“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. …
” – 1 Corinthians 13:11, Holy Bible, King James Unabridged

I was asked a question today.
The question was in the form of a multiple choice query.
The question was:
What holds bodies to the earth?
The first choice for an answer was gravity. The other choice was magic.

Now if I were in grade school, I would have immediately answered “gravity.” Being that I am no longer of the degree that would simply volunteer answers without consideration, no matter how simple the answer may seem, I said both. Gravity is a concept. It is a theory used to describe the inertial magnetic attraction of masses to one another while in an orbit or space flux. Magic is a term used to describe phenomena that may escape human comprehension, but are also based on the “laws”, or well-founded theories that have been accepted by the experts of said field. My argument, which was readily accepted, was that both are simply terms used to describe phenomena that lead people to a better understanding of their existence. I could have said God makes it such. If my definition of “god” can stand up the dialectics of debate, in which case, I would simply define “god” as power and force, then my argument would stand.

One of the first lessons we are taught is to define your words. In a contest for minds, and for attention, it can be very easy to persuade people’s emotions through metaphor, or symbol. This is why poets are trained to be consistent with their metaphors, to avoid the possibility of misunderstanding. We build our understanding, so that we won’t have a misunderstanding. Follow me?

The religious scholars have a tendency to demand that their interpretations of a particular symbol be taken as the only interpretation. This can be quite useful, more people are inclined to concrete thinking than abstraction. And if you can define the abstract in concrete terms that are palatable, you can redefine the total world view of a group of people. Throw in a dash of theology, and you can begin to define god, the powers and the forces, that rule a person’s world. The artist is usually left to his or her own whims with the creation of things, and often is given license by their followers. The follower of the artist is even given leeway by the artist to interpret the artist’s more abstract pieces, although the artist may use extremely concrete means to symbolize the abstraction. Still there?

Let’s take this a step further, shall we?

According to an article released by the Associated Press, nine suspects tied to a Christian militia that was preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill police officers, and then kill scores more by attacking a funeral using homemade bombs. Now, no where through this article, or on any of the stations that reported this story that I watched earlier, namely CNN and MSNBC, have referred to these organized cell of religiously motivated and politically conscious agents plotting to terrorize the local armed forces of the US as terrorist. This is a useful interpretation on the part of the US media that seems to have a deeply seated affective connection with these gentlemen. Why? Your guess is as good as mine.
I have worked the course of a year now in developing this understanding however. When an Arab member of the Islamic Faith even thinks about a political attack on US soil they are dubbed ‘enemy combatants’ and more colloquially labeled terrorists. The media has even dropped the use of the term ‘domestic terrorists” as we have not heard that term since the days of Timothy McVeigh who was a co-conspirator and perpetrator of the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing. A quick Google search of the term ‘terrorist’ gave me this screen that I have preserved for you in digital.

As you can see the “Image results for ‘terrorist’” all depict Arab possibly Muslim individuals and likenesses. Why is this interpretation given when the term “terrorist” is defined as:

“an advocate or practitioner of terror as a means of coercion”
(“Terrorism.” Def 1. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. 1st ed. Print.)

“1. As a political term: a. Applied to the Jacobins and their agents and partisans in the French Revolution, esp. to those connected with the Revolutionary tribunals during the ‘Reign of Terror’.

b. Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation.”

(“Terrorist.” Def. 1. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Print.)

“1. One who adopts or supports a policy of terrorism.”

(“Terrorist.” Def. 1. Webster Comprehensive Dictionary. International. Print.)

“One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.”

(“Terrorist.” Def 1. The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th ed. Print.)

I started to see a pattern in the dictionaries of latter dates, so I switched it up….

The definition of “terrorism”:

“The unlawful use of threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”

(“Terrorism.” Def 1. The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th ed. Print.)

“the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion”

(“Terrorism.” Def 1. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. 1st ed. Print.)

***Yeah, I had to go back to the Malcolm x school of thought and grab the dictionary. Google is still my friend, but the library was my first love. Go figure.***
As the definitions above allude, there is no racial, national, or ethnic origin for a terrorist. Why is it that the media continues to avoid the term when discussing white males who fit the standard of “terrorism” without room for contradiction? As often as the media use the term, I would find it very difficult to imagine that they are simply attempting to expand their vocabulary. In fact, I find it almost demeaning of my intelligence that they would not incorporate a more inclusive set of individuals. To be certain, the only time we hear the term is when an Arab Islamic political group or person attacks or threatens a western power or a country that has been imperialized or is about to be.
The interpretation of the media singles out Arabs as terrorists. Although there have been more cases of acts of violence and intimidation used coercively in this country by white males. So my question to you is this:

What keeps white males from being labeled as “terrorist”?
A) Institutional Racism.
or
B) Groupthink.

Popularity: 1% [?]