In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

White supremacist murders nine people at Emanuel AME Church in an act of terrorism

On Wednesday, a shooter entered Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, and killed nine people during a weekly Bible study. Emanuel, like so many other black churches, has been the target of racial violence in the past — most famously, it was burned to the ground in 1822 in retribution for a planned slave revolt — and no matter what people might like to convince themselves, it was again this week. It wasn’t about religion, it wasn’t about politics. It wasn’t, to any extent that authorities can determine, about any one individual. It was about hatred. The alleged killer, known and open white supremacist Dylann Roof, sat with his victims for an hour that night in Bible study, and then stood up and opened fire, saying to one man, “No, you’ve raped our women, and you are taking over the country … I have to do what I have to do.” And then killed him.

That was Tywanza Sanders, a recent Allen University graduate who jumped in front of his aunt, Susie Jackson, to shield her when the shooting started. They both died alongside the Rev. Clementa Pinckney, senior pastor at Emanuel and a South Carolina state senator; Emanuel pastors Rev. Daniel Simmons and Myra Thompson; high school girls track coach Sharon Coleman-Singleton; public library employee Cynthia Hurd; longtime church member Ethel Lance; and retired community program development director Depayne Middleton Doctor. Those are not the only victims at “Mother Emanuel” — families mourn, and a community will never be the same — but they’re the ones who were killed.

In the Washington Post, Anthea Butler writes about the media’s treatment of the shooting, and others like it, not as an act of terrorism but as the action of one tragic figure. (“We don’t know his mental condition,” one MSNBC anchor pointed out, and he was found with a pill bottle possibly filled with a drug used to treat opiate addiction, so of course we have to give him that, and how many other outs can we find to make him soft and sympathetic? Let’s workshop.) Senator Lindsey Graham dismissed Roof as “just one of those whacked-out kids,” just a “young man who was obviously twisted.” White supremacists took to the Internet yesterday hoping that the killings weren’t motivated by race but by religion or anything else, so there you go, deniers, you’re in good company. (The link goes safely to the Huffington Post, but trigger warning there for GAAAAH.)

Dylann Roof might well have had a mental illness. (We don’t know for sure one way or the other, but of course we’re going to give him the benefit of the doubt, because it’s much easier to demonize people with mental illnesses than to accept that sane people do evil things.) Plenty of people do and still manage to not post hatred on Facebook, terrorize communities, and take lives. For that matter, we know that the vast majority of people who commit violence don’t have mental illnesses, and people with mental illnesses are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators.

And for that matter, society rarely if ever speculates about the mental health of dark-skinned terrorists who commit atrocities within the U.S. They’re just terrorists. They’re straight-up evil. They belong to a hateful religion, they’re enemy combatants, they hate us for our freedoms. White people die in terrorist attacks and at the hands of “thugs,” and brown people die in “parking disputes,” and tragedies. They die in “unfathomable” acts.

Dylann Roof was a terrorist. He was a white supremacist. He told the police that he went to Emanuel that day to start a race war. He planned his attack at length, purchased his weapon, and sat quietly for an hour before attacking, reloading five times as he did. As he was leaving the church, he asked one of the three survivors if he’d shot her, and when she said no, he said, “I’m not going to kill you, I’m going to spare you, so you can tell them what happened.” In an AME church, 193 years and one day after the planned Vesey slave revolt, 150 years minus two days after Juneteenth, as the Confederate flag flew over the South Carolina state house, Dylann Roof killed nine people who had welcomed him into their church not just because he hated their skin but because he hated the people to which they belonged. It was a hate crime intended to leave a community, a whole country, in a state of terror. And yes, it was absolutely a tragedy, but it’s a tragedy with far deeper meaning than just one whacked-out kid of indeterminate mental state.


32 thoughts on White supremacist murders nine people at Emanuel AME Church in an act of terrorism

  1. I didn’t watch the news right when it happened, but I’m hopeful that the media has gotten better about calling this terrorism. This CNN article has the following line:

    By telling authorities his aim, Roof admitted he attacked unarmed civilians for political purposes in an act of terror.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting-main/index.html

    It’s clumsy wording for sure, but I’m glad they’re open about it being terrorism.

    1. Some media outlets are doing better.. others are failing in an epic manner.

      The Toronto Star tweeted that ‘Motive was still unclear’ and the National Post unwisely decided that maybe it would be clever to hashtag an Instagram post about the shooting with #nevertrustabowlcut (the National Post has pretty much always been garbage). It looks like both have since been removed.

      But seriously? It’s like a rerun of Eliot Rodgers, only this time instead of the murderer saying ‘Because, women’ he’s pretty much said ‘Because, Black people’ and yet the media is still acting like his motivation is a big fuckin’ mystery.

  2. Even the POTUS, strangely, quick to distance this from “racial” or “terrorism”, and has, instead, blamed it on the availability of guns, and lack of gun control.

    “We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that, once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun.”

    1. Agree re: his failure to call out anti-black racism, but he’s not wrong re: the second part.

  3. “Dylann Roof was a terrorist. He was a white supremacist.”

    Correction; he IS a terrorist and white supremacist. Hopefully we can soon say he was after he is executed for murder.

    1. He won’t face execution if he is prosecuted federally, and that looks to be a serious possibility.

      1. South Carolina has the death penalty and hopefully it will be used for this piece of garbage.

  4. Except for the Fox News types (who are actually claiming that this was part of the “war on Christianity,” because I guess the guy just picked a random church that just happened to have black people, and he didn’t even notice what color they were), most of the media commentary I’ve seen have been definitive about calling this what it was: both a hate crime and an act of political terrorism; a mass murder for political ends, specifically intended to terrorize black people and lead to a “race war.” No different from murdering Jews in a kosher supermarket in Paris; no different from the Tsarnaev brothers. And no, the fact that he seems to have “acted alone” shouldn’t make a difference.

    1. “Apparently he is a longtime racist wearing anti-black patches on his clothing. Those who know him say he often made racist statements about African-Americans. This is no different than what ISIS and Al Qaeda does targeting civilians because of who they are. In this case, skin color seems to be the motivator. This is not a tragedy. This is an execution designed to terrorize people just like the Boston Marathon bombing and the mass murder at Fort Hood, Texas.”

      -Bill O’Reilly

      How fucking weird is it that Bill O’Reilly seems to be the most reasonable person at FOX News these days? I mean, that’s not much of an endorsement, giving his competition, but I remember when he was still by far the most out-there pundit on the network; he hasn’t gotten any better, but the rest of FOX seems to have overtaken him in the hunt for every last old, racist, terrified 65+ white viewer.

      1. Even broken watches are right twice a day. I remember when Glenn Beck made some comment about how we need to read people their Miranda Rights.

  5. I’m having trouble distinguishing between terrorism and hate crimes. They can’t be synonyms, right? Does the difference matter? I’ve always heard that terrorism is violence in pursuit of a (usually) political aim. Caperton says this wasn’t about politics. If so, does that mean it wasn’t terrorism (though still obviously a racist hate crime)? I’ve always seen terrorism as the pursuit of some ideology. But if that ideology is racism, is it still terrorism or does it fall only into the hate crime category?

    1. Nonprecise but useful definitions:

      Terrorism is the tactic of committing violence against civilians to achieve political ends, especially by inspiring fear/panic in the civilian population as a whole. You can find plenty more specific definitions as well, most of which are broadly similar but differ in the details.

      A hate crime is any violent crime in which the victim is selected on the basis of their membership in a larger sociopolitical group, as opposed to other factors such as a personal grudge, opportunity, possessing something the criminal wants.

      A terrorist hate crime is absolutely possible; for example, much of the KKK’s violence was both a) intended to achieve political ends by terrorizing black communities and b) targeted against people specifically because they were black, as opposed to some other proximate factor.

      This attack was both a hate crime (because he was targeting his victims on account of their blackness) and a terrorist act (because he intended his attack to serve broader political goals, specifically the start of a race war).

      1. “Terrorism is the tactic of committing violence against civilians to achieve political end”

        Presumably you meant to add ‘by a non-state actor’? It’d be odd to consider the Dambusters raid terrorism.

      2. I think the distinction that disqualifies the Dambuster raid is that it wasn’t ended to effect political change through fear of more violence/symbolism; it was intended to damage a military target (specifically, munitions factories), though that target was full of civilians. States can absolutely carry out terrorist attacks; for example, the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior by the DGSE, the Libyan bombings in the 80s, or the Mossad’s plan to bomb Egyptian/British movie theaters and pin it on Egyptian revolutionaries are all frequently referred to as terrorim.

        Perhaps “outside of wartime” would be a better qualifier? Or “not committed by uniformed armed services?” Because the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki *were* intended to cause political action due to fear, and aren’t commonly thought of as terrorism.

        Both are a bit tautological, but it’s obviously a purely semantic distinction in the end anyways.

      3. I don’t know what you mean by not “commonly” considered terrorism, but if the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren’t considered terrorism, then the term “terrorism” basically just has no meaning.

        It’s also interesting that your examples don’t include any actions by the United States, which is the largest perpetrator and sponsor of terrorism in the world.

      4. I don’t know what you mean by not “commonly” considered terrorism, but if the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren’t considered terrorism, then the term “terrorism” basically just has no meaning.

        Sure it does. A few possible such meaning are discussed right in this thread. Did you skip all the posts directly above yours?

        It’s also interesting that your examples don’t include any actions by the United States, which is the largest perpetrator and sponsor of terrorism in the world.

        Tim. Tim. That depends on the definition of terrorism, which the subject of this very discussion.

        Worth noting, by the way, that probably the shittiest potential definition is ‘any act of violence I want to call especially bad or evil.’

      5. When terrorism was covered in one of my university political science classes, a distinction was made between insurgent terrorism and repressive terrorism. Loosely defined, the former is meant to challenge the status quo and bring about radical change while the latter is meant to intimidate and preserve the status quo. Actions Dylan Roof, and of the KKK as well as other hate groups qualify under this definition and for that matter, so do many actions of the state and it’s armed thugs – cops and the military. Too bad most people don’t seem to recognize that for what it is.

      6. That would mean most rapes are repressive terrorist hate crimes. Interesting.

        Concerning the racist terrorist hate crime discussed here, I would say it is repressive, too, as racism is very much alive. Like MRAs, I think the terrorist just thinks he wants society to change; he actually wants it to stay mostly the same, and maybe make some steps backwards.

    2. Oh, and I when think Caperton said ‘it wasn’t about politics’ she meant the churchgoers weren’t targeted because of their political views; rather they were targeted for being black.

      Obviously it’s about politics in the broader sense.

      1. Thanks.

        I think of terrorism and hate crimes in like a Venn diagram. I think it might be harder to see the political aims with this (at least, I had/am having trouble with it…not saying it’s not there), so I was worried that the two were getting conflated. I think I’m having trouble thinking of “racist sack of poop” as a political ideology. There might be more to his opinion, but I’m already close to vomiting, so perhaps I’ll look into it more later.

      2. Emily:

        His goal was more than just being a “racist sack of poop”. That is to say he actually had a goal of inciting cascading racial violence.

  6. Surprise. The judge at the bond hearing is a blatant racist, and said that the real victims are the gunman’s family.

  7. I have a 9/11 kind of feeling, just want to show all my fellow Americans love and solidarity. But this time the violence came from within and this infected sore won’t be fixed with a bandaid.

  8. Shortly after Dylann Roof was arrested, the police bought him food from Burger King. This is what a white man gets after admitting to murdering 9 Black people.

    And yet what happens to a Black mother asking her kids to come back to her and leave a public pool because white people didn’t feel comfortable with them being around? She and her kids get harassed and brutalized by white cops and a “concerned” white citizen who helps the cops tackle and push the family members to the ground.

    Police racism and hypocrisy are so damn obvious, and yet whites still want to glorify themselves for “not seeing race.” Fucking disgusting.

    1. and yet whites still want to glorify themselves for “not seeing race.” Fucking disgusting.

      Yeah. “Not seeing race,” well, I have a lot of rage for that. I read an interesting article recently about how a lot of parents won’t talk to their kids about race in the hopes that their children will then “not see race” and not be racist. But it backfires because kids aren’t blind and they don’t know how to understand it. They create categories, and in-group favoritism is part of development, so kids draw their own conclusions. Which turn out to be racist. Parents need to talk to their kids about race.

      My sister’s husband said his kids don’t see race. I rolled my eyes. We were at a birthday party once, and a little boy needed help going to the toilet, so my nephew tried to find the little boy’s mommy. But he couldn’t because the little boy was brown and there were no brown mommies. Yeah, my nephew sees race. That doesn’t make him a racist. He just needs to learn what to do with his vision that is clearly better than his parents’.

    2. Shortly after Dylann Roof was arrested, the police bought him food from Burger King.

      I would have thought this qualifies as ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’

    3. I’m actually OK with feeding prisoners. Even the ones who committed really horrible crimes.

    4. Shortly after Dylann Roof was arrested, the police bought him food from Burger King.

      As I’ve said elsewhere, if I were a suspect and was offered Burger King, I’d say “So you’re the bad cop!”

      Seriously, I wouldn’t take that to mean much; it sounds like a common cop tactic, but used to the good this time: The shooter is much more likely to make a confession if he thinks he’s being treated right.

Comments are currently closed.