American Islamophobia: ‘Only Muslims Can Be Terrorists’
by: Joshua Stanton on February 24th, 2010 | 12 Comments »
IRS Building Ablaze in Austin
On February 18, 2010, Joseph Stack intentionally crashed his airplane into an IRS office building in Austin, Texas. Innocent life was lost, and thousands were terrified. But nobody rushed to pronounce him a terrorist. The media called him ‘frustrated,’ ‘deranged,’ and ‘disgruntled,’ but seldom a terrorist. No public figures that I am aware of countered the spin.
To many this may seem to be a simple omission, but it is a glaring one at that. In American popular culture and discourse, only Muslims (or, for those who don’t know the difference, Arabs) are called terrorists. Muslims are being singled out as targets for a debilitatingly charged word — while other Americans are left immune from it.
Daniel Cluchey may have said it best on the Huffington Post:
Everyone now knows the story of Joe Stack, the aptly named regular Joe whose outrages stacked up in his own mind until he hit the breaking point, setting his house on fire and flying his Piper Cherokee PA-28 into the Echelon office complex in Austin, Texas. In taking his own life, Stack injured thirteen people and murdered Vernon Hunter, a 67-year-old father of six. Watching the thick smoke jet out of the windows of the Echelon complex on television, I had the strangest feeling that I had seen this sort of thing before. Wasn’t there a name we used to use for people who flew planes into buildings in order to kill Americans? We used to say that these were the actions of a… the actions of a…
Ah, yes. Thank you,Wall Street Journal! These were the actions of a “tax protester.” I knew it started with a ‘T.’
I was fifteen when protesters flew planes into the Twin Towers, only back then we called them terrorists. Are we no longer terrified by airplane suicide attacks? I doubt it. So what’s the difference? Those murderers were from Saudi Arabia, they had dark complexions and unpronounceable names; Joe Stack was your next door neighbor, an engineer from Pennsylvania by way of Texas. His fervor was more acceptable to us, less foreign to the American mind. He hated the government. He hated taxes. His sickness, and his violence, already live here, and this will not be the last time we see the smoke.
Cluchey’s recommendation is to label Stack a “terrorist” for the sake of internal consistency. But there may exist an even better alternative: ridding our lexicons of the term “terrorist” altogether. It is a label that can be used to smear. And it has disproportionately been wielded against a particular religious community. The overuse, misuse, and inconsistent use of the word “terrorist” may itself comprise a threat to America’s well-being.
My understanding of the term “tax protester” was that such a person refused to pay taxes and was willing to pay the consequences (go to jail) if necessary. This person who flew a plane into a building because he was angry with the IRS was deranged, a murderer, sick, a “suicide bomber” perhaps, and if he’d been a few shades less white with a name a little less, well, white, I think many in the media would have been calling him a “home-grown” terrorist. And, of course, if he had not been an American, there’s no doubt that he would have been called a terrorist.
Interesting take on Joe Stack here: (http://blogs.alternet.org/sactorob/2010/02/19/was-joe-stack-turning-socialist/) which says from his writings that he was more of an average populist than, say, Timothy McVeigh who bombed the Oklahoma Federal Building. He was apparently more anti-capitalist than tea bagger.
” Probably the most interesting part of his suicide note comes at the very end of it. He concluded his note as follows:
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”
“American popular culture and discourse, we only call Muslims (or, for those who don’t know the difference, Arabs) terrorists.”
This a incorrect stereotypical statement. When I used to go on social networks such as Tribe.net I saw this a lot by people who are pro-jewish and pro-Israeli, anti-Muslim, and anti-Arab. I would expect better of Tikkun. Not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims are Arab. I am leaving with a housemate who American Apple Pie and Muslin. There is a definite difference between race and religion.
Now I forced to make sure to read anything from your source with a large amount of skepticism to root out your obvious bias toward Arabs and Muslims.
The first thing I heard about this event on the news (NPR, no less) was that it was “not a terrorist act.” Really? It was obvious to me, too, that this word is reserved for one particular group and that another particular group is exempt on the basis of ethnicity.
Thanks Josh you Always give me good Articles to read I Wish people were more like you in Viewing Social Justice. I Believe Neo-Nazism is Terrorism I never met A Muslim Terrorist ever, Just recently I was Attacked by Neo-Nazis Guss who Came to my Rescue, Sunni Muslims. I What Neo-Nazis to be Charged with Terrorism.
Thanks to everyone for their comments!
I just wanted to quickly respond to Pat, who I believe may have misperceived my article, which was intended to say that American popular culture/media is _wrong_ for only labeling Muslims and Arabs (which are _not_ synonyms) as terrorists. It is unfair and prejudicial to do so.
I don’t read Stack as sick or deranged, nor a terrorist (using the legal definition, using other muted-vernacular usage, perhaps). He was pushed beyond what he could tolerate, and, having been deprived of the ability to meet his basic needs, “snapped” and acted from a place of deep despair. That people were killed was certainly murder 1 or at least 2 (premeditation is pretty much a foregone conclusion when you write a suicide note, especially one so detailed). he was certainly not a tax protestor. He was definitely suicidal and followed through. It’s clear form his “manifesto” that the harm inflicted by murdering IRS “peons” (as opposed to the “boss”) was not part of his ideation. He committed suicide in such a manner as to express personal despair, not an effort to try to cause policy changes by targeting and murdering innocent civilians, nor even to try to ‘take as many of ‘em with me as I can’ as McVeigh actually stated (McVeigh was in fact a terrorist by definition).
While I “get” his despair and anger, and being a practitioner of Aikido I deeply understand why it’s so important to turn violence upon itself–that every “attack” is in fact a manifestation of a person’s being ‘out of control’ and in such cases it’s far better and more efficient and healthy to help that person come back under control through skill and technique–Stack’s actions do not win my support or approval by any stretch.
All that aside, ITA with Joshua and many others’ observation that had Stack been more melanin rich and from a different continent, his murder-suicide act would certainly have been treated differently. But that speaks more to American xenophobia and racism than it does Stack.
Interesting especially when you look at the wake of the Fort Hood attacks. Despite being an American (and a soldier, no less), the media had to difficulty branding Nidal Malik Hasan a “terrorist.” You and Dan make a very astute observation, well done.
That should read “no” difficulty. It’s early in the morning, heh.
“Islamophobia” makes no sense at all. It is as meaningless as “Fascistophobia”…
Of course people have the right to disagree and criticize any ideology, whether good or bad. The goodness of an ideology is in the eyes of the beholder. Inhibiting criticism of an ideology is infringing upon the basic human rights, which is freedom of speech.
Islam is an ideology and likewise, the rejection of an ideology cannot be classified as phobia. To call the opponents of an ideology phobic is a fallacy. All ideologies have their critics and opponents but we do not hear Christians calling the critics of Christianity Christianophobes, Communists calling their critics Communistophobes or Hindus calling theirs Hinduphobes. The term “Islamophobia” is both technically and logically incorrect and misleading.
…the neologism “Islamophobia” implies that Islam is not dangerous and the fear of it is irrational.
This claim has not been established and it is not universally agreed upon. There are many who argue that Islam is indeed a dangerous ideology and they have their logical arguments to prove their claim…
See:http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Islamophobia
I do think that certain people have an irrational and fearful reaction to people they perceive to be Muslim and I strongly believe that others, in a quest for power, use exploiting that fear for their own ends.
@woollenmillie — burying the Fact that people do react irrationally and fearfully to people they perceive to be Muslim and towards Islam, behind a smoke screen of words like ‘neologism’ while comparing and contrasting what parts of “islamophobia” are ‘logical’ and ‘fallacy’ doesn’t make it less of a reality.
Should one follow suit to this type of inflated, black & white dissection of ‘islamophobia’, one should also accept that Christian FUNDAMENTALISM and Islamic FUNDAMENTALISM are ‘dangerous ideologies’; ‘logical’ arguments exist to back up both ‘ideologies’.
See: Islam: A Concise Introduction – Huston Smith; Islam: A Short History – Karen Armstrong