“Terrorism”
How we as a society use it to our disadvantage
December 7, 2016
Ever since this newspaper staff can remember, we have been in a constant state of war against terrorism. Whether it was Iraq or Afghanistan, or a pledge to exterminate Al Qaeda and ISIS, we have seen images fly across our television screens depicting violent scenes brewed from hatred and uncertainty. From domesticated to “radical Islam”, the United States has been thrown into a vortex of confusion as to what we should or shouldn’t label as “terrorism.”
Over this past year, both extremist sides of our political system have taken liberties with their speech to label the opposing side. Whether they are right or wrong is a matter of opinion. While one side says Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization because of violent outbursts yielding concurrently with the group’s organized protests, the other side says Donald Trump is a terrorist because of his violence-inciting rhetoric at his rallies during the primary season. On either side of the fence, the use of the idea terrorism is biased and is only used to label a point of argument as a scapegoat for their movement to attack.
To commit to a clear-cut definition of the idea, we are going to use the FBI’s definition on their website, which is multilayered and gives specific differences towards domestic and international terrorism.
Domestic and international terrorism are acts intended to “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.” Domestic terrorism involves acts “dangerous to human life,” while international terrorism includes “violent acts” on top of that definition. The act must violate federal or state law in both cases. Domestic is within the U.S., while international is outside the US.
Following those guidelines, should Trump’s rhetoric, violent protests by Black Lives Matter, and other events be considered terrorism?
Now of course, there are real acts of terrorism that happen across the globe that the media portrays correctly with at least an attempt at neutrality. This year alone we’ve seen attacks across Europe including the Bastille Day massacre and the Brussels airport bombing, as well as in our own back yard with the Pulse nightclub shooting and just this past week with the Ohio State University stabbing. With these events, there is no grey area. These events happened due to a rush of emotion or a planned attack towards a specific group of people to prove a point.
The events we are going to talk about going forward are highly debated between the left and right sides of our currently poisonous political atmosphere. Although terrorism should bring us all together to find a solution rather than split us apart as it has today, we, as the future generation in America, need to rise above this he said/she said culture that has been ongoing for decades.
Who better to start off with than the king of he said/she said, Donald Trump, a.k.a. the world’s greatest troll. He has belittled every major competitor throughout his campaign until he reached his current title of president-elect. Throughout his campaign, he has been known as someone who doesn’t understand the legal limitations to his freedom of speech. Although saying he wants to temporarily ban immigration and travel from Muslim majority nations is controversial and permissible, his incitement of violence is far from legal.
Trump has repeatedly told his audience at rallies across the nation to hit and berate protesters. Even the one Trump voter on our editorial board can see the divisiveness and immorality Trump’s rhetoric has towards his protestors. Through inciting his rally audiences with statements like, “Part of the problem … is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore” and “Try not to hurt him. If you do, I’ll defend you in court, don’t worry about it,” it’s hard to ignore his constant ignorance to how the First Amendment works.
Due to his rhetoric coercing a civilian population to commit acts dangerous to human life, this could be considered terrorism. Whether his speech breaks state or federal laws is up for debate, but it obviously incites, has caused physical harm to civilians and brings fear to those who oppose his platform.
Moving onto the opposite side of the spectrum, is Black Lives Matter on the same page as our new president-elect? The movement’s website opens their “about” page in bold letters “We Affirm that All Black Lives Matter,” and right below it is their mission statement: “Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. It is an affirmation of Black folks’ contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.”
With this noble stance, they take to the streets when they find injustice across the U.S. Usually they are spotlighted in the news when a black man is killed by an officer and they coordinate mass protests and marches across every major city from Dallas to Chicago. However noble the cause, there are spoiled eggs in the batch that make everyone look bad.
From Baltimore to the Dallas protests, there have been violent backlashes that stem from built up frustration. With this frustration, some people chose to pillage and destroy their hometown by breaking windows and stealing from their local businesses. However small this faction may be, the rioting exists enough for media and civilians alike to take note.
Are these outbursts from the spoiled side of this faction considered terrorism? There are countless videos online of riots breaking out from the protests that are dangerous to human life, as well as lead to clearly illegal activity on both the state and federal level through causing mass destruction. They create fear in everyone who lives in the area. Whichever way we put it, the instances of rioting should be considered terrorism. Although Black Lives Matter does not condone the violence, going as far as to speak out against people who bring violence to their peaceful campaign, the fact that these riots happen at a fraction of the protests leads some of the media and a large portion of conservatives alike to rush to label them as a terrorist organization.
Whether we stand on either side of the political spectrum, it’s obvious we have a problem on our hands as a society. When media like Fox News ignores Trump’s rhetoric, as well when groups like MSNBC ignore the violence at Black Lives Matter protests, it lessens the quality of debate across society and completely numbs the term “terrorism” to be a one-sided term for anyone to use to condemn one side without thinking about the ramifications to their core cause.
We as a society need to be mindful as to our own biases towards how we use the term terrorism. Correct use of the term will help society progress towards a solution rather than cause more friction.
Ryan Quinn • Dec 8, 2016 at 4:21 pm
Hi there,
I came across this article after a friend of mine liked it and the title itself perked my interest, but I have to say I’m disappointed with the article itself for a multitude of reasons that I think are both related to the content and the ideological biases that contain no sort of caveat whatsoever.
I’ll actually begin at the end of the article, because the last line refers to a solution that exists. I won’t even mention the problems associated with assuming that society “progresses” in some linear fashion. What problem specifically is being referenced that calls for a solution? The problem of “terrorism” as a term? The racial divide that has gripped America? The inherent biases that all humans have? This is a minor hindrance compared to the rest of the essay, but it would be helpful to have clarification as to what “problem” is being addressed specifically.
The more in depth critique I wish to offer is one that addresses some of the inherently flawed logic presented, stemming from the ideological problem of using the FBI’s definition of terrorism. (Ideology as defined in Louis Althusser’s essay “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”) The universal standard for what “terrorism” is must have an institutional bias inherent within it due to it being the definition used by the FBI. Terrorism can also be called freedom fighting, as it is a matter of perspective. So of course any Government will advocate that any sort of violence/rebellious attitude against itself will inherently be “terrorist”. Therefore, the definition used to anchor the term “terrorism” into place is problematic. Those who began the American, French, Haitian, and countless other revolutions, were also termed “terrorists”, however we seem to have no problem with this as long as we are on their side. In regards to this specific article, it becomes even more troubling when we account for the fact that on one side we have the President-Elect, and on the other we have a political movement. How can we view the term “terrorist” as free from bias when the FBI itself is a Federal institution? An institution that Donald Trump is now the head executor? The article wishes to call attention to “our own biases”, but this is an oversimplified generic statement that can only be typed out with such bravado and foolhardiness that arises from a lack of attention to biases not only present in ourselves, but also within the institutions that govern us.
From a linguistic standpoint, trying to anchor a word to a specific meaning rarely, if ever, happens. Language is a constantly shifting, evolving, and growing concept that has no necessary logic built within it that suggests one word=one meaning. The word “video”, as we Anglophones know it, refers to a stream of images shown together to form a cohesive retelling. This word originally is a Latin word, coming from the stem “videre” meaning “to see”, and it’s first person conjugation “video” which means “I see”. One single word has been in usage for over 2000 years, and its miraculous it keeps even a remotely similar meaning, as the word “vagina” in Latin refers to the sheath of a sword, while today it refers to a woman’s reproductive organ. It would be naive to even suggest that this anchoring is possible, which is why I’m disappointed that “progress” towards a solution is suggested as being possible as long as the “correct use of the term” is enabled in modern (political) rhetoric. If mankind simply uses the right words, we set ourselves onto a path of progress? How could this be possible? New meanings given to words present new ways of thinking, new ways of speaking, new avenues and spaces to be explored. To limit language in such a way would not only handicap language as a tool itself, but also would handicap possible new directions of intellectual critique.
One last point is the clearly unbelievable ignorance of the First Amendment displayed here while trying to purpose that Donald Trump is ignorant of it. Trump’s words are politically motivated, and the First Amendment has been vehemently defended specifically for political speech. How can we suppose that Trump’s words are illegal? The First Amendment gives no clause that excepts rhetoric that suggests violence from its protection. I’ll refer Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to the Editorial Board for their consideration. Also, because Black Lives Matter is treated in this article as being the larger proponent of violence, I would also suggest to the Editorial Board to examine the essay “Concerning Violence” by Frantz Fanon and the logic that exists that justify acts of violence in order to throw off nooses of oppression.
While this was overall a noble attempt to somehow produce a “solution” to one of the many problems presented within the essay, I believe the Editorial Board of The Courier should more closely examine the true ramifications of acts of violence in society, instead of naively suggesting that biases present in all humans can be rid of as long as the “correct use of the term” can be universally implemented without any biases.