Godheval

The Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee – one of many sub-committees within the U.S. Senate that most people have never heard of, and even less of which know its purpose – conducted a hearing to address rising concerns over homegrown terrorism.  This time the high-risk group, according to the panel, is Somali-Americans.

According to the various testimonies, the threat comes from Somali immigrants who have been making the U.S. their home since 1992, after fleeing their country’s civil war.  Apparently, unlike other immigrants, the Somalis have had some difficulty assimilating, torn between their own tribal traditions and the markedly different American culture that surrounds them.  This difficulty has made some Somalians – particularly those young and male – more susceptible to what the panel calls “radicalization”, that is, indoctrination in the ways of militancy and terrorism.  They highlighted the case of Shirwa Ahmed, a 27-year old Somali-American who went missing in October, and was later implicated in a series of suicide bombings in the Somali towns of Hargeisa and Bosaso.

The Senate committee was careful – at least rhetorically – not to target the entire Somali-American community as a high-risk group for terrorist activity.  They claimed that the community itself was being victimized by radical clusters.  Still, this is where the story becomes troublesome, because chances are that for any Americans living in close proximity to a sizeable Somali population, fear of this homegrown terrorism will not limit itself to the knowledge that the threat comes only from a radical few.

Much like the events of September 11th, 2001 caused most Americans to red flag anyone Arab or Muslim (these two terms often falsely considered synonymous) or even wrongfully perceived to be members of either group, this kind of report is likely to generate similar prejudices towards Somali-Americans.

Speaking of prejudices, another interesting point was made by Andrew Liepman, deputy director for intelligence at the National Counterterrorism Center.  He said:

The potential terrorist indoctrination and recruitment was a consequence of these clusters, and is the product of “the refugee experience of fleeing a war-torn country combined with isolation, perceived discrimination, marginalization and frustrated expectations.

“Perceived discrimination” is a troublesome phrase, because it eliminates by default the suggestion that the discrimination was real.  It suggests that not only did Liepman consider discrimination as a potential cause for radicalization, but that he then consciously decided that it was only a matter of Somali perception.  He could’ve simply said that the Somalis face discrimination – something no one would’ve doubted – without any additional qualifiers.  It could’ve been left to the audience to decide whether or not it was real or perceived.

To downplay the possibility of discrimination as a mere matter of Somali perception is to potentially ignore a critical aspect of their experience.  Xenophobia, after 9/11, has reached new heights, and so it is not only possible, but likely that Somali-Americans experience discrimination as a result of this fear.  Nevermind the prevailing prejudices that mark the experiences of anyone considered “black” in the United States.  Perceived discrimination indeed, Mr. Liepman.

It is all too common for members of the demographic majority, who are not likely to experience any meaningful discrimination, to downplay the discrimination of minorities as either exaggerated or as cases of “hypersensitivity”.  This turns responsibility for discrimination away from the perpetrators and towards the aggrieved, in effect blaming them for their own negative experiences.  Framed within a discussion about homegrown terrorism, this diminishes any attempts at empathy, and bolsters the case for considering Somali-Americans a threat, because not only are they frustrated and isolated, but also delusional.

Ultimately, in identifying discrimination as a risk factor for radicalization, it doesn’t even matter whether it is real or perceived, and either way suggests a need for a more equitable interface between the Somali-American community and the greater American society.

If we are going to dismiss any or all experience of discrimination as existing only within the perception of the aggrieved, then perhaps this rising threat of homegrown terrorism is a mere matter of perception as well.  At what point does a problem cross over from simple perception to a living breathing phenomenon?  Is it only when it affects the demographic majority?  Which then is more real, the “threat” presented by innocent Arab and Muslim American citizens in the aftermath of 9/11, or the prejudices those Americans have faced since that fateful day?  Which then, was a mere matter of perception?

Shirwa Ahmed, if we can even be certain that he was involved in the Hargeisa-Bobaso bombings, would be the only known example of terrorist threat emerging from the Somali-American community.  It is important to note in this case, that the attacks were conducted in Somalia, probably in response to the lingering tensisons and political instabilities there.  It is not completely unreasonable for a recent Somali transplant, culturally isolated in the United States, to seek purpose in his homeland, where his memories and emotions are still tethered.  None of this implies that any other individual with similar experiences would turn any such frustration or isolation into a desire to attack the United States.

Connecting terrorist activities in another country to the fears of potential terrorist attacks in this country is not only reckless, but intellectually irresponsible.  At the same time, to dismiss what may be a very real experience with prejudice as only a matter of perception is to ignore one of the factors that may make certain members of the Somali-American community susceptible to radical ideology.

Terrorism is too often viewed as a random and/or purely evil act, with no precedent or rational cause.  There is no group of people, national, cultural or religious, that in itself presents a greater threat of terrorism than any other.  It is always the situations surrounding a group that increases the risk – situations that create fear, desperation, or a hopelessness so pervasive that death becomes a viable option.  Addressing the problems facing any community before they become risk factors is vital to reducing the threat of terrorism.  Addressing a problem begins by acknowledging it, rather than dismissing it as a mere matter of perception.

RSS | 860View Comments (3)http://godheval.net/a-mere-matter-of-perception/A+Mere+Matter+of+Perception2009-03-11+21%3A38%3A51Godheval | Trackback |