Learning Outcomes

Throughout the first half of the semester, the primary focus of the class has been to discuss the controversy around the etymology of the word “terrorism.” By gaining a better understanding of how the concept of terrorism has changed over time, the class has been given the tools to more accurately explore the concepts of terror and its relevancy not only in history, but in the present day as well.

Beginning with Module 2 and continuing as a recurring theme throughout multiple other modules, the class discussed one facet of terrorism as a concept: its notoriously ambiguous definition. This ambiguity is a result of the lack of a single unified definition for what actually counts as terrorism. We learned that, much like many other deeply political concepts, the exact meaning has changed over time. Viewing terrorism as a fluid concept is not a uniquely personal belief, either. As said by one student in their post, “terrorism is constantly changing and has been changing throughout the years” (Student A, DB-2).^[1] The idea that a definition can change drastically over time is also explored in the final question for this module: asking the students to create their own definition of terrorism. Rather than provide a broad definition that may function for a long period of time, I chose to focus my definition on what is considered terrorism in today’s political climate. To accomplish this, I defined terrorism as an “evolving political concept of using sudden, but deliberately planned, acts of violence to…draw attention and/or publicity to a cause. The cause being fought for always has the goal of radically altering society in such a way that the group for which the terrorist fights can obtain a more desirable social position.”

Progressing on to Module 3, I chose to expand on why terrorism is so hard to define while obtaining a deeper understanding as to how the definition has changed over time. As mentioned in the previous module, the definition of terrorism is fluid and has evolved over time. During the French Revolution, the term was one used against any who rebelled against the government. This is somewhat different than the vague understanding everyone has of terrorism in today’s world. This is noted by another student when they quoted Hoffman saying, “the meaning and usage of the word have changed over time to accommodate the political vernacular and discourse of each successive era” (Student B, DB-3).

Module 4 acted as a departure from the basic concept of terrorism by challenging us to write about key figures who shaped the world through their association with terrorism and, by extension, political violence as a whole. For this assignment, I chose to write about Mikhail Bakunin, colloquially known as the father of collectivist anarchism as a means to achieve political change. As a result of being a violent means to force change, anarchism is often looked upon as a subset of traditional terrorism, and it is easy to see why. Like terrorism, Bakuninist anarchism divided the organization into small groups and used violent acts to influence the current system of government. Frequently, the term “violent acts” referred to the assassination of political officials. One example of an assassination carried out under the banner of anarchism can be found in Christopher Ochoa’s post. In his final paragraph, he discusses the killing of President William McKinley at the hands of Leon Czolgosz, who was a practitioner of anarchism.

For Module 5, the class was instructed to examine the actions of John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of President Abraham Lincoln and determine if he should be labelled a terrorist. Noted in my original post, it is important to distinguish how each of his plans fit the definition of terrorism established both by myself in the second module and those of legitimate government agencies with their own official definitions. Although ultimately shooting the president, Booth originally planned to kidnap Lincoln. To determine if this act could be classified as terrorism, I turned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s definition of violent crime, a key part of terrorism’s definition. Although many crimes are listed under the umbrella of violent crime, kidnapping is notably not listed. Despite being planned to accomplish altruistic political goals, the objective lack of kidnapping as a violent crime omits it from being included in the FBI’s definition of terrorism. Booth’s plan that actually took place, Lincoln’s assassination, had the same motives but was inarguably violent. Booth’s altruism was also noted by a classmate who noted that “he was driven by what he saw as a patriotic and religious duty” (Student C, DB-5). For this reason, Booth’s assassination of Lincoln fits well within the FBI’s definition of terrorism. The act also fits every aspect of the definition I devised in Module 2.

Moving away from the United States, I chose to view the analysis of political violence in pursuit of national liberation through the lens of South Africa under apartheid. The concept of using political violence to enact change for the better was a somewhat foreign idea prior to this module. However, it was through studying Apartheid that I gained an understanding of how what is definitionally terrorism can be used against a government objectively in the wrong. For context, Apartheid was a period of South African history in which people were segregated by race, much like Jim Crow laws in the United States. As a result of the contention between those being oppressed and the government doing the oppressing, terrorism was seen on both sides. In my original post, I noted that the oppressed began with peaceful protest, but the resistance quickly shifted to armed conflict. In response, South Africa saw the creation of Askaris, or death squads sponsored by the government to dismantle anti-apartheid groups. The use of these death squads fits squarely within the definition of state terrorism, which too is politically motivated, but is carried out by domestic forces within a country’s borders rather than protesters. Similar themes can be seen in other countries such as Vietnam. In their post, one student briefly mentions the “pre-emptive strike against the forces [North Vietnam] aligning against him [Ngo Dinh Diem, leader of South Vietnam]” (Student D, DB-6). It is in this act that we can see the themes of state terrorism in another country. In this case, the events that occurred eventually led to a war between the North and South.

Module 7, the most recent covered prior to the midterm, covers the topic of revolutionary terrorism, another subcategory of terrorism. When discussing revolutionary terrorism, it is important to define its place as a form of domestic terrorism, or acts performed against the state in which one lives. In my initial post, I discuss how others have defined it, often mentioning the idea of insurgency. In this context, insurgency can be simply defined as a revolt against the government without organization. The lack of organization was noted by numerous classmates as well. A student, in their second paragraph, notes that revolutionary terrorism comes from “the impatient tendencies of civilians and organizations” (Student E, DB-7). Associating revolutionary terrorism with insurgency, the primary difference that becomes apparent is the scale in which the acts take place. Insurgency, and revolutionary terrorism by extension, occur on a much larger scale than traditional terrorism. To further illustrate this concept, I chose to discuss John Brown, an American revolutionary terrorist fighting to abolish slavery. His case accurately fits the definition of revolutionary terrorism as a consequence of his intention to spread his message in addition to providing the means to enact change. Returning to the student’s definition, one could accurately assume that John Brown’s “impatient tendency” was his desire to abolish slavery.