Mind the use of "terrorism".

In the aftermath of the violence that occurred on Wednesday, January 6, at the U.S. Capitol, news media, politicians, and observers worldwide are labeling those who participated “domestic terrorists.” At first glance, this seems to be a fair assessment: if white nationalists are engaging in the same kind of violence as other groups, we call “terrorists” have engaged in (attacking government buildings, breaking laws, endangering citizens, damaging property, etc.) then they too, should be labeled “terrorists.” Progressive politicians like Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) have referred to the incident as a “domestic terrorist attack” to ensure the gravity of this violence is not downplayed, as it often is when perpetrators are white (Huffington Post).

It's Friday! Welcome back to the ARD. Last week, we encouraged everyone to call the events at the Capitol for what they are, and encouraged the use of terms like "terrorists" and "white supremacists". Today, Shivani joins us to share why referring to terrorism, although well-intentioned, can have a negative impact on communities of color. I'm grateful to have learned more about this over the past week. The web version of that article now includes this one for clarification. I hope it illuminates something for you, too!

And thank you all for your support. This newsletter is made possible by our subscribers. Consider making a monthly or annual subscription on Patreon. Or you can give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza).

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

If you’ve been using the term “domestic terrorism” or “terrorists” to describe what happened at Capitol on January 5, 2021, consider using the terms: white violence or insurrectionists instead.
Read articles in Just Security, The Brennan Center, and Human Rights Watch to learn more about why this language is harmful to marginalized communities.
Follow communications directors in this space like Lea Kayali and human rights attorneys like Diala Shamas to learn more about the role language plays in these acts of white violence.

GET EDUCATED

By Shivani Persad (she/her)

However, by including white supremacist violence under this label, we are effectively expanding the definition of terrorism — and although the intention is good, it harms the most marginalized communities. Black and Muslim communities have been increasingly stigmatized and harmed by the counterterrorism policies resulting from such expansion. The government already has a number of laws under which they can prosecute people that are perceived threats (Time Magazine).

After Wednesday’s insurrection President-Elect Joe Biden “plans to make a priority of passing a law against domestic terrorism” (Wall Street Journal). Human rights attorney Diala Shamas tweeted, “predictably, Biden falls for it. I'll say it again: history shows that legislation going after "domestic terrorism" will primarily be used to target Black organizers, Muslim communities, immigrant communities.”

Shamas and Tarek Z. Ismail argue that “expanding whom we call terrorists supposes that more law enforcement means more justice or fairness. That is ahistoric” (Washington Post). They cite the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, implemented after the Oklahoma City bombing, as an example of a “counterterrorism” policy with negative results. This attack was carried out by two white men who were labeled “domestic terrorists.” Instead of preventing domestic terrorism, the AEDPA broadened law enforcement’s reach and allowed legal residents to be deported or jailed for minor offenses (The Atlantic).

Journalist Aarti Shahani, whose father was unjustly incarcerated and whose uncle was deported because of this law, writes, “legal residents accused of “terrorism” were deported without hearing the testimony against them, or who had offered it” (The Atlantic). This is just one example of how the U.S. government takes threats of “domestic terrorism” perpetrated by white attackers and weaponizes it against communities of color.

“The entire framework of terrorism is really problematic,” Lea Kayali, a Palestinian community organizer and digital communications professional for the ACLU, tells me. “It’s understandable that people want to describe the feeling of being terrorized [on January 6]. There’s no question that the people out there were clearly trying to terrorize as part of their mission.” But she cautions us away from the terrorism framework because the definition of terrorism is malleable and vague. “Vague language doesn’t invite good policy. When you create policy on vague definitions it invites law enforcement discretion. It actually provides ammunition to systems of policing and law enforcement” (For more on such policies’ effects on American Muslims, check out this article in Al Jazeera.)

In fact, a leak exposed that in 2017 the FBI had created a new “domestic terrorism” category called “Black identity extremism” (The Intercept). This new category was said to pose a growing threat of premeditated violence against law enforcement and resulted in numerous investigations (Foreign Policy). In 2018, the FBI admitted to using its most advanced aircraft to surveil and monitor Black Lives Matter protests in Baltimore and this year at BLM protests in Washington, D.C (Brennan Center).

Kayali notes that even outside of policy discussions, the term is a bad linguistic choice: “It serves to obfuscate the root causes of that violence.” By calling them “domestic terrorists” and not including the terms “white supremacy” or “white violence” in the description of these events, Kayali says we are effectively “navigating around the obstacles of white supremacy that are foundational to violence in this country.”

So, when we’re discussing the events at the Capitol, remember that the word terrorism holds a kind of power that goes beyond the dictionary definition. The word terrorism is attached to a framework that was created to criminalize Black and brown existence. Post 9/11, the term “terrorism” is inextricably tied to the entire counterterrorism industry, which has harmed marginalized communities, and which some research suggests has not deterred violent extremism at all (Brennan Center). For many, the word “terrorism” will never serve a movement that seeks to shrink the power of this counterterrorism industry and protect Black, Brown, and Indigenous people’s rights. Instead, we should be focussing on dismantling this counterterrorism framework of harmful policies and, rather, address the root of the problem: white supremacy.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Although well-intentioned, calling the white supremacists who took part in the attack on the Capitol “domestic terrorists” is actually harmful to marginalized communities because of the counterterrorism policies that result from that kind of language.
Counterterrorism policies often hurt communities of color by expanding law enforcement’s reach, allowing them to target, surveil, investigate, and prosecute these marginalized communities more easily.
In 2017 the FBI created a new “domestic terrorism” category called “Black identity extremism.” It has admitted to surveilling Black Lives Matter protests (Brennan Center).
In the words of Palestinian community organizer Lea Kayali, “Language is essential to manifesting the world that we’re trying to build and create together, words matter.”

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Nicole Cardoza 3/18/21 Nicole Cardoza 3/18/21

Stop the “lone wolf” narrative.

But, most urgently, it pushes the "lone wolf" narrative: that this individual acted alone for personal reasons and wasn't motivated by a larger narrative. This attempts to detach this specific instance from the larger role that white supremacy plays in acts of violence and terrorism in the U.S. As a result, it doesn't call for accountability for the system that nurtured and developed that hate in a white supremacist society. Although the individual should be held responsible for their actions, so should the government that fostered discrimination and bias against the Asian community since its start, from the Chinese Exclusion Act, to Imperialism in the Asia-Pacific, and platforming a president that persistently called coronavirus “Kung flu” and the “Asian virus” (Anti-Racism Daily).

Happy Thursday and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily! Tuesday evening's attack on the Asian community was another clear and blatant act of white supremacy. And still, law enforcement and the media attempted to mitigate the harm by diminishing a violent act of terror to "a good boy" who "had a bad day". Today we analyze how white supremacy persists through the coddling and protection of violent acts of terror.

This newsletter is a free resource made possible by our paying subscribers. We'd love you to consider making a monthly recurring donation on our website. You can also give one-time on PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza). Thank you for all your support!

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

Center your education about reporting on the victims and communities harmed, not the perpetrators. Avoid media platforms that share more about the perpetrator than the wellbeing of the community harmed.
Sign the petition and in solidarity with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Atlanta, which is dedicated to the civil rights of the Asian American community.
Donate directly to support the victims and their families and to support crisis interventions, created by Asian Americans Advancing Justice Atlanta.
Continue to report Asian hate crimes to Stop AAPI Hate to more effectively address anti-Asian violence.

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza (she/her)

Watch recordings of interviews on Instagram with Michelle Kim and Dr. Jenny Wang to understand more about the rise of anti-Asian violence and racism.

On Tuesday evening, March 15, a gunman shot and killed eight people and wounded another at massage parlors in the Atlanta area (NYTimes). At least six of the victims are Asian women. Four of those were identified as Korean. The names of the victims available as of writing (12:30 am EST) are Delaina Ashley Yaun, Xiaojie Tan, Daoyou Feng, and Paul Andre Michels (NYTimes). Each of them still deserves to be here, and we grieve for their loss.

This was the latest of a surge of violence against the Asian community over the past few months. Read our recap in an earlier newsletter. According to the latest report from Stop AAPI Hate, which has been measuring the rise of anti-Asian hate crimes since March 2020, women are 2.3 times more likely to report hate incidents, and 35% of all violence happens at businesses (Stop AAPI Hate). This attack is all the more heartbreaking because it was taken out against members of the immigrant community and sexually motivated, which makes this not just a racially-charged attack, but one rooted in misogyny and racial fetishization. Read more in a previous newsletter.

As the world woke up to the news Wednesday morning, a series of new articles explained more about the perpetrator, 21-year-old Robert Aaron Long, who was arrested and charged with murder. Friends described him as “nerdy,” “from a good Christian family,” and “very innocent-seeming and wouldn't even cuss” (Newsweek). The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that he has a “sexual addiction,” leading others to report that his mental health might have influenced his decision-making (AJC). Police officers stated that “yesterday was a really bad day for [Long], and this is what he did,” and that he “he gave no indicators that this was racially motivated.”

This rhetoric is problematic for several reasons. By centering his religious faith, nerdy background, and lack of cussing, the press and law enforcement imply that he's aligned with whiteness’s key characteristics and consequently impervious to harm. This narrative has been used frequently to excuse violent acts carried out by white men, often against women and people of color. It aims to solidify that things like Christian faith, proper language, and academic performance grant power and privilege, and those that don’t align with these markers are “less than” in society. Related: White Supremacist Ideas Have Historical Roots In U.S. Christianity (NPR).

Not only that, it attempts to center the "innocence" of the perpetrator over the innocence of the victims. This further minimizes the pain that marginalized groups experience, and takes up space that could be used to tell their stories. Author and advocate Michelle Kim names other reasons why, in this case, families of victims might not feel comfortable speaking up, further exacerbating the issue (Twitter).

It also contributes to the mental health stigma in our society. It insinuates that people with mental health conditions are dangers to our society. Remember, racism and misogyny is not a mental health condition. This stigma doesn't just affects us on an individual level by discouraging people from seeking help and sharing their experiences with their friends and family. It creates a systemic narrative that mental health is so dangerous it needs to be policed, enforcing our criminal justice system’s role in health and well-being instead of social services that offer more preventative, healing support. Read more in the Washington Post.

This isn’t new – this is the same narrative we've heard after white terrorism events throughout our history. In an article from last summer, we outlined how quickly the rhetoric changes to protect white domestic terrorists. Dylann Roof, a far-right extremist who shot nine Black people in a church in South Carolina, idolized the Confederacy, was portrayed in the media as “mentally ill” and "misunderstood" (Al Jazeera). Kyle Rittenhouse, a white teenager who killed two people during protests in Kenosha last year, was called a "hero" and "innocent," and a "bullied teenager" who became a huge fan of the police (Huffington Post). Each of these issues, too, were discarded as single acts of individual errors than a result of systemic decisions – like our unwillingness to admonish the Confederacy, our lack of gun control, the tensions between communities and law enforcement stoked by our President – that fostered them. It should come as no surprise that, in 2020, reports indicated that white supremacists posed the greatest domestic terror threat to the U.S. (The Guardian).

And the first days of 2021 brought that to life, when hundreds of these "lone wolves" rallied together to attempt a violent insurrection at the nation's Capitol. A new report indicates that local and federal law enforcement often fail to address violence caused by white supremacists. Video evidence shows several members of the insurrection causing violence in their communities years before the event, and they weren’t charged (NYTimes). Elizabeth Neumann, an assistant secretary for threat prevention in the Department of Homeland Security who left last year, stated that “the Proud Boys are just the guys-that-drink-too much-after-the-football-game-and-tend-to-get-into-bar-fights type of people — people that never looked organized enough to cause serious national security threats.” The lone wolf narrative protected these violent extremists and enabled them to cause harm on a national scale.

It’s important to note that this convenient narrative is reserved for members of the white community. A study found that overall, terror attacks by Muslims receive 357% more press attention (The Guardian). But the narratives differ, too. Researchers analyzed news coverage of mass shootings in Las Vegas in 2017 and Orlando in 2016. The Orlando shooting, carried out by someone that identifies as Muslim, was allotted more coverage despite the fact that it produced nine fewer fatalities than the Las Vegas shooting. In addition, newspapers were more likely to frame the Orlando mass shooting as “terrorism” and link it to the global war on terrorism. In contrast, most articles for the Las Vegas shooting attempted to humanize Stephen Paddock, the white perpetrator (Taylor & Francis Online). Similarly, the concept of “Black on white crime” is a grossly fictionalized narrative used throughout history to validate the enslavement and incarceration of Black communities, which influences both policy and media to this day (Southern Poverty Law Center). The Huffington Post has side-by-side comparisons on how white suspects are often treated better than Black victims in headlines.

In the latest attack Tuesday night, one man might have pulled the trigger, but white supremacy doesn't act alone. He was encouraged and supported by a white supremacist culture that normalizes violence against communities of color and enables white men to carry it out. We need to hold not just individuals but our society accountable for this violence – including ourselves, and the role we play in perpetuating white supremacy.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Tuesday evening, eight people were killed in shootings at massage parlors in Atlanta, GA, contributing to the rise of violence against Asian communities over the past year.
Reporting of white male suspects tends to emphasize qualities that support their innocence and distance them from collective accountability.
This type of reporting allows for violence and terrorism by white supremacists to go unchecked, as evident in the recent attack on the Capitol.

ARCHIVES

Mind the use of "terrorism".

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Related Issues

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Stop the “lone wolf” narrative.

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

KEY TAKEAWAYS

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT