By Sosamma Samuel-Burnett, J.D.
Founder & President, G.L.O.B.A.L Justice
The shooting of nine parishioners during a church service in Charleston, South Carolina has brought both deep sadness and anger to our nation. Many have watched the community, particularly the Church community, come together in solidarity and forgiveness even in the face of racial hatred that sparked the killings. Others have become incensed about the killer’s actions and motivations, prompting questions on why this is not considered terrorism. Still others are determined to remove the Confederate flag from South Carolina in response to the tragedy. These responses and others to the horrific events in Charleston touch sharply on some of the most difficult topics in our country and worldwide – racism, terrorism, and nationalism. These terms are not only supercharged with meaning and impact, but also with misinterpretation and misapplication.
Racism in its most basic sense is when any particular race is considered inferior to another race. Racism may result in dislike, disrespect, and discrimination against another race. But every disparity and every disrespect cannot be attributed to racism since factors beyond race may also be determinants. However, racism unfettered can lead to supremacist attitudes, hatred, and even violence. In the case of the young man who shot and killed nine people who were worshipping in their church in Charleston, his racist perspectives led to an idea of White supremacy that fueled hatred and violence against his Black victims. How his perspectives on race were shaped is not completely clear, but where it led him is disturbing. While not every racist, nor every supremacist, will necessarily be violent — when racism is left to fester with psychosis, it can and does take on an even more destructive form.
Terrorism, while also destructive, is distinct from racism. Racism can certainly be a motivator for terrorism – but racial violence is not generally the same thing as terrorism. Violence, in any form and against any one for any reason, is not automatically terrorism. If someone is killed on the basis of race, that is a hate crime. But terrorism is more than a hate crime. It is a political crime – it is intended to be public and for a political purpose. Some hate crimes may rise to that level, but most are not motivated by public or political purpose – rather they are deeply personal. The violence inflicted is not generally for a broader purpose, but motivated by individual perspective, hate, psychosis. The attempt to address hate crimes becomes considerably muddled when we try to misapply the label of terrorism unless warranted.
The debate over the Confederate flag is really about a certain form of nationalism (or more precisely, regionalism). Nationalism, in its modern form, started with the French Revolution and spread throughout the world – and continues today in specific nations and in specific regions. Unlike patriotism, that upholds a love of country or region, nationalism shifts toward the idea of supremacy. A nation (or region) believes that it is not just great, but greater than others. Nationalism is at the center of Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Soviet Russia, and a similar kind of regionalism is at the center of the American South’s Confederacy. While these countries and regions are distinguishable from one another, the connection to nationalism/regionalism usually starts with a sense of being downtrodden and wanting to regain or maintain a higher status. Nationalism/regionalism raises such nations/regions from a defeated perspective to one of unmerited supremacy. That sense of nationalism is what is at the core of the Confederate South’s history. And, the Confederate flag became a symbol of nationalism for a region that was experiencing a cultural, social, and political defeat in the context of the Civil War. And like other symbols of nationalism/regionalism, it is enmeshed in societal anathemas, including racism. As such, the Confederate flag should be replaced by the national flag that represents the broader principles of the union rather than the region.
In light of these concepts of racism, terrorism, and nationalism, the South Carolina shootings also raise another reality – the impact of violence by an individual. The South Carolina shootings were the result of a disturbed individual whose racist and supremacist perspectives fueled his violence toward a group of innocent people. The event itself, like other mass shootings, is the result of an individual’s issues and an individual’s actions. But because of the gravity of the event, it raises societal consciousness. It opens the broader community up to these same issues and actions. This is why nationally we are discussing racism, violence, and other related topics. But while both the dialogue and responses are important, we also need to caution ourselves against transposing the gravity of the individual’s actions and perspective too lightly or too heavily onto the community.
Although there is no question that the shootings in Charleston were racially motivated, we should not interpret the event as indicative of nationwide racism. We certainly have racial concerns in the U.S., and we certainly have racists in the U.S., but one individual’s psychosis does not and should not denigrate the broader efforts in our country and among many individuals for racial understanding and reconciliation. We cannot point to an incident, even one as severe as this one, to highlight community wide racism. And in a media driven culture, we are seeing only what the media shows us – which can also give us a skewed perspective of what is wrong and what is right in America based on the events that are featured.
And, while there are some that want to call the violence in Charleston terrorism, they are missing the significance of both hate crimes and terrorism. It is important to distinguish between these types of crimes (though sometimes difficult to do) just as it is important to distinguish types of punishments – each is for a specific purpose and with a specific end. Every time an individual does a violent act, we cannot automatically assume that it is also a political act. But we do need to be aware of patterns, pervasiveness, and severity as it relates to issues like terrorism and racism, and respond accordingly.
Lastly, although the Confederate flag should be removed as a vestige of historical and even present day racism, its removal is not nearly as significant as addressing the broader issues of racism and racial division within our country or any country. Like the flag itself, the flag’s removal is symbolic, but does not end the concerns about race relations. The discussion and solutions need to continue and expand beyond the symbolic.
What we need to take away most from the events in Charleston is that there is a constant battle for our hearts and minds. Every salient event that raises salient issues affects our understanding and our interpretation of issues such as racism, terrorism, and nationalism. While the images and the story lines impact how we see and feel about the issues, we must understand these concerns beyond the superficial. Our hearts and minds should not be moved to deepening divisions but be motivated to create reconciliation. That is the spirit in which the Church in Charleston moves forward to not only grieve those they have lost, but to forgive the perpetrator, and perhaps even inspire the society to justice and peace.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not imply endorsement by G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice. We are a faith-based, nonpartisan organization that seeks to extend the conversation about justice with a posture of dignity and respect.