
The Challenge of Terrorism: A Historical
Reader
It is a stretch, therefore, to expect high-school students and their
teachers to use a book about terrorism without knowing what
terrorism is supposed to mean -- but the editors of McDougal
Littell's anthology The Challenge of Terrorism: A Historical
Reader apparently expect students and teachers to do just that.
In their section titled "Introduction," the editors merely offer short
excerpts from news reports about twelve episodes of terrorism without
giving even a preliminary definition of the phenomenon in question --
not even the fairly clear definition that is used by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and has been cited in FBI reports [see note 1, below]. "Terrorism,"
the FBI says, "is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as
'. . . the unlawful use of force and violence against persons and
property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or
social objectives.' "
Of the episodes mentioned in the introduction, the first is the
bombing of a black church in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, and the
last is the bombing of a federal office building in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, in 1995. The inclusion of the Oklahoma City bombing
underscores the difficulty of defining terrorism, and it
reminds us that this term is often used sloppily and promiscuously.
The men who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building may have
hated the federal government, but is there any evidence to suggest
that they were trying to influence the federal government's policies
or were trying to achieve some other political or social goal? [note 2].
After the introduction, the editors present some 35 items, most of
which are articles, editorials, op-ed pieces and letters that were
published originally in newspapers and magazines. These items form
the body of the book and are deployed in four units -- Part I, titled
"September 11, 2001"; Part II, "Examining Terrorism"; Part III,
"Responding as a Nation"; and Part IV, "Responding as Individuals."
In Part I, the 9/11 attack on the United States is covered well, with
descriptions of the attack itself, an article about the ideologue and
strategist (Osama bin Laden) who lay behind the attack, an analytical
piece ("Why Do They Hate Us?") by Fareed Zakaria, and the text of the
address that President Bush delivered to the nation on 20 September
2001.
In Part II, "Examining Terrorism," the editors belatedly consider what
terrorism means: In a prefatory statement, on page 102, they
say that terrorism is "notoriously difficult to define," and then they
recite the FBI's definition that I quoted above. The articles in Part
II include several that present the views of serious analysts. One
such piece is "Terrorism in the Twenty-first Century," an essay
written by Yonah Alexander. Another, called "Who Is a Terrorist," has
been derived from an interview that Brian Jenkins gave to the magazine
Omni. Another, titled "The Use of Terror," has been extracted
from an unsigned essay that appeared in 1996 in the reputable British
weekly The Economist.
But then comes Part III, "Responding as a Nation," and here the
editors display their own confusion while they foment confusion in the
minds of their readers. In an article titled "Justice, Not War," an
obscure sociologist named Kevin Danaher seems to advocate that we
should respond to terrorism by doing nothing, though he recommends
that we "demand internationalism rather than isolationism, justice
rather than revenge, and love rather than hate." Likewise, Richard
Rothstein (in a piece headlined "The Other War, Against Intolerance")
endorses schoolhouse "multiculturalism" as a device for combating
"rash views," and Laurie Goodstein (in an article titled "The Real
Face of Islam") creates the impression that most Muslim religious
leaders condemned the 9/11 attack -- an impression that is clearly
false. The editors also reproduce a statement in which the liberal
senator Russ Feingold, speaking in 2001, worried that H.R. 3162 (which
became the U.S.A Patriot Act of 2001) would lead to an erosion of "the
liberties of the American people." It is unfortunate that students
who use The Challenge of Terrorism will read Feingold's
statement but will not read any report of the hearing, held in 2003,
at which one of Feingold's fellow liberals, Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
defended the Patriot Act against "ill-informed and overblown
criticism," and another of Feingold's liberal colleagues, Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, said that she was unaware of even one abuse of the Act [note 3].
Part IV, "Responding as Individuals," is clearly the worst. It is a
bundle of feel-good anecdotes and pop-psychology fancies, with titles
like "A Victim of Terrorism Helps Others" and "Should We Be Afraid?"
and "Helping Children Understand." (Children? Isn't this supposed to
be a book for high-school students?) As a whole, Part IV encourages
the notion that a terrorist attack is merely a kind of psychological
trauma, and that a citizen's response to terrorism needn't be any
different from visiting a shrink.
In the American educational environment, characterized by geographical
and historical ignorance, The Challenge of Terrorism renders an
important service by presenting a chronology of terrorist actions, a
collection of maps, and photographs of terrorists' victims. All of
these are extremely welcome and useful. So is the book's strategy of
providing genuine news articles, opinion pieces, and other items,
rather than material written by or for schoolteachers. But even so,
this book fails to deliver the knowledge that would enable ordinary
students or teachers to grasp the global phenomenon of terrorism.
Superficial and emotional approaches to terrorism (or, worse,
pseudopsychological approaches) help nobody. Students need to know
that they, like everyone else, are targets -- but The Challenge of
Terrorism doesn't teach this lesson.
Ultimately, the value of The Challenge of Terrorism will depend
upon what classroom teachers do with it. One must wonder how teachers
who have absorbed the habits of political correctness and the
doctrines of "multiculturalism" -- habits and doctrines that now are
normal features of American public education and are publicly promoted
by the predominant teachers' union, the National Education Association
-- might deal with some of the items that are included in this book.
For instance: How can "multiculturalism," which demands uncritical
respect for whatever non-European people do, be squared with what
students will read in the article that fills pages 79 through 89?
Headlined "Osama bin Laden on the Attacks," the article is an excerpt
from a transcript of a conversation in which Osama bin Laden and one
of his followers express their gratitude to Allah for the success of
the 9/11 attacks. Political correctness and "multiculturalism" simply
are not compatible with any serious analysis of contemporary
terrorism, most of which is Islamic and is perpetrated by Muslims [note 4].
Notes
Michael Radu is a senior fellow of the Foreign Policy Research
Institute (in Philadelphia) and a co-chairman of the Institute's
Center on Terrorism and Counterterrorism.
Reviewing a high-school book in social studies
2003. 270 pages. ISBN: 0-618-23616-3.
McDougal Littell, P.O. Box 1667, Evanston, Illinois 60204.
(McDougal Littell is a division of the Houghton Mifflin Company.)
This Book Doesn't Teach What Students Need to Know
Michael Radu
The meaning of the word terrorism is hotly disputed. Some
democratic countries, such as the United States and the states of the
European Union, have adopted definitions of terrorism, but the
definitions are not consistent among themselves. The United Nations
does not have a definition, nor does the recently established
International Criminal Court.
