On June 18th Dylann Roof shot 9 people in a black church in Charleston. Upon hearing this news I was absolutely disgusted. This racially motivated attack drew many questions to my head. How could someone carry out such a depraved attack on innocent people in a place of worship? Why does America still have legislature that allows these kind of mass shootings? Why does America still have such an issue with racism? But my main question following this attack is: why isn't Dylann Roof considered a terrorist?
With some thought and reading about this event, I have noticed that the issue is not just America's racist attitudes, but its sheer ignorance to emphasise the white man is guilty for his crimes. The press hardly ever feels the need to clarify ethnicity in an attack by a white man, but as soon as a black person is involved in an attack it is imperative to clarify he is black. It is also imperative to question the leadership of the "black community", and malign the "black community", thus accentuating racist attitudes. Not only do they draw attention to the guilty party's ethnicity, they use adjectives such as "thugs" "animalstic" and "wild". This obvious racism occurs even if the black man is the victim. For example: Mike Brown, shot dead in Ferguson by police, was referred to as "no angel" because he smoked, drank and - now this is the best bit - rapped. Why is this behaviour acceptable?
Why is the same not said for white perpetrators? The "white community" is never brought under the mass media microscope. No, instead we are offered excuses and consolations for the white criminal. Apparently, Dylann Roof had become a loner in recent years! Oh no, poor him! Roof as also been described as "quiet and soft-spoken"! That's absolutely fine then! They also feel the need also to inform us that Dylann Roof "went over the edge when a girl he liked started dating a black guy". Damn. Go on, let him free guys, that's fair enough. Amongst all these pitiful consollations, absolutely nowhere do we see him branded a terrorist. Why is this? Do we need to clarify the definition of terrorist?
Ah no, Dylann was just a quiet, loner with girl troubles, I guess that means he isn't a terrorist, fair enough... Wait... What's this? "Roof's roommate Dalton Tyler has said 'he was big on segregation, and wanted to start a civil war'". Here we see concrete evidence that Dylann Roof is in fact a terrorist - so why is it not being reported this way? Imagine if a Muslim had committed the crime Dylann Roof just has, would they be treated the same way? I highly doubt it. Mass Islamophobia would be rife. Religious leaders would be called into question, their whole religion vilified and scrutinised.
This kind of behaviour is just unacceptable in today's supposed "developed" world. The media must, refer to Dylann Roof, and others as what they truly are - terrorists. Mainstream news circuits, newspapers, magazines and blogs hold such a strong position of influence today, and if we are being exposed to such blatant and obscene dsicrimination, people will carry on thinking that this is an acceptable way to carry on. White media privilege must be stopped.
No comments:
Post a Comment