Kevin's Blog #4, 4/20

For the article “Terror and Abolition”, it is really something I have never heard about. In my experience and previous knowledge, I would consider all the “terrorism” as bad things which need to be eliminated, without thinking twice. However, now I start to think more about the reality and essence about those official terrorism.


Consider of the definition of “terrorism”, which means an individual or a group uses violence, threat, or speech to achieve certain goals, they are supposed to be rejected and disrupted by the government for the safety issue. However, what if some people with leaderships also use the word “terrorism” as a convenient solution for some aggressive non-government organization? For example, in that article, the author points out the abuse of naming other people terrorists even though they didn’t harm anyone. This author Atiya Husain mainly expresses the potential relationship between racism and the public cognition of terrorism, which I think it totally makes sense. But I would like to talk about the abuse of that term in some arbitrary country. 


I would like just to take my home country China as a clear example. As we know, there is no NGO allowed in Chinese society at all. No matter who they are and what their purposes are, they will be eliminated by the Chinese government anyways. As long as someone is expressing some different ideas from the central government’s ideology publicly (especially when they have some influence publicly), probably currently the policy towards the Covid pandemic in China, someone might get caught by police because of that. However, those governors won’t announce that this person gets punished due to his or her speech. They will use some “excuses” to justify their actions and then keep their public trust. Those excuses can involve lots of negative terms, such as terrorism. Not only Chinese governments, but all those arbitrary governments will utilize news media to announce that the person who get caught is “blablabla”, probably terrorist, and then normal people will react in the way as they want. Because the word like “terrorism” and “anti-party elements” are too harsh for ordinary people to hear. Even if the person who gets caught didn’t even say something dangerous or religiously threatening, no one will listen to him anymore because of the tag the government gave him. 


I really love a sentence from that article: “But are we safe right now? Do we feel that we are safe surrounded by prisons, police, and preemptive antri-terrorism and policing measures?”(Reference 1) If someone with leadership would like to confuse the definition of some vital words, then how dare they say they can give their civilians a safe world? 



Reference:

  1. Terror and Abolition - Boston Review

Comments

  1. Kameron SchrefflerApril 25, 2022 at 10:53 AM

    I think your paper is great, and you have a fantastic take and connection to this article. Your article helped me realize the role that the media plays in creating "terrorism". If the government and media decide to portray something as "terrorism" the community will follow this connotation, and not question the government or media. I feel that this is a deeper laying issue of how the media frames everything.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CiaraApril 25, 2022 at 11:35 AM

    Kevin, I think you brought up a lot of great points and shifted some of the views I have on terrorism and what the population thinks of terrorism. People are easily influenced by the media and a lot of the time, people do not take enough time to dwell on their own opinion of a situation. A lot of the time people just listen to what they hear and agree. The media is an influential platform that is not always truthful and is easily trying to manipulate the public. Your example describing China and their policy influence on the public was a great way to show how terrorism may be present but hidden by a powerful government. Describing things differently will influence what people are thinking and how they react to a situation. I think this happens in society more than we like to believe do to political influence and the medias perception of events.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John WallaceApril 27, 2022 at 5:52 PM

    Excellent read Kevin. I think it's true, how the word "Terrorist" is a word that can hold a great amount of weight. It's a term that can be easily flung around to sway public discourse, a tool that is undoubtedly used by governments to deflect blame or even silence critics. An example that you mentioned in Chinese media potraying Hong Kong protestors as terrorists. Another, more recent example would be the Russian regime's use of the terms "Nazi" and "Terrorist" in the description of Ukraine. Words that unanimously draw hatred towards them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Grant VoytovichApril 28, 2022 at 5:57 AM

    I think that you did a great job of exploring the meaning of terrorism and how there could be incorrect uses of the term. Like you said in your second paragraph, the author states that a group of people were terrorists even though they didn't do any harm. This bias might be used to scare away different people and have the public think differently about someone or a group of people. I personally think that it's extremely important to do your own research and gather your own opinions before digging into what the media has to say.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Currency Manipulation of the 21st Century: China and the US

                           Currency Manipulation of the 21st Century: China and the US Now more than ever, countries feel tempted to engage in a ‘currency war’ and go back and forth trying to devalue their currency in efforts to encourage exports. The two largest economies, China and the United States, seem to be in a long, bitter trade dispute as the trade relationship is significantly imbalanced. From tariffs to currency, trade tensions are clearly escalating with both sides slapping substantial tariffs on each other’s goods. Currency manipulation (arguably the world’s most protectionist international economic policy) refers to the concept of countries artificially lowering the value of their currency to achieve an unfair competitive advantage (Forbes). The U.S. Dollar is the most popular reserve, and everyone wants a stake in our economy. Unlike many other countries, China does not ha...
Read more

Kevin Yin's Blog #5

  To be honest, it has been a long time for me – a Chinese social media and news reader, not hearing any information about the follow-up of the Ukraine and Russia crisis on Chinese websites. Yes, you can’t find a lot of information about the invasion on Chinese news websites. If you do, then the news may be connected with the following reaction of European countries towards Russia, like the sanctions and changes in foreign policies. Some of the news writers did actually defame some of Ukrainian Defiance for some bad activities. It is quite clear for other people to understand the attitude of China towards the crisis. How about other Asian countries? Although I don’t want to be mean at this point, I have to indicate that the attitudes of many “second-tier power” countries are not that genuine. If we rationally consider the situation and the nature of politics, we must admit that it is not clever to think in either only a humanitarian angle or only a political angle. We need to comb...
Read more

Ciara: blog post #5

  The fear of an action might be powerful enough to scare off another party, or cause them to fear the lengths others are willing to go. As Kenneth Waltz argues in “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability” allowing more countries to obtain nuclear defense would put international relations at a general deterrence from the nuclear wars that could start. Deterrence is a strategy that can be used in order to prevent another party from undertaking an action through coercion. Many times this works as a method to keep two parties from destroying each other, or to allow a smaller army to scare off a larger one to show the lengths they would go. Nuclear deterrence can be the ultimate way of scaring off other parties as it is the strongest weapon that could potentially cause complete destruction. Even if a nuclear power is relatively small and compared to other nuclear powers would seem less threatening, once they cross the threshold they are using deterrence (Wa...
Read more