Malcolm Steele is a junior
education studies major from
Chicago, Illimois.
SAM CARAVANA / THE DEPAUW
German co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, according to authorities, “intentionally” crashed Germanwings’ Flight 9525 into the French Alps on Tuesday March 24th and killed 149 others on board. There have been multiple investigations and news coverage to try to understand the motive behind Lubitz’s actions. Much of the investigations focused on Lubitz medical history, upbringing and current lifestyle. Reports show in 2009 Lubitz was diagnosed with severe depression and anxiety. Police officers state that Lubitz had a doctor’s note stating he was in no condition to work, even on the day of the crash. Medical records state Lubitz had suicidal thoughts and required psychotherapy.
Much of the media about the crash of Flight 9525 tries to rationalize the actions of Lubitz and explains why and how it happened. During the plane crash on Sept. 11, 2001 that wasn’t the case. The media burst with terrorist headlines and bashing of the Islamic and Muslim religion. Now when you hear the word terrorist in our national media conversation, you usually hear the words Islamic and Muslim right before it. Rarely do you hear the word associated with a white person when they commit a horrible and catastrophic act of violence.
The book, "Politics of Terror" provides several definitions of terrorism as; 1. Acts of serious deliberate violence or destruction. 2. A part of a campaign to promote a political or social agenda. 3. The targeting of limited numbers of people with the aim to influence a larger group and/or the leaders who make decisions for the group. 4. An act that either kills or injures innocent people or pose a serious threat of such harms to innocent people. The major differences within the various definitions are the statements of intent and the indiscriminate nature of the strategies used.
If the label of terrorist isn’t based on the direct act itself, is the label based on the intentions of the act? Is it based on the collateral damage that ensues from the act? Does the issue of intention make the valid distinction between the scenarios raised earlier? Many people believe Lubitz's actions do not constitute an act of terrorism because there was no political, religious or economic motivation behind it. Others believe it was because he deliberately intended to kill a large number of people.
Intent seems to be embedded in the definition of terror, which includes the objective to coerce or intimidate one into compliance or acquiescence. The definition itself begs the question, what about America? Would it be unreasonable to say that America is a terrorist country? America has a long history of participation in wars and conflicts to safeguard its own interests. If we use the third definition of terror then technically America could be classified as a terrorist country. Would 9/11 now become a backlash for the use of war to influence political agendas, as we have done in the Middle Eastern countries?
Is the term “terrorist” used for people who you oppose or people that are a threat? Is it a pernicious label designed to repress "freedom of thought, speech, religion, including the freedom to oppose us" (Davies, 2004)? Is the negative label designed to deny them psychological, emotional, cultural or intellectual integrity (Davies, 2004)? Is it the framework of intimidation designed to ensnare anyone we perceive to be a threat to our interests, widely defined? Even so, how would a TSA person be able to know who is or is not a threat? Lubitz was clearly a threat but nobody looked at him. This raises the issue of the caricatured profile, which is another discussion.
While the debate is still in the air of what terrorism is; it can be agreed that the term is ethnically skewed to non-whites and to Middle Eastern religious groups in particular. If we think about the term terrorism and its disassociation to whiteness, we will understand the powerful dynamic implications of the label. White terrorists are just misguided sick people and like white drug addicts, they need rehab. Non-white terrorists go to Guantanamo or some unknown prison destination. So are we are left in definitional space fraught with racist, xenophobic undertones? What about Indiana and Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act—another pernicious label. Another act of terrorism?