Throughout our lives, especially since 9/11, the terms “terrorism” and “terrorist” have become commonplace. We see harrowing images of mass violence flashing before us on screens—our televisions, phones, and computers. These acts are often linked to underground groups driven by an ideology that seeks destruction, with perpetrators frequently willing to sacrifice their lives to achieve their goals. Yet, these individuals are rarely white men.
This discrepancy is perplexing, especially considering that, according to the Department of Homeland Security, white supremacists currently represent the most significant terror threat in the United States.
“Since 2018, white supremacists have executed more lethal attacks in the U.S. than any other domestic extremist movement, demonstrating a longstanding intent to target racial and religious minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, politicians, and advocates for multiculturalism and globalization,” states the Homeland Threat Assessment published last October.
However, when white men commit acts of violence, such as bombings or mass shootings motivated by ideologies rooted in hate, they are seldom referred to as “terrorists.” The question arises: why?
To understand this, we must clarify what constitutes a “domestic terrorist.” WKNO, a news outlet aligned with NPR, defines domestic terrorism as a violent crime committed to advance specific beliefs about American issues. Similarly, CBS News notes that it involves actions by individuals or groups connected to U.S.-based movements that advocate extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. The USA Patriot Act further describes domestic terrorism as dangerous acts on U.S. soil intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence government policy through violence. Finally, FBI director Doug Korneski emphasizes that for an event to be classified as domestic terrorism, it must be linked to an ideology.
In essence, to be labeled a “domestic terrorist,” one must cause significant damage or demonstrate an intention to do so, with their actions tied to a particular belief about the nation.
Yet, the narrative surrounding incidents of perceived domestic terrorism shifts based on the perpetrator’s identity. For instance, in 2010, a Somali teenager’s failed attempt to bomb a Christmas tree lighting event in Portland, Oregon, led to immediate labeling as a “terrorist,” especially after he shouted “Allahu akbar” upon arrest.
In contrast, Dylann Roof, responsible for the tragic shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015, was described in much softer terms. Roof stated his intentions were racially driven, citing his manifesto as justification for his actions. Despite this, when he was arrested, he was treated with surprising leniency and even received fast food from police. Few headlines referred to him as a domestic terrorist, despite fitting the criteria.
This disparity highlights the influence of race on how violent acts are perceived. A Washington Post article pointedly asks why white shooters are often labeled as “mentally ill,” while shooters of color are labeled “terrorists” or “thugs.”
The recent case of Anthony Warner, the Nashville bomber, illustrates this continued trend. While Warner caused significant damage, injuring several and disrupting services, media coverage often portrays him as a mere computer technician who cared for his pets.
The rationale for not labeling Warner as a domestic terrorist often hinges on the fact that he did not kill anyone except himself. Still, this narrative feels inconsistent when compared to others who have caused fear and destruction.
The question remains: why does the labeling differ so drastically? This inconsistency has profound implications, contributing to racial profiling and the stigmatization of certain communities. As Nashville council member Zara Patel noted, individuals from marginalized communities face backlash and scrutiny following such violent events, while white perpetrators are often treated with understanding or even sympathy.
In summary, the media’s portrayal of violent acts is deeply influenced by the race of the perpetrator. The latest incident involving a white man reveals the troubling bias in how we classify acts of terror and the narratives that shape our understanding of these events.
For more insights on this topic, check out our other blog post here, and visit Make A Mom for expert advice on fertility journeys. Additionally, for comprehensive resources about pregnancy, explore NICHD.
Probable Search Queries:
- Nashville bomber Anthony Warner background
- Domestic terrorism definitions
- Media portrayal of white criminals
- Racial bias in terrorist labeling
- Impact of terrorism on marginalized communities
Summary:
The article discusses the disparity in labeling perpetrators of violence as “terrorists” based on their race. It highlights the Nashville bomber, Anthony Warner, and contrasts his treatment by the media with that of individuals from minority backgrounds who commit similar acts. The narrative surrounding domestic terrorism shows a significant racial bias that affects how communities are perceived and treated after violent incidents.
Keyphrase: domestic terrorism and racial bias
Tags: [“home insemination kit” “home insemination syringe” “self insemination”]