Words Matter: Unpacking Responses to the New Zealand Attacks
/By Nina Grotch
One of the basic tenets of genocide education is that words matter. When teaching about mass atrocities, we ask our students to pay close attention to the language used in the media, in society, and by those in power. During instances of violence, victims are described in derogatory language that undermines their humanity; perpetrators use euphemistic words to cover their crimes; and genocide deniers use very specific (and coded) language to further their arguments. At all stages, this language is specific and intentional. What about the language we hear today to discuss current events? What are the messages being delivered?
Racist Attacks in New Zealand
On Friday, March 15, 2019, an avowed white nationalist killed 50 Muslim worshippers and injured 50 others at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. Prior to these attacks, the terrorist posted his racist manifesto on social media. His message was clear. Along with various hate symbols, he drew on words from white nationalist propaganda and cited U.S. President Donald Trump as a “symbol of renewed white identity.” The terrorist was particularly focused on the idea of “white genocide”— a conspiracy theory in white nationalist circles which claims that white people are supposedly under siege, largely from immigration and other “malevolent” forces. The terrorist used specific and intentional language; his words matter.
Mourners in Melbourne, Australia attend a vigil for the victims of the Christchurch terror attacks, March 18, 2019 (Image by Julian Meehan via Flickr)
The murder of 50 people in a mosque is meant to send a message. The terrorist’s message is clear: Muslims and non-white immigrants threaten white society and must be stopped. Just as the crime carries a message, the response from world leaders must also convey a message – one which makes clear that acts of hate will not be tolerated, that Muslims are part of our communities, and that Islamophobia is unacceptable and will continue to be challenged. President Trump did not convey such a message.
International Response
Following the attacks, international leaders condemned the events in New Zealand. For example, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s statement following the attacks declared that, “We must all confront Islamophobia and work to create a world in which all people—no matter their faith, where they live, or where they were born—can feel safe and secure.”
President Trump’s reaction to the news of this attack was different. He tweeted:
“My warmest sympathy and best wishes goes [sic] out to the people of New Zealand after the horrible massacre in the Mosques [sic]. 49 innocent people have so senselessly died, with so many more seriously injured. The U.S. stands by New Zealand for anything we can do. God bless all!”
There are telling omissions in Trump’s response. It does not specifically name either Muslims or Islamophobia. Just as teachers are trained to provide mirrors for their students to see themselves reflected in multicultural and inclusive classrooms, the victims and targeted communities need reassurance from leaders. The very first step toward this reassurance comes from naming the victims and the specific prejudice fueling the attack, then condemning it.
Additionally, Trump’s tweet makes no mention of terrorism or white nationalism. For those who are familiar with Trump’s rhetoric and policies, this is not surprising. He has often condemned and raised warnings about “radical Islamic terrorists” but has repeatedly equivocated on terrorist attacks committed against Muslims and people of color. He has also either omitted or downplayed the growing presence of white nationalism. After the 2017 terrorist attack in Charlottesville, for example, the president claimed that the violence was perpetrated by “both sides” (by both far-right extremists and anti-fascist protestors). He was loudly criticized by many – including by members of his own party – for his generic and misleading statements. Words matter.
Deconstructing Messages in the Classroom
These tragic events may be challenging to discuss with students, but they can provide many opportunities for unpacking messages from the media and from our leaders.
Activity: Provide your students with coverage about the attacks from different news sources or from different leaders and examine how the language differs.
How are victims described?
How is the perpetrator described?
How do these descriptions influence our perceptions and understanding of the events?
What kind of statements would your students write in response to New Zealand?
Are there specific words or phrases that they would use or avoid?
These types of discussions are important. We must teach young people to be savvy consumers of media. There may be a spectrum of opinions and views on any given topic or event, but these lessons serve as a resource to examine the importance of language. Words matter.
Resources for Educators
What is media literacy, and why is it important? | Common Sense Media
Media Literacy | PBS Teachers