In the aftermath of violent attacks like the stabbings on the Portland MAX train and the London Bridge incident, I’ve been reflecting on the stark differences in how online communities respond to the attackers involved. It appears that the white supremacist behind the Portland incident was quickly tagged as “mentally ill,” whereas very little has been said about the psychological state of the individuals who drove a truck into a crowd and indiscriminately stabbed people.
This inconsistency extends to America’s ongoing struggle with mass shootings. Figures like David Smith, who took the lives of nine individuals during a church gathering, and Ethan Carter, who killed six people after a misogynistic manifesto, were met with discussions centered around mental health issues. Media narratives often portray these individuals as victims of a broken mental health system. Surely, anyone in a sound mind wouldn’t commit such atrocities, right? Even if they espouse radical beliefs.
Conversely, Omar Khan, who tragically killed 49 people at a nightclub, was primarily framed as a “radical Islamic terrorist.” While there were mentions of his potential self-loathing, the conversation rarely ventured into the possibility of his being a product of a failing mental health system. Yet, one has to ask: would a mentally stable person attack a nightclub filled with revelers?
I’m not suggesting that these perpetrators should escape accountability for their heinous acts. Mass murder is indefensible, regardless of the perpetrator’s background. However, it raises a troubling question: why do we instinctively search for mental health explanations when a white person commits a violent crime, while resorting to terms like “pure evil” when the perpetrator is of color?
Both David Smith and Ethan Carter were indeed extremists. Smith’s white supremacist ideology drove him to kill innocent churchgoers, while Carter’s premeditated attack was fueled by deep-seated misogyny, as articulated in his manifesto where he vowed to “punish” women for not being attracted to him.
While these men may have been grappling with serious mental health issues, isn’t it reasonable to consider that all terrorists who commit mass murder are not entirely sound of mind? Are they fundamentally different from extremists of other backgrounds? Do their attacks pose any less of a threat to our society?
It seems that many might think so. Perhaps it’s because we view white perpetrators as anomalies, prompting us to explore their mental health. Why do we perceive white mass murderers as psychologically unfit while viewing brown counterparts as fully rational and simply evil?
These are pressing inquiries. White supremacists have historically terrorized marginalized groups in the U.S., often motivated by racism rather than mental illness. The reality is that far-right extremists are responsible for more domestic terrorist acts than radical jihadists. Are they truly in a sound state of mind? I would contend that anyone who engages in mass murder is not mentally stable, and I believe you would agree.
Radicalization alters one’s psyche, pushing individuals into realms far removed from rationality and basic humanity. It’s a daunting issue that warrants our attention, but it’s not confined to any single geography or ideology. While we shouldn’t ignore the violent radicals from Muslim backgrounds, we must also confront the radicalization of disaffected young white men in our society. They are often not just “lone wolves” but part of networks that propagate hate and prejudice, following social media channels that reinforce their extreme views. The parallels between their radicalization and that of jihadists are striking.
If we find radical Islamist extremists with a penchant for violence alarming, we should equally fear radicalized white individuals with access to firearms and similar intentions. When either group commits mass murder, the analysis of their actions and mental states should not differ so drastically. Extremism is a universal issue. Murder is murder, regardless of the perpetrator’s background or beliefs.
In conclusion, all these individuals are likely struggling with severe psychological issues. However, we need to stop extending a psychological benefit of the doubt to white male perpetrators while denying the same to others. It’s time to recognize that radicalization can affect anyone and address this critical issue without bias.
For those interested in expanding their knowledge on related topics, check out this excellent resource on artificial insemination and explore our blog post on home insemination kits. If you’re looking for comprehensive tools, our at-home insemination kit is an authority on the subject.
Summary
The article explores the contrasting perceptions of white and brown terrorists, particularly in how mental health is discussed in relation to their violent actions. It highlights the biases that shape public discourse and calls for a more equitable analysis of all forms of extremism, regardless of the perpetrator’s background.
Keyphrase
White and Brown Terrorists Mental Health Perception
Tags
[“home insemination kit”, “home insemination syringe”, “self insemination”]