You won’t hear the word “terrorism” in a horrific shooting at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston used in coverage of Wednesday that left nine dead during a prayer meeting.
You haven’t heard the white, male suspect, 21-year-old Dylann Roof, described as “a possible terrorist” by typical news organizations.
He never will be a terrorist instead his gruesome actions are considered as an inadequate mental health resources. He will be called sick and humanized , a victim of mistreatment.
And former FBI special agent Jonathan Gilliam proved it in case of Roof. Soon after his detention on Thursday, Gillian 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 US.
But such similar attacks against Muslim-Americans and African-Americans by white men almost never merit the same description.
A different policy is practice by U.S. media outlets while covering crimes involving Muslims or African Americans. As suspects, they are in the blink of an eye characterized as terrorists and thugs.
A fierce debate has erupted in the US. Many community leaders and civil rights activists are pointing out that that such crimes involving white men is typically presented as a ”hate crime”
But if the person behind such attacks happens to a Muslim or a black man, a double standard is applied to him. He is often described as a terrorist.
Boston Marathon bombing and the attack on the anti-Islamic gathering in Texas in recent times have been described as acts of terrorism carried out by IS.
”We have been conditioned to accept that if the violence is committed by a Muslim, then it is terrorism,” Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a civil rights advocacy group in Washington, was quoted telling the New York Times.
”If the same violence is committed by a white supremacist or apartheid sympathizer and is not a Muslim, we start to look for excuses — he might be insane, maybe he was pushed too hard,” Awad added.