Final Reflective Blog

The biggest thing i have taken away from this sociology class is the realization that “terrorism” is more than just a small band of extremists committing atrocious acts. It actually extends beyond a nations borders, and is often embedded in domestic and foreign policy. This itself is terrorism, yet many view “terrorism” as simply the aforementioned atrocious acts.

Throughout this semester, we’ve approached many aspects of this word “terrorism” in an effort to debunk it; debunking is itself another key concept taught. What is debunking? It is simply to remove preconceived stereotypes or prejudices in order to properly learn and take into account the real, factual matters of the particular topic. In order to do this, many stereotypes needed to be removed and the start of the semester was just that focus — to debunk stereotypes and ideas that existed in our heads.

There are many ways terrorism is committed that goes beyond the usual violent acts. Some extremist groups do not support such violent acts, and instead participate to the fullest extent of their democratic rights. These extremist groups are the polar opposites of the violent groups, that view democracy as a failure and deeply flawed, thus nothing will be achieved by participating in such activities. This is merely a brief and quick summary of two extremes in many societies to highlight the “terrorism” in one group, but the other as “non-terroristic”, even though both are extremists in their views.

If i had not taken this course, i would definitely still have held on to many of my preconceived ideas of terrorism. I would not have imagined it being so global, and taking on a butterfly effect, where one place would deeply impact the other in ways many could not have imagined at the time. Essentially, many of my thoughts entering this course were debunked, and i’ve left with a deeper and better understanding on what terrorism, socialization and globalization means, and to be even more conscious of how easily people can be influenced by everyday news. Debunking will definitely be put to good use to sort out the false from the truth.

 

Burka Woman:

This video was definitely a humorous one that touched on a subject that to this day, is still highly sensitive (in particular North America, post-9/11).
Post 9-11 era has placed the spotlight more on national security, and the Burka is the lightning rod in both America and Canada. Security agencies require people to produce identity for something as simple as voting, however women that wear Burka’s are not allowed to show their face except to their lovers, and also when outdoors. This obviously becomes a sticky issue, and not many people would care to discuss about it.
One interesting thing to note of the video is that the singer points out that even men within that culture have no idea the type of personality of the woman they are getting underneath that burka, and whatever they have access to that they can see, it makes them unhappy. Throughout the video, more sensitive subjects revolving around this issue is brought up, but because it is done so in a song and in a light-hearted humorous way, the point is sent across while having people chuckle without the huge political firestorm that normally ensues after raising subjects around the burka.

Chapter 6: Religious Terrorism

Post 9/11, extremists Islamic groups were claiming responsibility for the atrocious acts committed not just against the Americans on their land, but the countless other nationalities that suffered casualties from the world trade centers.Other islamic groups however, were trying to be vocal that the methods employed were not of Islam origin, nor was it supported by the religion.
This is simply the tip of the iceberg, and in this chapter we can see, based off historical events, that religion can create religious terrorist groups.
The most notable “terrorist” activity could be the various Christian Crusades that were launched over a span of 8 years during the medieval ages. The Catholic church, not protestants, were led by the Pope claiming that the holy land needed to be reclaimed. He then stated that those that died in the campaign would not have died in vain, but rather have achieved martyrdom. Initially this campaign started against the Muslims to reclaim their holy land. However midway through the 8 various campaigns, they turned their attention to those that were not of their same denomination within the same faith, and to the Jews. This led to a “witch hunt”, where loyal and innocent catholics were killed simply based off suspicion.
The other terrorist group, that has inspired a video game franchise, would be The Assassins (the video game being labelled as Assassin’s Creed). They were notorious for their stealthy assassination methods and were revolutionaries in their disguise and surprise killing methods. Crusader leaders would even pay tribute to this group so that they would not be killed during their sleep!
While these examples came from the middle ages, what happens today is easily traced back to the past. Religious terrorism usually starts from a small group of extremists that have an ulterior motive (like viewing the existing societal structure is deeply flawed and require a drastic change), or simply to make a point in order to ‘stand out’. So while people are thinking that terrorists groups are only something new in the last decade or two, we need to realize that throughout history there have been terroristic acts from state to state, religion to religion, etc.

Chapter 5 – terrorism by dissidents

This chapter refers specifically to when anti-state, anti-government groups form together to combat against government agencies. The first question viewing parties (meaning neither the government or the dissident group) would ask are questions such as “why do they do what they do”, or “does it justify their means, whatever methods they are using?”

Policy experts and academics drafted “three generalized categories of political action”, which are what anti-government groups tend to be categorized into. these categories are:
1) Revolutionary terrorism – the threat or use of political violence aimed at effecting complete revolutionary change
2) Sub-revolutionary terrorism – the threat or use of political violence aimed at effecting various changes in a particular political system (but not aimed at abolishing it)
3) Establishment terrorism – the threat or use of political violence by an estalished political system against internal or external opposition

These categories can be re-categorized into a simpler category of Revolutionary, Nihilist, and Nationalist dissident terrorism groups

The Revolutionary groups seek ultimately to destroy the existing order through armed conflict, and implement their idea of a “well-designed new society” if successful. It should be noted that they are not exactly attempting to completely remove the existing structure, but rather to build upon the rubble or remnants of the former society
The Nihilistic groups was based off a 19th-century Russian philosophical movement of young dissenters that had deep beliefs in scientific truth and that it could end ignorance; on the flip side, they believed that it was religion, any nationalism propaganda, and traditional values (meaning cultural and social practices) are the causes of ignorance, which to them translated over to why the existing structure has created the problems that they dislike. Unlike the revolutionary groups however, they have no idea on what happens after they topple the existing societal structure.
The last group are the Nationalists, and they think that they are the champions of the disenfranchised. They have no intention of removing the structures, but rather key participants within the government.

After reading this chapter, it seems very possible for many groups to form, but assuming they manage to successfully topple the existing structure, they seem to have nothing concrete to implement. So ultimately, the society they inherit and control will no doubt be worse than before the government was toppled.

Chapter 4 – terrorism by state

When the word “terrorism” is mentioned, the popular thinking is that it refers specifically to rogue groups that simply dislike the existing social and governmental structure, and would resort to any means necessary to combat the status quo.
Not many realize that the states, and government agencies, are occasionally formed and utilised to carry out terroristic acts. There are 3 types of terrorism that the state can participate in, and they are to

1)      Engage in warfare: the states military force is the tool being used against a declared enemy group, whether it is significant or not to use such a large military tool

2)      Genocide: the elimination of a specific group of people, and these people are usually the scapegoats to cover the deeper purpose of the state. Scapegoat groups are usually portrayed as the enemy.

3)      Assassination: selective high ranking members of opposing or enemy group designated for elimination.

There are even other less significant methods of terrorism a state can employ, such as kidnapping and torture. These are usually used to obtain key information from key personnel’s, or to deliver a message of fear and intimidation.
In order to engage in any of the above mentioned acts however, states created foreign and domestic policies that “declare their intentions”, so that if anyone foreign or domestic were to counter or oppose this policy, they are labelled as an opponent and can potentially face a confrontation. The problem here is not because of the policy forged together, but rather that it does not take into account of the opinion of what the other parties potentially involved. An interesting thing to note from this chapter is the excuses that state agencies or governments use to justify their actions against the “enemy”

-          They accept that the group had to use terrorism as a necessary tactic

-          The group deny that what occurred should be classified as terroristic

-          A denial of terroristic activity by the military or other agency tools

-          Finally the state issues a blanket moralistic condemnation of all violence as purely collateral and unfortunate

It seems fitting at this point to mention that the United States government had utilised all four of these excuses against the Taliban and the framework to why they needed to invade Iraq.

Nickel and Dimed

This video is focused on the low-income bracket in America (and perhaps even Canada too), and how people struggle to make ends meet which usually involves the same person holding 2-3 part-time jobs that are tedious in nature, with minimal pay.
Income disparity in Canada and America is growing at a steady rate, with the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. Those in the middle are eventually polarized enough that they too will become either in the poor bracket, or the rich bracket.
Obviously the issue raised in this video has to be social justice – how is it fair for someone to work nearly 18hours a day at minimal wage, return home for a few hours rest without seeing his/her family, only to arise and resume this routine? Try it for years. This issue will only get worse, and at the end of the video, the reporter declares that “someday, low-wage workers will rise up and demand to be treated fairly, and when that day comes everyone will be better off.”
Occupy Vancouver, Occupy ___city___ anyone? Seems like this video was prophetic.

Just the tip of the iceberg

So after weeks of reading various textbooks, watching countless video clips, having class discussions, and now embarking on the first round of ground presentations, what is terrorism? what is social justice? Are they intertwined or mutually exclusive?

Terrorism, after September 9/11, is the latest political football to be punted around senates and parliaments whenever funding needs to be raised. I would venture to say that while Canada doesn’t use the word “terrorism” as loosely as our American counter-parts, we do use the word “crime” just as often.

So with all the use and bells and whistles that are associated with the word “terrorism”, or “terrorists”, or “acts of terrorism”, what exactly is “terrorism” ?  The extremely simple and common thinking is that “terrorism” is the act of instilling fear or panic with violence, against the population or government. This, however, does not seem to really cover what terrorism really is. After weeks of reading various textbooks, terrorism is in-fact a very complex subject, and cannot be explained in a sentence or two. This is no different than trying to explain the origins of crime — in order to fully understand this, a lot of thought and research needs to be done.

There are many forms and degrees of terrorism. What could be non-terrorist acts initially, could suddenly become terrorist acts. What causes this sudden change? A quick look at how the Taliban went from covertly helping the Americans fight off Russians in Afghanistan not too long ago would be viewed as a guerrilla group funded and supported by the Americans. After things broke down between the two sides, things became sour and nasty, and the crisis of 9/11 occurred. The Taliban were now then labelled as terrorists. A lot of it has to do with societal ideas and way of thinking. Going even further back to the Industrial Age in Britain, organized groups trying to sabotage machines and employers in order to decrease the harsh working conditions were the start of terrorist acts. However many viewed groups like that as “liberators”.

Groups that go against it are labelled intially as perhaps fanatics, or “die-hards”, “hardcore”, etc. They may still participate in democratic demonstrations. Now the extremists are a whole new story themselves. These are the real extreme left or right wing people, that believe that without the use of violence, they will not succeed in their goal; these goals can be either to change the social way of thinking, cultural reforms,skewed religion beliefs, or against the government that they think was oppressing them.

In the following weeks, group presentations will be taking place, and perhaps more light will be shed on this topic. Similar to how there is no simple way to answer the origins of crime, there will not be a short, easy, sweet way of describing terrorism.