In this op-ed, writer Lara Witt explores why media coverage of the Austin bomber has focused on his troubled past while neglecting to call him a terrorist.
I call Mark Anthony Conditt a terrorist. The 23-year-old white, male bomber left packages on the porches of homes in historically African-American and Mexican-American neighborhoods in Austin, Texas. The first two bombs killed Anthony Stephan House, 39, on March 2 and Draylen Mason, 17, on March 12. Draylen’s mother, Shamika Wilson, was injured in the explosion that killed her son. The same day Draylen was murdered, Esperanza Herrera found the third package bomb, which left her severely wounded, The New York Times reported. Despite locals voicing their fears that the bombings were racially-motivated and aimed at well-known black families in the area, the Austin Police Department was hesitant to investigate them as hate crimes, especially given that a fourth bomb blew up on March 18 in a predominantly wealthy, white neighborhood in southwest Austin and injured two white men, and a fifth bomb exploded on March 20 at a FedEx facility, injuring an employee before a sixth bomb was discovered at another FedEx facility.
Following the investigation and revelation of the perpetrator of these crimes, it has been shocking to read some of the statements made both by the local law enforcement and government. Chief Brian Manley of the Austin PD described the bomber’s 25-minute video about his bomb-making as the “the outcry of a very challenged young man talking about challenges in his personal life that led him to this point.” What seems abundantly clear is that white men can terrorize entire cities, shoot up schools, or gun down dozens of people at a concert and still get the benefit of the doubt. They get the benefit of post-crime profiles dedicated to unearthing their personalities with reporters and acquaintances labeling them as challenged loners who were pretty quiet and raised in good Christian homes. The Austin bomber already got this treatment courtesy of The New York Times.
The New York Times tweeted one of its articles about how the authorities investigated the bombings and the bomber with the lead quote: “The Austin bombing suspect was a quiet, 'nerdy' young man who came from a ‘tight-knit, godly family,’ said Donna Sebastian Harp, who had known the family for nearly 18 years.” While this may seem innocuous on its own, it’s crucial to remember that black and brown people simply aren’t treated the same way. As people of color — especially Muslim people, South Asians, and Middle Eastern folks — know all too well, it is rare when reporters attempt to garner gentle quotes from aunts and neighbors illustrating one of us as a “troubled loner” or “quiet, nerdy” person. Black and brown people are thugs and terrorists. No one asks if we are “challenged”.
The Austin bomber, a person who spent time learning about how to build weapons of mass terror, then planted them over 19 days in various locations, and calculated the ways in which he could and would murder people, was gifted humanity for his inhumane crimes. He was described by The New York Times as a person who “grew up as the quiet, socially awkward oldest child of a devout Christian family that held Bible study groups in their white clapboard house, where an American flag hangs from the porch.” He was not described as a suicide bomber, finally cornered by the police.
There is no such lenience for black and brown people. Black people in the United States get killed by the police for holding a cell phone in their backyard. Black teens get killed for walking back home and The New York Times writes that they were suspended from school for having pot. They get killed by a police officer who called them a “demon” and get described as “no angel” despite the fact that they were the victims. Even in death, they are vilified. Even in death, a racist smear campaign works overtime against them.
Authorities and journalists are scurrying around trying to avoid calling the bomber a terrorist based on the fact that he didn’t leave any messages describing why he targeted the people he did, but in the meantime the entirety of Austin was gripped by terror and families lost people they love. I know it is no mistake when people choose the quotes that they choose, it is no mistake to prioritize certain statements over others, and it is never accidental when they rely on naming murderers as troubled or lonely. While families mourn, entire industries fail to address the fact that there is a very real problem with white supremacy and toxic masculinity and that both of these can result in terrorism. The U.S. Office of Government Accountability reported in April 2017 that, since September 11, 2001, “far right wing violent extremist groups” are responsible for 73% of violent extremist incidents.
We have a responsibility to look at why we choose particular words to describe certain people; our inherent biases are just that: inherent. Cisgender, heterosexual, white men are the most privileged group in the U.S. They not only hold the most economic and political power, but also the way that we are socialized to describe them with certain words, and the way that we excuse their violence, is part of a long, historical foundation that defends white maleness as the epitome of humanity, and anyone who deviates from that bears the burden of the flaws of humanity.
Our language matters. Our words have the potential to shift how we perceive racism and other forms of oppression in this country. If we attribute the severity of the crimes committed to the people who committed them — if we treat black and brown victims with the same humanity that we treat their killers — then perhaps we can begin to heal. The Austin bomber was a terrorist and he deserves to be described with all the words that match the gravity of his crimes. We owe that to his victims and their families, and ultimately we owe that to ourselves and our future.
Related: How Terrorism is Defined by the United States Government
Check this out:
