“New York white youth were killing victims; that was a ‘sociological’ problem. But when black youth killed somebody, the power structure was looking to hang somebody.”
~ Malcolm X
A white man, Dylann Roof, aged 21, on the 17th of June at 9.00pm rampaged into a historic African-American Church in Charleston, South Carolina and committed a terrorist attack, shooting dead nine congregants and leaving a woman behind to “tell his story”.
This does seem like a case of rinse and repeat on my part when it comes to writing about such horrific incidents. When one witnessed the reporting of the killing of three Muslims by a white atheist at Chapel Hill, and compares them to say, the Charlie Hebdo shooting, or the attempted shooting of UK-banned hate preacher Pamella Geller more recently, there is a consistent disparity in the categorisation and language of the assailants. This disparity trend is an entrenched one in Western State structures and the complicit media.
There are determinate conclusions which can be derived from the above. The first is that when a Muslim commits a violent attack, the word “terrorism” is almost invariably used somewhere in the context of the reporting. When a white, non-Muslim individual engages in a similar act, with ideological motivations, the crime is rapidly disseminated in a depoliticised construction. Most papers reported the shooting as a “hate crime” devoid of ideological motivations. Mayor Riley called it a “horrible act”, and Police Chief Mullen pronounced it a “hate crime” from the outset. A large spectrum of the media engaged in the same. The following papers in the UK, at the time of writing, had not a single reference to the terms “terrorism”, “terrorist”, or “radical” in them: