The July 22 two-pronged massacre in Norway came on the heels of a decade of deferred terror. This raises the question: what will this tragedy be remembered for 10 years from now?
Maybe we’ll remember its apparent indication of a full circle, at least in the headlines, from “Islamic terrorism” in 2001 to “Islamophobic terrorism” in 2011 (maybe it’ll expose the obscuring effect of such blind labeling, though not likely).
Maybe Anders Breivik’s titillating insanity will bump what’s left of the so-called Arab Spring from the front pages of the Western media, leaving North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula to their perpetual narratives of cartoonish despots, nomadic rebels and postponed elections (now with unmanned drones playing space invaders overhead).
Or maybe the killings in Utoya and Oslo will be remembered as the crisis that brought the value of moderate response to light. Perhaps Norway’s historical pacifism will not fall victim to the socio-political disruption that most terrorists consider their goal.
Since the dawn of mass media, most terrorists have been activists who lost faith in reform. In a 1999 interview, Ted Kaczynski, the American mail bomber whom Breivik plagiarized in his own manifesto, makes clear that the purpose of terrorism “is not to try and convince or persuade the majority of people that we are right, as much as try to increase tensions in society to the point where things start to break down.”
In the eighth page of Breivik’s 1518-page manifesto, which he emailed to his “7000 patriotic Facebook friends” before the attacks, he claims that the €317,000 ($433,000 CAD) that the book project cost him “is barely noticeable compared to the sacrifices made in relation to the distribution of this book, the actual marketing operation.” By “marketing operation,” Breivik means the killing of 76 civilians.
At his arraignment hearing, Breivik made two requests: that his trial be made public and that he be allowed to wear a uniform. Though it is still unclear what kind of uniform, I assume it would be something between an SS outfit and that of Subcomandante Marcos, featuring an abundance of wristwatches and a seat for Dan Rather in the breast pocket.
If terror is one part chaos and nine parts public relations, then what can we do? Personally, there’s no way I’m going to stop following coverage of the story. Willful ignorance is generally fruitless in terms of increasing understanding. So what then?
The distribution of attention may be out of our hands, but the “tension” that Kaczynski, Breivik and even Al-Qaeda sought to stir up is something we can choose to resist. As stories like this one unfold, the media occupy a crucial space between Breivik’s action and our reaction.
After 9/11, this tension was palpable as mosques were burned and civil liberties threatened until Americans found themselves stuck under trillion-dollar wars and the keen ears of the Patriot Act.
In short, people were soon pissed off at each other and at their government. All while Bin Laden twiddled his thumbs in Pakistan, popping Viagra and watching himself on TV.
While such chaos is unlikely to unfold in Norway, the response on our side of the Atlantic has for the most part missed the point.
Writing for the conservative Canadian website CanadaFreePress.com, Daniel Greenfield plays right into Breivik’s hands: “It was Breivik who pulled the trigger, but it was the Norwegian authorities who created and then ignored the social problem of Islamic immigration.”
Those on the other end of the spectrum, many of whom criticized the Patriot Act, have been quick to call for the monitoring of entirely legal (albeit inflammatory) right-wing groups.
What, then, is a moderate response in the midst of finger pointing and hypocrisy?
How about examining the attitudes that harboured such violence inside manic-depressives like Breivik and Jared Lee Loughner and seeing if we carry the seeds of those attitudes in our popular media? How about examining the reasons why so many civilized states hold the right to buy semi-automatic rifles in higher regard than the right to live peacefully?
-Bardia sinaee, third year English student.