Shooting at Oak Creek Gurdwara: Is it a Hate Crime? Domestic Terrorism? Just One of those things? Yay, Media Coverage?

In case you have been in a cave with no wifi access for the past few days, here is what happened on Sunday: a �gunman� entered the Gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and killed six sangat members, including the President of the Gurdwara who tried to tackle the �shooter� armed with just a butter knife (check out story in L.A. Times here). I won�t delve into details about what happened, or where vigils are taking place, but will touch upon a different aspect of the question of �what now?� There are some excellent articles and blog posts that address these issues, including Santbir Singh‘s aptly titled post, “Where Do We Go From Here?” and Sundari’s post on Information and Resources here on The Langar Hall.

I have been at Sidak 2012 since Saturday evening, and we all heard about what happened in Wisconsin towards the last few minutes of morning Divan. Our first Divan, so it hit especially hard. Like many of you, we have all been glued to Twitter, Facebook, and have been watching the almost non-stop coverage on news channels all over the world, from CNN to BBC where they are even pronouncing �Sikh� properly. I thought it was great when Obama came out with a statement and ordered the flags be flown at half staff until August 10^th as a mark of respect. This has also been a topic that we�ve been discussing as a class with some very insightful ideas and ethical questions being brought up.� What made the discussions at Sidak so interesting is the diversity being represented. Some are well versed in Gurbani, while others have limited understanding of it. There are Sikhs here from all over the U.K., North America, India, and some even trace their roots to Afghanistan and Africa. This has brought about some varied perspectives on everything from metal detectors and guns in the Gurdwara to the point of educating the larger “American” community about Sikhs as a method of deterring future hate crimes. Here is a snippet of two quotes from our discussion:

�Crazy people don�t come to interfaith events.�

�A metal detector wouldn�t have stopped this guy, who didn�t go through the farce of sneaking a gun into the Gurdwara. He would probably have just shot whoever was manning the metal detectors.�

But we all agreed that there isn�t simply one correct answer and it is all part of a discussion that has to take place. The conversation continued throughout the day and the comparison to September 11^th was inevitably brought up. There was a lack of media coverage of the “backlash” in the days following September 11^th and the sudden media frenzy with vigils, interfaith meetings, and “positive” stories after Balbir Sodhi�s death brought about some disorganization, and opinions passed off as facts about the Sikhs, often by our own hand. The perpetrator was punished and many of our fellow Americans came out to support the Sikhs. Whatever we may think of George Bush, his administration condemned the attacks in no uncertain terms. The major difference today is that we are incredibly organized, and there is no dearth of ideas for activism; we are all on social media and have effectively used it time and time again to mobilize. This is how we have taken back our narrative. Within hours, every Sikh organization in North America had issued an official press release, talking points for speaking to the media, hash tags on twitter, and we were blogging up a storm. An actual consensus on such a major issue in the Sikh community is no small feat.

When the coverage of the Oak Creek �shooting rampage� started coming out on Sunday, we were all cringing at the way the media was initially telling our story. Here are just a few of the articles that were coming out from some very reputable newspapers:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/06/us/wisconsin-temple-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

But the attire and appearance have also meant that they are often mistaken for Muslims and are targets of anti-Islamic attacks from those who seek to avenge the September 11 attacks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19151869

American Sikhs have reported being targeted since the 9/11 attacks, because they are mistaken for Muslims as a result of wearing turbans and beards.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/06/158220769/u-s-sikhs-increasingly-targeted-for-violence

But many Sikh men keep their unshorn hair tightly wrapped by a turban, which gives them a distinct and recognizable appearance. As a result, increasingly since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Sikhs have been mistakenly identified � and occasionally targeted � as Muslims.

I�ll stop there because otherwise this will be a really long list and I will start using pound signs, exclamation marks, and the ampersand � a sign that I have moved from grumpy to very grumpy. In case it is unclear why letting people know who the Sikhs are, is even an issue, here it is:

In ALL of the initial coverage (not some, ALL), the media went out of their way to clarify why the �shooting� was a crime by taking two or three paragraphs to sum up who the Sikhs are, and took special effort to explain who we are not (not Muslim!).� Has reality television completely skewed our moral compass, where people need to be told a person’s religion or cultural background in order to gauge whether a crime has been committed? “Six people dead at Sikh Gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin” is not enough? Did journalists go out of their way to talk about the religious background of the victims of the Dark Night shooting?

On one hand, I am happy about all the media coverage Sikhs are getting, stories on the survivors, and what feels like a serious effort to understand the Sikh religion. But, on the other hand, it is a bit alarming that we’re getting lollypops at the doctor’s office with this feel-good coverage of how normal we are and how we do normal things with other Americans. White Americans.� Some of the symptomatic issues seem to have left the building. The logic we�ve been given from the media for not labeling this a hate crime is that the authorities don�t have enough information to officially call it one. Fair enough. Let�s do a quick recap on the semantics. For most of Sunday, Wade Michael Page was referred to as simply �the shooter,� you know lack of information and all that. By the end of the day, some articles referred to the shooting as a �rampage.� Eventually, they called it �a domestic terrorism type incident.�� It was, after all, an act of terror, but it wasn�t 100% clear that it was motivated by hate. And the American media is known for its patience and attention to detail before making commentary. On Monday, there was �possibility� that Wade Michael Page might be a racist (gasp) because he was active in the skinhead/neo-nazi music scene and they found a photo of him posing with a swastika on his FaceBook page, amongst other evidence. Tuesday, they started mentioning his neo-nazi ties in the article, but interestingly enough, the majority of headlines all still used very tame nouns, with variations of �suspect,� or �shooter.�

Here is one example from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/06/us/wisconsin-shooting-suspect/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

The actual article does use the word “neo-nazi,” because, well, what else are you going to call it? But, the headline reads: �Military, music marked temple suspect�s path to Wisconsin.�� Nothing special about this guy. Just a “temple suspect.” There has been one article that I’ve found which has the headline: “Sikh Shooting Brings Attention on Neo-Nazi Music Scene.” What happened to the shooter?

Evidence, of course,� is not all in and the media has high ethical standards, right? Like moments after the Oklahoma City Bombing and based on a journalistic gumption and solid investigative reporting skills, Jim Stewart from CBS said, “The betting here is on Middle East terrorists.” Roughly the same time, John McWethy from ABC said, “The fact that it was such a powerful bomb in Oklahoma City immediately drew investigators to consider deadly parallels that all have roots in the Middle East.” The New York Times� A.M. Rosenthal said, “Whatever we are doing to destroy Mideast terrorism, the chief terrorist threat against Americans, has not been working.” But that was years and years ago. Ethical standards have improved and journalists don�t just make statements based on nothing, all willy-nilly. Yes, I said it. Oh, except for that whole Norway thing last year, where 76 people were gunned down. CNN was first with the news. Nobody knew who had done it, but it was obvious Muslims did it. “It could be a whole range of groups. But the point is that Al-Qaeda is not so much an organization now. It’s more a spirit for these people.� Then there was further refinement to the argument by looking at the evidence: Norway had republished the cartoons of Prophet Mohammad, so it all made perfect sense that all signs pointed to a Muslim guy. And when it turned out, they were all wrong, they were still right because �If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al-Qaeda.” Oh snapp. Check. And. Mate.

Fast forward to today. In a span of two weeks and a bit, there have been two incidents involving unhinged white males, who organized a mass murder. The media has paid no attention to their ethnicity, or religion; they have chosen to ignore this minute fact. And suddenly the media is taking the high ground by not rushing to sensational headlines. Imagine if the �shooters� had both been of South Asian origin. Would he still be the �shooter?� Would connections between the two shooters already have been made?

There is a dashing Scottish Sikh here at Sidak, who is part of a group to help brainstorm some ideas on engaging with the community in San Antonio for an event later on today for all of the Sidakers. I think it is a fantastic idea and I’m excited to see Charandeep Singh wear his Texas t-shirt and be goaded into pronouncing “burglar alarm” to prove his Glaswegian roots (he failed last time). But, I also want us to start the conversation about the culture of xenophobia that has been allowed to go unchecked because we think that it doesn’t directly affect us. Call it “solidarity” if you must. I prefer calling it what it is: being Sikh.