Throughout our lives, especially since September 11, we’ve been inundated with the terms “terrorism” and “terrorist.” Disturbing images of mass violence flood our screens—on televisions, phones, and computers. These acts are typically linked to some underground group with motives rooted in destruction, often sacrificing their own lives in pursuit of their goals. Interestingly, white men are rarely depicted in this light.
This is perplexing, especially considering that the Department of Homeland Security identifies white supremacists as the most significant terror threat in the U.S. “Since 2018, white supremacists have executed more lethal attacks than any other domestic extremist group, demonstrating a longstanding intent to target racial and religious minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, politicians, and advocates of multiculturalism,” the Homeland Threat Assessment released last October states.
Yet, when white men commit acts of mass violence, including bombings, the media seldom labels them as “terrorists.” Why is that?
To understand this, let’s clarify what constitutes a “domestic terrorist.” WKNO, a news source akin to “NPR for the Mid-South,” states that “the FBI defines domestic terrorism as a violent act committed to advance someone’s beliefs regarding American issues.” CBS News elaborates that it includes actions “motivated by extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.” Furthermore, the USA Patriot Act from 2001 describes domestic terrorism as acts that “intimidate or coerce a civilian population” or “influence government policy through intimidation or coercion.”
In essence, to be labeled a “domestic terrorist,” one must cause significant harm or demonstrate an intent to do so, linked to a specific ideology. However, the narrative around these events often shifts, determined largely by the perpetrator’s race.
Take the case of Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a Somali teenager who attempted to bomb a Christmas tree lighting in Portland, Oregon, in 2010. Media outlets promptly labeled him a “terrorist,” scrutinizing his background and his shout of “Allahu akbar” upon his arrest.
Now consider Dylann Roof, who inflicted deep harm in Charleston by killing nine individuals at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in 2015. Roof’s manifesto revealed his intentions were racially motivated, yet when he was apprehended, he received a notably gentle treatment, being served fast food while in custody. Few headlines labeled Roof a domestic terrorist, even though he meets all criteria for such a classification.
This disparity is striking. A Washington Post article bluntly points out, “Shooters of color are labeled ‘terrorists’ and ‘thugs,’ while white shooters are often deemed ‘mentally ill.’” Roof’s actions were framed as those of a “lone wolf,” while violence by Black or Muslim individuals is often seen as part of a systemic issue requiring collective accountability from their communities.
Fast forward to the Nashville bomber, Anthony Warner, who detonated an explosive on Christmas morning. The media painted him as a “computer nerd” rather than a terrorist. While it’s noted that Warner did not take any lives other than his own, the rationale for not labeling him a domestic terrorist is troubling. His actions resulted in extensive damage, injuries, and communication disruptions, yet he is often humanized in the press.
Warner’s case parallels others like Roof and Robert Dear, who committed acts of violence fueled by extremist beliefs but did not receive the same labels as their non-white counterparts.
The implications of labeling or not labeling these individuals as terrorists are significant. It perpetuates harmful stereotypes against communities of color, while white perpetrators evade similar scrutiny. Zulfat Suara, a Nashville city council member, highlighted this dangerous double standard, noting that if the perpetrator were Black or Muslim, the narrative would shift dramatically, resulting in discrimination and backlash against those communities.
This trend continues as the media presents Warner as a victim rather than a perpetrator, reinforcing the biases at play. Such portrayals obscure the reality that those who commit violent acts with destructive intent should be held accountable, regardless of their race.
In summary, the disparate treatment of individuals based on race in the context of terrorism reveals underlying racism in how we perceive and categorize violence. Anthony Warner’s actions, like those of many others, demonstrate the need for a consistent and fair application of the term “terrorist” to address the biases that persist in our society.
Search Queries:
- Why are white mass shooters not labeled terrorists?
- The impact of race on terrorism labels in the media
- Domestic terrorism definitions and examples
- How racial biases affect public perception of violence
- The Nashville bombing and media representation of perpetrators