. None.
Top
When did I say that I don't like Republicans or have ever read anything written by Krugman?
Described here as a politically radical loner:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8248692/Gabrielle-Giffords-shooting-strange-internet-trail-of-loner-Jared-Lee-Loughner-the-alleged-Tucson-gunman.html
Quoted from a youtube video, "If I define terrorist then a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon. I define terrorist ... If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is ad hominem. You call me a terrorist."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09shooter.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
From wikipedia (with plenty of references):
"A YouTube channel under an account called "Classitup10" was attributed to Loughner.[73][74][75] The profile of this account stated among other things that some of the subject's favorite books were The Communist Manifesto, Animal Farm, Mein Kampf, Plato's Republic, and We the Living; one video told viewers that they "don't have to accept the federalist laws", called for a return to the gold standard, and accused the government of mind-controlling and brainwashing the citizenry.[64][65][75][76]"
No doubt he had some serious problems, but there's plenty of evidence to show that Matty's statement, "the guy was not into politics at all" is false.
Top
If there was any connection to politics and this shooting it would not be a connection between Loughner and the Republicans as this article eludes to. There are plenty of interviews with Loughner's relatives and friends that describe him as a crazy leftist. However, the media seems to be focused on throwing mud on Palin.
Top
This entire column is rubbish. Terrorism is the calculated use of violence with a specific goal in mind. It is designed to affect a larger audience to influence a population. It is not any mass shooting. I understand your sensitivity to Islamic terrorism, but the fact is that at this specific moment in history the vast majority of terrorist acts committed around the globe is perpetrated by Muslims. Major Hassan believed he was part of a global jihadi movement, had been in contact with al-Awlaki in Yemen, saw himself as a mujahid, even shouting "Allahu Akbar" as he was committing his act of terrorism.
Reply to this Top
I am embarrassed that you are a Hokie Alum. The fact that you call this ENTIRE column "rubbish" shows your lack of perspective.
Terrorism, whether perpetrated by a muslim or not, still has a political motivation which this loughner fella had intentions of. The whole point of this article is to show why your random examples of Major Hasan should not be generalized for Muslims
Your post demonstrates exactly why this article needed to be written.
Reply to this Top
Oh? You’re embarrassed I’m an alumnus of Virginia Tech? Why? Because I offer an opinion different than yours? Back when I was a student in Blacksburg different opinions were encouraged, but I guess you’re typical of the modern liberal hack. I’d tell you to do something anatomically impossible but the posting guidelines won’t allow it.
I’ll tell you the perspective from which I’m writing, since you bring it up. I’ve been fighting terrorism for 21 years, more than likely since before your mother graced us with your presence. I speak Arabic, know more about Islam than most Muslims and have spent more than 13 years in the Middle East. I guarantee I now more Muslims than you. I respect Islam and lament the fact – and it is a fact – that the vast majority of terrorism is conducted by Muslims in the name of Islam. I lament it because it unfairly casts my Muslim friends in a bad light in the minds of a lot of Americans. But it is a fact nonetheless.
Top
Major Hasan was NOT a random example. It was the last significant successful terrorist attack in the United States. Shall we talk about the last few unsuccessful attacks? OK, I can do that, too. The Christmas Day crotch bomber. Muslim. The Times Square Bomber. Muslim. The printer cartridge bomber (a case I worked). Muslims. How about the most successful terrorist attacks against the US in the last 20 years? WTC bombing, 1993. Muslims. OPM SANG bombing in Riyadh, 1995. Muslims. Khobar Towers, 1996. Muslims. US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, 1998. Muslims. USS Cole, 2000. Muslims. 9/11, Muslims. Do you see a trend here? These were not terrorists who happened to be Muslims. In every single case they were people who believed themselves to be mujahideen, conducting operations in the name of Islam. In every case.
You clearly do not understand what terrorism is. Loughner had NO political intentions. He was not trying to draw attention to a cause, he wasn’t striking a blow for Christianity or the Republicans or anything else. He is a mentally ill person who went into a crowd of people and shot them. Period. Unless you know something none of the FBI agents (some of whom I know) does, of course.
Grow up, go out into the world and learn something.
Top
Maybe if we'd get out of their countries and quit killing their family members they wouldn't be so eager to die trying to kill ours.
Reply to this Top
I encourage you to look up why the United States formed the Navy. I'll give ya a hint, it involves Muslims attacking American trading vessels. Looks like they started it...
Reply to this Top
Are you prepared to sacrifice your way of life? It's easy to say lets just get out of their countries until you take into account our need for OPEC oil. If we left the Middle East we'd lose access to those wells and their are several countries just waiting for us to leave so they can move in. We secure the supply of oil for Western Civilization, China will move in the day we leave. With enough oil to supply their economy China would be able to perpetuate itself far longer than it can now and could become a rival to the US. By maintaining a presence in the Middle East we secure not only energy for today but we prevent other players from challenging us in the future. The possibility of a new superpower emerging to unite the anti-US sentiment in the world is a larger threat than a spoiled rich kid in a cave in Pakistan.
Reply to this Top
If we weren't there, they'd find another reason to justify their killing Americans.
Reply to this Top
So "any use of violence" equates to "the systematic use of terror" now? That's why the author's argument fails.
Reply to this Top
I cannot believe this column was published anywhere it's so transparently stupid and dissembling.
Check this out:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
Reply to this Top