Embed from Getty Images
When Mark Anthony Conditt, blew himself to smithereens as police officers closed in on him in the wee hours of March 21st, most, if not all residents of Austin, Texas breathed an unprecedented sigh of relief. The 23-year-old serial bomber terrorized the entire city for the better part of an entire month, killing two people and maiming several others.
While Austin and much of the nation was attempting to contemplate what the motives were behind such wicked and sadistic behavior, certain pockets of the mainstream media wasted no time dancing around the facts. They were busy promoting the standard, narrative of probing into Mr. Conditt’s past and looking for anything that may have caused such a “good boy” from a good family to indulge in such a display of evil.
Many parties, from the Austin Police Chief who viewed Conditt as a ”very challenged young man” to media outlets who seemed to effortlessly find friends, relatives, and others who eagerly shared their accounts about the late serial bomber. He was referred to as everything except what he actually was – a terrorist! His violent actions are the classic definition of terrorism, more specifically, domestic terrorism. Pure and simple.
Meanwhile, much of the media have tied themselves up in knots to dance around this fact like America’s best dance trio, as they recited stories about how he was a member of religious groups, was homeschooled as a kid, and participated in archery, water balloon fights, and other facts about his life. While there is certainly nothing wrong or unusual about many or any of the aforementioned activities, they still do not absolve the reality that many in the print and electronic media were unwilling or unable to do. Refer to Mark Conditt as the domestic terrorist that he was! They refused to call a spade a spade.
This fact has not been lost on many non-White people. Indeed, more than a few people of color from journalists, to academics, to politicians, attorneys and entertainers have wasted little time espousing on this fact. To those of us who are avid readers and viewers of mainstream news on a daily basis, it is a truth that cannot be denied. On the contrary, we can almost anticipate how the disparities of coverage between White and non-White men will manifest itself.
Routine reactions to White Men Who Engage in Violence and Murder Others:
*He had a troubled past
*He was a loner
*He was introverted
*He was a challenged human being
*He was socially awkward
*He suffered from mental illness
*Was the product of a dysfunctional family
*Kid who cane form a good family who suddenly made poor choices in life
*Was a quiet person
Routine Reactions to Non-White Men Who Engage in Violence and Murder Others:
*He was violent prone
*The product of a broken home
*Typical menace to society
*He reverted to his native savage behavior
*He was a discipline problem all throughout his public school years
*Has a long criminal record/history
*He was a thug
In the case of Mark Conditt, his racial and religious pedigree afforded him less intense scrutiny. Being a White male, he was viewed solely as “an individual, an aberration” as opposed to being categorized as “like all them” which more than often is the case for minorities.
Just as equally disturbing was the fact that when the story of African American and Latinos being targeted and was realized, it received scant coverage from the media. Rather, only until Conditt’s terror spree invaded other neighborhoods did the story get the appropriate attention it should have garnered from the outset.
While no reasonable person would deny that mental illness is a serious medical and psychological factor facing our nation and its victims do indeed deserve intense and proper treatment, the fact is that non-White men or people of color, in general, are never given the benefit of the doubt of being similarly affected by such a situation. Secondly, the majority who are classified with this condition do not go around mailing bombs and terrorizing innocent suspects. Moreover, mental illness is not a license to engage in domestic terrorism. Such double standards are the classic example of White privilege. Imagine the reaction from certain quarters if the suspect had been Muslim.
Such incidents remind me of the recent death of Stephon Clark, an unarmed Black man from Sacramento, California who was shot 20 times in his own backyard by police officers. One could argue that his murder was a modern day lynching. This sordid fact coupled with the intense apprehension that so many people have in labeling Mark Anthony Conditt a domestic terrorist causes me (and I am sure many others as well) to ponder the question of will non-White lives ever matter?
What’s your take on what you just read? Comment below or write a response and submit to us your own point of view or reaction here at the red box, below, which links to our submissions portal.
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member, today.
All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.
A $50 annual membership gives you an all-access pass. You can be a part of every call, group, class, and community.
A $25 annual membership gives you access to one class, one Social Interest group, and our online communities.
A $12 annual membership gives you access to our Friday calls with the publisher, our online community.
Register New Account
Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.
Photo Credit: Getty Images