By glorifying armed revolution, these groups legitimized violence against political opponents
Newswise — UB assistant professor of history, Carole Emberton, PhD, focuses her research on politics and the role of guns in American history and culture.
“There is a political strain in U.S. history that endorses violence as a means to an end and as a fundamental expression of white American identity,” Emberton says.“The shooting of Congresswoman Giffords harkens back to an era in which political assassinations were commonplace in the United States: the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era. The two periods also share a political rhetoric that legitimizes violence,” she adds.
“Today, when I hear members of the Tea Party speak of ‘watering the tree of liberty,’ which is a direct reference to armed revolution, or use images of cross-hairs to ‘target’ their political opponents, I can’t help but remember the Reconstruction and I shudder, because by glorifying armed revolution, these groups legitimized violence against their political opponents.
“There is a virulent strain in American political rhetoric that continues to influence how certain groups vilify their opponents,” Emberton points out. “If we exchange the names of those articulating these ideas and of their specific historical target, the language of the Reconstruction era is familiar and disturbing.
“By glorifying armed revolution, these groups manifest a strain in American political history that continues to legitimize the use of violent rhetoric and imagery. Unfortunately, this is not confined to the reactionary fringes or the mentally ill. It has deep historical roots in American politics.” According to Emberton, most mainstream politicians in the South during the 1860s and ’70s, like today, often publicly denounced violence and blamed it on fringe elements, especially when Congress turned up the heat with a Congressional investigation. “It must be said, however, that even when those in power did not directly participate in or explicitly endorse the violent actions of the Klan or other individuals, they contributed to the creation of a political culture that not only endorsed violence as a means to an end but also as a fundamental expression of white American identity.”
Responsibility for the Tucson rampage goes beyond the shooter
UB Law professor and psychologist, Charles Patrick Ewing, is a national expert on criminal behavior, an author of numerous books on forensic psychology and violent criminals and a national expert on insanity defenses. He is frequently interviewed on the motivation of violent criminals. Ewing says although the vast majority of the mentally ill will never commit acts of mass murder, influential politicians and commentators who preach hatred and revenge must shoulder some of the blame for this and other violent rampages.
“Although the killings in Tucson appear to be the work of a mentally ill individual, it’s important to keep in mind that the vast majority of the mentally ill are not violent or dangerous,” Ewing says.
“These influential politicians and commentators who use violent rhetoric and images -- such as putting a member of Congress in the crosshairs, telling supporters that it is time to ‘reload’ and suggesting that voters unhappy with Congress resort to ‘Second Amendment remedies’ -- must realize that they have an incredibly wide audience,” Ewing points out. “At least some members of that audience (both sane and insane) will view their inflammatory statements as an invitation to violence.
“One thing is certain,” he adds. “The blame for these killings does not lie with the perpetrator alone.”
RSS