I think that Anthea Butler is on to something here:
But listen to major media outlets, and you won’t hear the word “terrorism†used in coverage of Wednesday’s shooting. You haven’t heard the white, male suspect, 21-year-old Dylann Roof, described as “a possible terrorist†by mainstream news organizations (though some, including The Washington Post, have covered the growing debate about this discrepancy). And if coverage of other recent shootings by white men is any indication, he never will be. Instead, the go-to explanation for his alleged actions will be mental illness. He will be humanized and called sick, a victim of mistreatment or inadequate mental health resources.
That narrative has formed quickly for Roof. Soon after his arrest Thursday, former FBI special agent Jonathan Gilliam appeared on CNN, saying that Roof probably “has some mental issues†and didn’t know he had done anything wrong. That is the power of whiteness in America.
but I think she’s framing the question wrong. Why is terrorism a rational strategy for Muslim Arabs in the Middle East, for Tamils in Sri Lanka, or for Boko Haram in Nigeria but it’s a strategy used by crazy white folks in the U. S.? There are widespread media reports that when apprehended Dylann Roof had suboxone on his person. So far I have seen no reports that he had a prescription for it but multiple reports from people who knew Mr. Roof that he abused drugs. There are many anecdotal reports of suboxone inducing violence in people taking it so it’s at least plausible that drugs may have played a part in Roof’s heinous murders which I have no problem labeling terrorism.
I also agree with those who’ve asserted that you’ve got to go to the root causes, to consider the milieu that gave rise to Dylann Roof. I just think they’re looking at the wrong milieu.
Update
Adam L. Silverman makes a useful contribution to the discussion—the legal definition of terrorism under federal law. By that definition Dylann Roof is almost certainly a terrorist.
I’ve always thought Benjamin Smith was a terrorist. From Wikipedia:
“Starting on the evening of Friday, July 2, Smith shot and wounded nine Orthodox Jews in drive-by shootings in the West Rogers Park neighborhood of Chicago. Smith then shot and killed former Northwestern University basketball coach Ricky Byrdsong, an African-American, in front of two of his three children while they were walking outside Byrdsong’s Skokie, Illinois home. On Saturday, Smith traveled to Urbana, Springfield and later Decatur, where he shot and wounded an African-American minister. On Sunday, July 4, Smith traveled to Bloomington, Indiana, where he killed Won-Joon Yoon, a 26-year-old Korean graduate student in Economics at Indiana University, who was on his way to the Korean United Methodist Church.”
Smith was a member of the World Church of the Creator, which viewed his actions favorably within the drama of an ongoing racial holy war. A far ranging killing spree appears to have been intended to provoke fear in non-whites and encourage similar actions by fellow racists. Most racists appear to be too afraid to die though, so as a political act it didn’t amount to much.
I’d probably have to learn more about Roof though.
I guess part of my point is that it’s possible to be a terrorist and sane or a terrorist and crazy. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
Certainly, but the problem with most definitions of terrorism such as the one you just linked is that they require giving mean to the action. Most of us will probably say he’s crazy; there is no meaning here.
Smith was part of an organization, so it’s easier to figure out his intention. They had doctrines and dogmas that existed outside of Smith’s mind. I don’t know that a group affiliation is necessarily a requisite. Islamic terrorists are identified by a person’s familiarization with religious writings or sermons on Jihad.
The other common element is that the actions take place within the context of a pre-existing conflict, in which violence is an asymmetrical response from the community that is either out-of-power or wishes to secede. We have no such conflict in the U.S. to help identify a meaning for Roof’s actions, though I suspect we will find that like Smith, he sees whites as victims in a country that is oppressing his people. Its that subversion of the victimhood narrative from which political meaning would be ascertained. But this is not normal, one wouldn’t expect whites to be terrorist if you believe in “the power of whiteness” that Butler complains about.
Very unlikely that suboxone caused this. Narcotic users mostly kill themselves (and family over drug issues like money). When I did a literature search on this last year there was no study linking suboxone to violent behavior.
There does seem to be a cottage industry trying to link drugs with bad behaviors. In the case of drugs like meth and cocaine the link is pretty strong. For drugs like suboxone you have people taking the drug who were largely not normal to begin with. A real chicken and egg problem exists.
Steve
Yes, that’s precisely my point.
My guess offhand is that Ms. Butler sees Roof’s actions as an unbroken thread illustrating the complete power of the masters over the slaves. Among the many problems with this view is that most “whites” were not masters and many were slaves themselves.
Mostly I want to know how crazy was/is he. Did the voices in his head tell him to do it? Is he a paranoid schizophrenic? Then I’ll concede he’s just crazy.
Otherwise, I’ve got no problem* calling him a terrorist, and I don’t care what drugs he was on. His stated motives (assuming the reports as I last read them hold up) show an obvious political/social motivation. And the lack of a backing organization means nothing – this is the day of the free range self-styled terrorist.
He didn’t randomly shoot up some place, or shoot up a place from within the context of his life. He sought out a particular time and location that had nothing to do with his life in which to murder people for a specific attribute of the victims. And he chose to do it in such a manner as to make the act all the more outrageous & heinous.
So really, I’ve got no problem calling him a terrorist, and can’t understand why anyone else would, short of the other caveats I’ve given.
* The only possible problem is if someone can convince me that calling him a terrorist is more likely to cause others to act similarly in the future. But that’s a hard case for anyone to prove to me. It’s better to take that (small) risk in order to state that this is terrorism, and that these views are no better than those of al Qaeda & the like. As a matter of public political hygiene, calling it what it is seems appropriate.
Yeah, I’ve now read the piece where it threads together a lot of issues concerning adequate respect now being shown blacks. But i’ll take issue with her on this:
If Roof killed all of those people, not simply for the personal satisfaction it gave him, but to make other blacks feel afraid for their own lives in the community, what are appropriate responses?
(a) Government programs to improve the socio-economic well-being of blacks;
(b) Government programs to improve the socio-economic well-being of whites; or
(c) Community expressions of outrage to isolate Roof as a lone-crazy person that doesn’t reflect anyone’s values but his own.
I think (c) is the most appropriate response.
PD, the obvious answer is d) enact a bunch of laws against guns that won’t be enforced. Pat Lang asked the question right off the bat: how the heck did this guy get a gun?
Roof fits the profile of so many other societal misfits — a loner who played lots of violent video games, bathed himself in negative thought patterns, and took drugs (either for self medicating purposes or recreational — who cares!). Unfortunately politicos are exploiting his twisted actions, affixing them to their own ideological rationales, such as white supremacy problems, ginning up the white/black divide more, or the need for even greater regulatory gun controls. However, given the fact that under current gun laws this man shouldn’t have been anywhere near a gun, I don’t see how applying more stringent laws would have kept him away from carrying out the mayhem he was constructing in his own head for months towards Blacks. And, if a gun was not readily available he probably would have used something else — a knife, homemade bomb etc.
He’s the kind of person who is eerily committed to whatever seems doable in order to assuage the hatred he feels for certain people. With such tenacious, isolated individuals there is no way that some will not slip through whatever constraints the government is able to legislate. Consequently, personal safety can never be 100% assured.