The Words of Terror

This is what I posted on my personal blog this morning. I thought it might be appropriate to add here as well.

Since the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech yesterday, I've been doing a lot of thinking that's led my mind all over the place. I'm an emotional person, and my first reactions were very emotional: shock, sadness, horror - not only for the situation itself but for all the consequences a repurcussions. I felt profoundly humbled as I thought about the relatively unimportant emotional personal issues I've been completely consumed by of late. They don't matter in the bigger picture.

This morning, my academic side broke loose as I was listening to the news. I started noting the vocabulary used around this story, and since this was all they talked about, I got a hefty sample of it. The following were many of the words and phrases that were used:

• tragedy
• mass shooting
• state of emergency
• the shooter
• criminal act
• massacre
• support
• emergency management
• sadness
• horror
• motive
• took his own life
• shooting rampage
• bloodbath
• loner
• no motive

None of those words are very surprising. They all fit with the event. But then, I started thinking about putting that into perspective of a suicide bombing in the Middle East. What is the discourse surrounding those stories? What are the words used then?

• blew themselves up
• conspiracy
• scene of the attack
• recent blasts
• shattered calm
• Islamic extremists
• potential targets
• suicide bombers
• Iraq terror group
• claim
• insurgents
• wounded only one

Now, these are very different situations. The Middle East has been in a state of conflict time out of mind. Certain areas are genuine war and battle zones in the Middle East. Certain tactics characterize those battles because they are tactics that work. It is a different context and does require a unique language at many times. However, the language that we use to describe a suicide bombing in the Middle East that kills eight innocent people and a suicide shooting in the United States that kills 32 innocent people is apparently very different. But are they really that different?

The big question on my mind is: Why is an apparently cold-blooded, planned shooting of this magnitude not recognized as an act of terror? It's recognized as a tragedy. But even the death of this Virginia shooter is hardly recognized as a suicide (technically a crime as well) in the media; it is softened to "he took his own life." We live in a time where the dominant rhetoric surrounding mass violence has taken on a militaristic tone centered on terrorism. Yet, it seems that we have to soften that rhetoric when it comes to events generated within our own culture.

To me, it seems that this small difference in language is a way that we separate ourselves from the rest of the world. It's a way that we perpetuate an Us/Them dichotomy. They have terrorism. We have tragedy. Discourse creates difference. It can also help to break down those barriers by just applying the same language to similar events.

Apparently, the United Kingdom is beginning to change its discourse about terrorism. I think it's a start and perhaps something that should be examined. How can we change the divisions we create with language? Not only internationally, but at home. Obviously, we create alienation in young people in this country, evidenced by the increasing rapidity and violence of these attacks. Are we creating terrorists at home with a polarizing language and culture? Why is it so hard to recognize these troubled people as terrorists? I have a feeling that if you compared psychological profiles of a school shooter in this country and a suicide bomber (or kamikaze pilot or paid assassin and so on) that you probably would not find too much of a difference in their pysches or motivations.

Oddly enough perhaps, I feel most sad for Cho Seung-Hui's parents. Although not much is known about him or them yet, it's likely that his parents came here to create a better life for their family. They've now lost their son, will have to endure intense media scrutiny and shame, and will probably face a great deal of hate for being immigrants and non-citizens - perhaps for the rest of their lives. For some reason, that was the untold part of the story that has really struck a chord in my mind. I hope that people show them some mercy.

Nappy Hair

This article made me think of Naomi *smiles*:

The Rutgers University women's basketball coach said today her players have accepted radio host Don Imus' apology for racist and sexist comments toward the team and they are "in the process of forgiving." Imus met with the Rutgers athletes Thursday night hours after CBS fired him for calling the players "nappy-headed hos."

Here's what Carolivia Herron, a former English professor and the author of the children's book "Nappy Hair," thinks about being "Nappy Haired." The book tells the story of an African-American family extolling the strength and wonder of young Brenda's natural hair while affirming her beauty and culture. Uncle Mordecai is the principal character who praises Brenda, and Herron has written the following article from the perspective of what Uncle Mordecai would say about the sullying of the word "nappy."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/13/herron.nappycommentary/index.html

Eritrea Bans Female Genital Mutilation - Effective March 31

All I have to say is "Hooray" for a country, that has always been in the news for violence, for stepping up and making a difference in the lives of its women and children. While I am sometimes biased to what CNN reports, this AT LEAST got front page in the world section.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/04/05/eritrea.circumcision.reut/index.html

Up to 140million women have experienced FGM worldwide and estimate another 3million/year will experience it going forward. The ban won't completely get rid of these instances, but will surely play a major role in getting the word out and lessening the number of occurences.

Wanted to share this with you all because I remember seeing a video or two while at DU.

-KB