I've seen this quote floating around the internet:
"If James Holmes was Arab, the shooting would be 'terrorism'. If he was Black, he'd be a 'thug'. But he's White, so it's a 'mental illness'."
And I've seen a majority of comments that are agreeing with this. Are people really this stupid?
From what I've seen, there isn't a clear motive for what this guy did (the Dark Knight Rises murderer). Reports are saying there isn't really a definitive reasoning behind it all. The point of terrorism is to instill terror for a certain objective, generally for political or religious purpose. This guy showed no intention of either of those reasons. That fact alone says it isn't terrorism because a terrorist does those acts to get the attention or their cause, so without making it more or less obvious to what he wanted, his acts were pointless and terrorism isn't about making people say "well, maybe it was for this reason? I'm confused." No, when a terrorist acts, people know EXACTLY why they did it - which is the point of terrorism.
So clearly, this guy wasn't a terrorist; why would we call him one?
Next we have "thug". Uhh...
Well, what is a thug? To most people, it's someone who cause trouble. Someone maybe a little intimidating and in a threatening way. Maybe they're into drugs and getting into fights, or robbing stores, getting into shootouts, whatever. They cause trouble, and they aren't really friendly people.
>>>"“James was very nice and quiet,” his family’s next-door neighbor in San Diego, Tom Mai, told The Denver Post."
>>>"Holmes had a sterling academic record all the way back to high school and no criminal record more serious than a single speeding ticket. He does not seem to have had any psychiatric hospitalizations or any history of violence. He preferred Guitar Hero to guns as a teen."
>>>"In interviews, neighbors and friends from Southern California and Aurora described a young man as anonymous as a glass of water, more Invisible Man than Joker, who left the lightest of impressions on people."
>>>"“He was really shy, really quiet, but really nice and sweet,” Ms. Hath said."
What about that makes him sound like a thug? Was it the "nice and quiet" or the "no criminal record" that gave him away as a thug? Or maybe it was his "sterling academic record"?
He was nothing close to a thug. So why would we call him one?
Now let's think back to something more recent event regarding "thug": Trayvon Martin. He was black. Some people considered him a thug. Sure, the people who only saw the oh-so recent, put-up-everywhere picture of him from when he was 12 didn't believe it at all. However, his facebook account showed a different character. I remember looking for it when I first saw the news and immediately though "well this kid looks pleasant [/sarcasm]". There were pictures of him sticking his middle finger up, holding money up, and if I recall correctly, there were comments he made that weren't exactly the ones a "good kid" would say. I didn't have any of this stuff copied and saved anywhere though, so I'm only going by my ultimate conclusion that he was trouble. Also, he was suspended from school 3 times (on suspension when he was shot, I believe). I think one was because he had a bag with him that had marijuana residue on it, and another time because he had written "W.T.F." on a locker and then was found with a screwdriver and some women's jewelry, and I can't remember the other stuff. The point is, everything about him basically made him seem like a thug (except the picture of when he was 12. Couldn't they have just put a baby photo up?). So because he was a thug, people called him a thug. It wasn't his race.
A friend of mine is black. He's extremely quiet and very shy. He does well in school and doesn't get in trouble. If he did something like this, he wouldn't be called a thug because he isn't one.
So yes, seeing as James Eagen Holmes was not a terrorist nor a thug, he was not dubbed a terrorist nor a thug. I'd say that makes sense. And he didn't give much indication of something like this happening...Which leads to mental illness. Is it really so hard to arrive at that conclusion? Why do they have to act like there's more to it than a simple logical conclusion to get that he isn't a terrorism or a thug but has a mental illness/is just insane?

