Transcripts For CSPAN3 History Of Terrorism 20160206

Our panel on the history of terrorism, new avenues of research. So we areroundtable, each going to speak for five to 10 minutes, somewhat informally. We will talk about specific aspects of our research. Introducer,ator and i will be the most general in my comments. Of timewill have a lot i am anticipating over an hour to talk amongst ourselves and to take questions and comments and feedback from you this a fully, experiential, interactive exercise as we proceed. My name is randy law, i am a russian and soviet historian by , but i have been working in the field of terrorism for a decade or more. The project that brought us together is an edited volume done by the routledge history of terrorism. Large reference work that i was interested in putting together as something that would be comprehensive. That would read as a cohesive book, not just a collection of articles. During the writing of it, contributors share their chapters with each other, there was a good bit of dialogue back and forth and the contributors themselves got into it and took off and ran with it. Product able is a we wanted to do in person what we saw to do within the book itself. Talk to each other, engage each other in what we mean by , certainly some of the conceptual problems associated with it i think they will as well, to try to bring forth some. Uestions let me introduce the panelists and then i will give a few introductory comments. Presenterter on my left is matt jennings. He is at middle state georgia university, formally Macon State College in georgia. Since been at macon state 2007. His Research Interests include early native American History and the history of violence. The chapter he contributed is on early american, colonial suffering to the civil war violence. Enter twined history an intertwined history and archaeology at the site. Next, in terms of the order of presentation is stephen isaac. He is a preference or of medieval history. His fields of research are 12 history,ilitary islamic history and ancient greece. Cowardicens include on the medieval battlefield. He is a forthcoming article on mercenaries and wolves. Im fascinated and do not have the details on this. Will they be forthcoming . I can work it in. Work, hesent looking at the circumstances of civilians when their towns come under siege. Termplaud employ the terror antiterrorism rather broadly across the centuries and perhaps even the millennia here. Is in terms of the order of presentation is richard bach jensen. Rick is a professor of history at Northwestern State university. Trained as a modern historian and 19th and 20th century italy. Rick has broadened his research and looks comparatively at european and transatlantic history. His looked at anarchism and terrorism. Cambridge University Press published his book and 2014. Was the theory and practice of italian public. Ecurity policy he has been the recipient of two fulbright awards in europe. Inarticle just came out terrorism and Political Violence. The chapter he contributed to the routledge history of terrorism. Chronologically is rob larabee she is the author of a new book in the wrong hands, covered by. Xford University Press in 2015 see, we are all over the place in terms of our interests and the angle at which we have come to the study of terrorism. Comments reef my to set the framework here and throw out some questions that i know are going to be addressed in the presentation and that i am eager to have folks respond to. When we get into the discussion part of the roundtable. Know there is divide thats between thoseable who work on terrorism, and those who come at it from the social scientist. In terms of the development of terrorism studies there has not been a lot of overlap or not as much as the can and should have been. It is also because of competing in thelogies and agendas public sector. Hand, historians and those in the humanities their strength is they can look at terrorism dynamically. It something that has transformed over the centuries. And emphasize that terrorism is not static and that to make sense of terrorism, one has to think of it in terms of a withcular context particular actors and particular circumstances. Historians of terrorism often work in isolation, one from another often reinventing the wheel. When they look at terrorists and terrorist actors convinced that they found something unique but often not really aware of what is going on over the hedge social sciences tend to be so they are keen to find the similarities and the differences over time but unfortunately and ironically, social scientists tend to start from the definition and work outward to put together that data set that allows them to draw conclusions. Definition tends to be entistt just or pres oriented. End with the definition or see it as one that is constantly evolving. Are certain weaknesses that tend to make it difficult for historians and social scientists to Work Together productively. Definition, you have to have some kind of definition. Im not original and what ive come up with, the routledge the consensus definition of terrorism is a great place to start. The tendency of terrorism is to use violence of the few to influence the behavior of the to really identify something as terrorism, we have to 33 we have to see three elements, the perpetrator, the act against the few, and the response from the many. Can a simple definition give historians the framework to be comparative over centuries and indeed millennia and across the continent . Or is this the desperate act of a historian who says he does not embrace definitions to pedal through the back door a definition. Perhaps one that might satisfy a social scientist but one that may or may not be productive. When can we use a simple definition like this that relies on a bear number of criteria to provide a framework for discussion. How might that definition help us explore and appreciate some of the thorniest problems we can find in the field of the history of terrorism and terrorism studies . The first is the question of state terror versus substate terrorism. Im convinced that any framework for making sense of terrorism that doesnt let us appreciate state terror as a kind of one that is not satisfying or productive and incomebecause them focused on terror x that lead to the death or injury of dozens or dreds tragic and focused on terror acts that lead to the death or injury of dozens or hundreds tragic as that , it leaves us talking at ing at thes of gawk deaths of hundreds and leaving aside state terror that can lead to the death of millions. Theink of stalin who said, death of hundreds is a tragedy and the deaths of millions is a statistic. We question is, how can relate state terror to substate terrorism . This raises another thorny question. Terrorism, about whether state or sub state in eras and places where he cannot even identify a state in the modern sense of the word. Societymply substitute and dominant population, can we speak of terrorism before the modern understanding of the state let alone modern technology, communications and so forth. Anwe look at terrorism in era without the modern spate, does the difference between state and substate terrorism melts away and we can have a single unitary understanding of terrorism or can we even productively see it and discuss it as such . Another distinction that we hear and read about all the time is the difference between terrorism and counterterrorism which sounds like a tidy distinction but it covers up a real model, which is that there are three ways to appreciate counter terrorism. One is to think of what is often discussed in terms of , the efforts for harden targets to prevent terror versus counter terrorism, the efforts to use lethal violence to go after those who engage in terrorism, versus the notion of counterterror which is the use of what will might call terrorism against those populations that would be recruited into organizations that use terror. For example the tactics the french used in algeria during the algerian war of independence. Which to my way of thinking becomes indistinguishable from terrorism in important ways and state terror. Another question, looking at terrorism versus other , we canes of violence speak about crime and war, and guerrilla warfare. Insurgency. Who are we fighting, where and when . Are they guerrilla fighters . Are they insurgents . Bethis a misguided effort to politically correct and not call anyone a terrorist . Or is there something substantial . I think there is something substantial. Insurgents do not really know what they are saying, particularly in the media and public discourse. The distinction between insurgency and terrorism is important because it reminds us that insurgency is a strategy that uses a certain kind of tactics. Drawing the distinction is important because it keeps keeps us from being overly reductive. Those engaged in an insurgency might use terrorism in a strategy. I think we might be able to move the ball farther down the field if we stop using the word terrorist. Nobody is simply a terrorist. One might be an anarchist, a communist, a socialist whatever it might be, that uses terrorism and terror. Im interested in seeing how this might play out. That is far more than i wanted to talk. Lets get into times, and places and context that make it possible to talk about terrorism. My thanks first and foremost to randy for inviting me to participate in this collective work and following it in today bistro roundtable. I have read throughout the book and sent it to parents to see what my more modern colleagues had to teach me. It is an ongoing discovery. Hand, in hissk at classic study, the great orian warned us about as a walking morality tale to what happens when you ignore good advice. It seems important to follow for a minute the trail that he laid down which saw firsthand some of the realities of warfare and terrorism. First at the hands of the French Resistance and sadly and tragically at the hands of the gestapo on the normandy beaches. I take heart today, his admonition that we avoid explanation of the very recent in terms of the remotest past. Whether were talking about near beginnings are the cause of the thing and he noted the intertwining, a serious study of the medieval period. Activity, grecoroman it does that give us terrorism as we enact today. I am already beginning to flex on that a little bit thanks to randys comments. I had to rent my head around the problem of defining terrorism. To a probably as close terrorism expert as you might find amongst medievalists. Randy notes quite rightly that contact for any interactive force must be analyzed before the label of terrorism can be applied. Pieces for many contending definitions of terrorism can find prefiguration in antiquities and the middle ages. We have plenty of that in the premodern world. Or acts whose purpose is to intimidate the population. Feargenerating, coercive Political Violence. Checkmarks galore. But it does not fit when we consider these and similar definitions. How do we assess direct violence without legal or moral restraints across several restraints across centuries when these restraints were being constructed for the first time. Or the definition of a civilian when these countries did not have distinctions like our own between civilian and regular military lives. Chapter, these are the ideas were modern definitions came into play even theout moving through definitions that form modern terrorism. This is true as we look at medieval violence through the filter opposed moments ago and throughout the rutledge text that violence be analyzed for its symbolic, informative, and communicative violence. If i give the ancient world deserved moment in the propose wei move to find strong candidates for state terrorism and examples for syria, sparta or rome. The syrians on text exalts direct violence against their foes with the bodies of victims left on display as a message. In spartas case im thinking of the original secret police. The anonymous men who had Carte Blanche to remove those whom they felt might become problematic. In this time, nighttime murders were an exhibit of negative space. The quiet exhibit magnified its message to the helots. Given that it was meant to instill fear and reshape the fabric of society, it of tales onto paulsils definition of state terrorism. , it was at a moment of breakdown and Public Authority in age and judea that we see one of the clearest precursors of modernday icari. Ism, the saqq once we move into the middle ages, things get murky and typology tends to fail. Because of the blurring between public and private authority. This is less the cased in the middle east. The most famous case of seeming premodern terrorists, the new were a first at unit sect who turned political tools to offset the advantages of their foes who had the entire state apparatus turn against them. Despite the fact they had surgicallyns moved against generals, and officials who opposed them. Victims ininnocent the confused swarm of bodies as they sought to escape after a hit. While the attacks were informative, they did not seek innocent victims for shock value. Door open left the for private forms of coercion which gained legitimacy. In these centuries, selfhelp justice and protection rackets were necessary for survival. Roman ideas of just war were mixing with the more band you germanic e with the arriving germanic ethos. Limit myself to highlighting the emergence of the peace of god and truce of god movements which were trying to use the churchs moral weight to curb violence. The peace of god was declared the unarmed population offlimits. These ideas were greatly popular with the people at large, but the adherents of the armed elite was problematic. This is the way to begin a fight, declare the count of flanders, 1773. Let it all be consumed in fire and flames, do not leave them so much as will furnish them a meal on the second day. This was a tactic of professional warriors in the 12th century and it got and beyond. Campaigns were as destructive as contemporary complained, we can hardly imagine. When tax agents granted multiyear exemptions because of wartime ravages, you know it was thorough. Word was meant to get out. We make sure the destruction of Northern England was publicized. Jerusalem,ities like their own accounts that did not in thecenturies later, midst of the 100 years war, the paradigm had not changed much. One man admitted in his will that he had killed some peasants, molested churchmen, and held some for ransom. The sins of others were outlined in more detail, noting the murder of women and children, multiple rapes, the destruction of church properties, along with many other crimes. These men were in search of pardon for these transgressions. Maybe the message, if not the practice, was beginning to seep in. I would suggest it was the the these details that would tell and whatwas activity, went beyond the simply terrible aspects of warfare into the realm of atrocity. About who was a permissible target, and it was not. And it was one of the reasons they were so shocked by different paradigms of war, honor, and terrorist found in the new world. [applause] i want to thank randy for putting this panel together, the volume for which it is grown. Brief, and look forward to discussion for some of these ideas. Explain my involvement in a project like this. This asked me to write chapter, it was nice to be asked. I said yes. This implications of that yes begin to sink in, it became clear this was not a reference work you could knock off in a couple of weeks and move on to your actual work. It would require serious thought and if not Archival Research to back up your ideas. After the initial free out, started to think about the recent popular fascination with terrorism. And what a careful consideration of early american terror might entail. We are very familiar with the pundit classes language of terror, things like why do they hate us . What do we do to them . Why do that use those sorts of tactics and so on . My academic career has focused on early american violence, specifically in the southeast. Where you have ancient societies, then their descendents, then europeans, africans, natives, all of which are dissatisfying shorthands. They are all using violence in varying ways. Though european violence comes to dominate the scene eventually. Thought therei have been various uss and wes and theys. As far back as we can see into the american past, these things of taken place. Its important to knowledge that. It also calls into question certain mythologies about our nations past, but is not enough to catalog a number of violent aredents, say they terrifying, and then say see, American History is the history of terrorism. May may work on twitter, it work on the internet, but is not satisfying as an academic endeavor. And overbroad definition of terrorism not that helpful. On the other hand, if we follow a rigid checklist of things that must be present to make an incident terrorism, and exclude any event not meeting all of we riskiteria, overlooking possible terrorism for the lack of one component or another. Inre are issues that arise describing things as terrorist before the term was coined, or entered into something approaching its modern usage. To say nothing of the fact that many institutions or ideas that affect our understanding of , nonstatestate actors, what is public, what is private, who was a noncombatant, who was a civilian, and so on. These ideas may or may not apply at various points in the past as randy and stephen pointed out so far. I dont know if the approach i took in the essay was the best approach. I am certain it is not the only approach to the subject matter. But want to use the remainder of my remarks to sketch out some of the broad beams of terror in early america. In essence, to apply terror as a lens through which to view early American History. I was charged with writing an essay from the colonial period to john brown, and i moved the chronology back somewhat. Recognizing the danger of applying modern terms, i scanned incidents of violence, incidents that seems to focus in their own times and something approaching the way terrorism functions in our own time. That led to be troubling. These acts are designed to to terrorize. There is usually a heavy symbolic component to the violence being perpetrated, and there is usually the employment of provocative tactics. In the service of a larger strategy. We discussed this in the back and forth, but i think one of the most important things this volume does is to begin to think about terrorism beyond just a set of tactics, but the larger strategic implications of terror in history. If you are thinking about terrorism in agent america contest in ancient america, enough to knowledge the presence and work against the presence of two powerful stereotypes. One of which is to romanticize early america. It was an american need and before these severed europeans imported their own style of violence and ruin everything. Its obvious they, not true. The other is the opposite. The native americans are particularly prone to violence, particularly warlike, as it were. Our own society is not immune to this long trajectory either. Very easily run off any number of military technologies that have the names of native american nations or , blackuals, or weapons hawk, apache, tomahawk, and so on. But native american was comprised in part, before the arrival of europeans, by large, complicated societies. Some of which used things that might best be described as state terror. Application think back. I moved the chronology back to chaco canyon, to ancient, ancient america. Both of these societies featured elites which appeared to of used course violence to terrify their subjects were tributary people into creating monumental architecture, dividing food tribute or other forms of labor, Something Like that. The clearest example comes from 72, wheregs at mound sacrificialman victims were thrown into a mass grave, along with two individuals two elite individuals. The curse of power of the elites at chaco canyon faded. The legacy of that world of violence was there to meet the spaniards when they arrived in the 1500s. The early spanish expeditions in north america not only witnessed and experienced native islands as it existed in the 1500s, they also unleashed a vast amount of violence, often using tactics designed to terrorize as they did so. Immediately to the rampage through the southeast, he was an expert in the deployment of the dogs of war, specially trained mastiffs and greyhounds, trained to tear apart made of flesh. The use of the cropping of years eares but of years ofnd noses, the taking people for ransom and labor. These are pretty well known. English colonization recall this violence with great zeal. They loved to tell stories of how violent the spanish word. Vociferous advocate of colonization in england writes that the spanish had committed most outrageous and more than turkish cruelties when they invaded the americas. Thinks,iards, he without manhunt, empty of all pity, paving themselves a savage beasts, the smugglers and murderers of mankind. And then the english when on to do roughly the same thing. 80s, ate in the 15 riverehavior, in mystic 1675, 76. And in we have this whole litany of english violence, much of it designed to inspire terror. It is worth calling to mind that it is not simply europeans committing acts of terroristic violence or terror inducing violence, maybe, against their native neighbors, native hosts. Some of the rules which were beginning to come into focus in europe, visavis the treatment of civilian populations during wartime, dont seem to apply when europeans fight each other in the americas. Fromlearest example comes french florida. A force of french protestants surrenders to the spanish governor, and lays down their arms, perhaps expecting some sort of quarter to be given to them. And quarter is not forthcoming. Multiple groups of french are executed by the spanish governor, pedro menendez, nse commits these acts, he explicitly calls out this biblical war of fire and blood as he commits these acts. As europeans expanded from their precarious coastal footholds further and further in the interior of north america, the employed terror inducing violence to dominate their weaker neighbors when it was possible to do so. Also employed tactics that today would be considered terrorist in their attempt to push back against these invaders. When the european superpowers of the day, Great Britain and france struggled over north america and the seven years war, both relied on native proxies to strike terror in the hearts of the other side colonists. It should come as no surprise that when 13 of Great Britains mainland colonies declared independence, and went to war to win it, both side used tactics used to employ terror. And the Continental Army delivered we sought to undermine native independence on attacks. Y by tax on Food Supplies i struggled for some time with the best method for incorporating the institution of slavery into this essay. On one level, it occurred to me that the practice of taking and exploiting slaves was that route and economic endeavor. But it drew support from deeply entrenched notions of racial and civilizational superiority. Was not necessarily intended as a form of symbolic violence, and therefore would not have fit one of these ,efinition of terrorism, but within the context of plantations, the forms of violence that were deployed to maintain slavery were clearly performative on some level. You have is well recognized of violence against the few, designed to intimidate the many, and to reinforce racial hierarchies. One incident in particular stands out at the very outset of the seven years war to me. And the place in 1754, socalled half king, hes joined George Washingtons Reconnaissance Mission towards fort duquesne, and commits an act of violence that is so shocking to young George Washington but he says he was unmanned by a. Andaises his hatchet up splits the head of a french officer right in front of everybody. Perhaps, to spark a larger conflict between Great Britain and france. Terror iseing that present at the very outset of the seven years war. In one of the more closely examined incidents of attempted biological warfare, jeffrey amherst may have ordered smallpox infected blankets to be distributed to his native adversaries. We are not sure if he did that or did not do that, by the way. Although we doesnt one point describe native people as quote the vilest race to beings that ever infested the earth, and whose riddance from it must be esteemed a meritorious act for the good of mankind. A chilling closing chapter to the violence of the seven years war, the paxton boys employed a sort of racial terrorism as they tried to eradicate the conestogas from the face of the earth. As i hinted at previously, both sides in the american war for independence use terror inducing hardening a way of the lines between patriot and loyalist. And as a wave advancing the political aims of the various movements. One of the most striking has to do with slavery, think. We can talk about the back and forth about whether that constitutes terrorism or not. But lord dunmore certainly intends to terrorize plantation owners of virginia by offering freedom to hundreds of their slaves who will serve in the british forces. It should come as no surprise that some of the most savage instances of violence occurred when the army moved against the indian enemies. Savages and them as the use destruction for all ages, sexes, religions. They are saying they are already doing it, so were going to pay them back for it. George washington instructs John Sullivans army in your record country to carry the war into the heart of the country of the six nations, cut off their settlements, destroy their next years crops, and do them every other mischief of which time and circumstance will permit. George rogers clark, we invade Shawnee Country says to excel them and barbarity is the only way to make war upon indians. Then he practiced what he preached. Era of the American Revolution to the crisis that resulted in the civil war, terrorism shaped American Communities in myriad ways. United states continued to terrorize denizens of indian country. On the international scene, terror tactics accompanied the American Army as they invaded british north america in the 1810s, burning york in that conflict. And again when we invaded mexico in the 1840s. Americans terrorize recently arrived immigrants and enslaved africanamericans and their free cousins in northern cities routinely faced terrorism. A sexual crisis heated to a boil, and the middle of the 19th century, when americans terrorize each other based on their belief in slavery. Culminating on a raid on harpers ferry. We can talk about john brown toer if that is a you want do. If there is mentioning that brown believes slavery was an act of war, and therefore should be destroyed using terrifying violence, and he was not alone in this believe. He drew on the examples of people who would come before like nat turner. Briefly. Will wrap up terrorism,ng that though perhaps not known by that particular term, has deep roots in American History. I barely scratched the surface in these remarks. I think that reflecting on the violence that shaped early American History can be a sobering experience. But it is necessary. To just as a corrective jingoist versions of the past, but because it moves us to a fuller, more accurate rendering of that past. And by placing terrorisms past in a proper historical context, we can begin to see our own violent times more clearly. From this perspective, terrorism is not an aberration, nor something that al qaeda imported on september 11, 2001, but rather a crucial aspect of American History from the very beginning. Thank you. [applause] graduate ofw im a Amherst College, and if anyone wants to feed me some drinks later tonight, i will sing the bestknown Amherst College drinking song about him giving biological warfare. Amonghas been a vote amherst alumni and students about whether or not to distance the college officially from the lord jeffrey amherst. Just to make light of biological warfare. Good afternoon. It is afternoon. Everyone whonk came to our presentations this afternoon. I look forward to your questions. I will try to talk too long. Its hard to do, ive been working on my book for like 25 years. I started, no one was interested in anarchist terrorism, or my speciality is counterterrorism. Read inmusing to me to one very reputable italian biographical dictionary, that the 1898 rome antianarchist conference, which was the first antiterrorism conference in it never took place. People were invited, but no one showed up. So little was known about this event, i had a great deal of trouble finding documentation on it. Archivesreign ministry in rome, although eventually, i succeeded. All of us here it seems want to both the store size and problem at ties terrorism and in that case, counterterrorism. Nietzsche, the famous german philosopher, who has noly that which history is definable. And terrorism has a long history. Conclude thats, i anarchism, or anarchist ofrorism was the terrorism 1878 through 1934. That it was looked at in a distinctly different way than other forms of Political Violence. I will give you some of the examples of that. Example, at this antianarchist conference i mentioned in rome, in 1898, european diplomats them all european countries, the heads of the Police Departments and national Police Departments defined the anarchist act as aimed it quote the violent destruction of all social organization. Churches, families. This is a breathtaking level of destruction that no other Political Violence of the time can quite equal. I have nihilists, sometimes it in a fight with anarchists. We have the socialist revolutionaries in russia. The nationalists of various sorts, all using what we would call today terrorist acts, assassinations, throwing bombs. They are not trying to destroy all social organization. Their goals are somewhat limited. That truly exists anarchist terrorism was terrorism, these other things were Political Violence, but they did not rise to the level of anarchists terrorism. Aims,k has three specific goals. First and foremost, i narrate and analyze the history of of international and especially multilateral diplomatic and Police Responses to anarchism 1878, 1914, with an epilogue going through the mid1930s from world war i to the 1930s. I can say this. Every kind of counterterrorist policy today has this antecedents before world war i. Much of what we think of as a new kind of terrorism today has precedent in the preworld war i period. The french were very worried about anarchists getting ahold of airplanes and using them. Nothing like that ever happened. Anarchistsfears that might bomb the gas system in paris, so every home would explode. Nothing like that whatever happened. Theres a myth about anarchist terrorism that was promulgated by the authorities, and also to the media, which my book focuses on. As well as the actual reality of what happened. Just return to this issue of counterterrorism, beginning in the 1890s, growing bilateral antianarchist Police Cooperation was followed by major efforts and multilateral cooperation in 1898 at the rome conference, in 1904 at a protocol signed by half the european states instinct ears burn. In st. Petersburg. A parallel of these efforts was a creation by the individual states of Extensive International police that works to monitor the anarchist, italy was especially successful in creating these International Police networks. In theook, argue that prewar era, careful Police Intelligence and international Police Cooperation, together with a more rigorously professional system of protection for monarchs and heads of state aided in curbing anarchist terrorism. But heavyhanded repression only worsened it. Britain provided the best example of antianarchist policing, and spain, the worst. After 1900, italy followed in britains footsteps, a revamped and professionalized its police force, and the kings core of bodyguards and expanded and improved its intelligence Gathering Service abroad. After 1900, hand, italy passed no new antianarchist laws, created no new antianarchist police units, and signed no new international antianarchist diplomatic agreements. Spain had done all of these things. But they proved not only ineffective, but also in many cases, counterproductive. They exacerbated the very problems they were designed to resolve. Counterterrorism, less is often times better than more. My books second major aim is to provide greater understanding of the phenomenon of anarchist terrorism, particularly as depicted by the print media. Anarchist terrorism was a worldwide phenomenon, my book places it in the context of the first great era of economic and social globalization. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. The book includes information on the problem of anarchists violence and repression in such region in countries like the middle east, morocco, india, china, and japan. But my major focus is on europe, and the americas, and in the americas, especially the United States and argentina, where the most important acts of anarchist terrorism occurred in the western hemisphere. Thatme significance is anarchists suicide bombings and assassinations took place during this time. A phenomenon that as far as im aware, did not occur into our present age of religiously inflicted terrorism. Although, i have distinct reservations about the claimant, several authors have pointed out many similarities even the equivalency between 19 century anarchism and al qaeda. While most general discussion of anarchist population in 1914, if not earlier, my book carries it through to the mid1930s. During its heyday, sensationalist newspapers, together with their fearful readers and the anarchists and would be anarchists themselves to the violent deeds of anarchists and others created the myth of anarchist terrorism is a powerful conspiratorial force moving through the world. In other words, the authority it feared, the black international that had this huge plot to assassinate all of the rulers of europe, and of course, the president of the United States. Which was not true. But many anarchists or would be anarchists, or people excited by all of this exciting stories and assassinations in the newspapers they glommed onto this fall smith of a powerful anarchist conspiracy, and they were recruited, or self recruited into carrying out terrorist incidents themselves. Therefore, the myth was as important in the history of the development of anarchist ,errorism and its containments as were the heterogeneous acts of violence themselves. In a sense, my book aims to shatter the fearsome myth of anarchist terrorism by showing the wide gap that exists between , andthe media, the public the governments perceived it, and what actually took place. Despite widespread fears to the contrary, as i mentioned, anarchists organized very few conspiracies, and many active anarchist terrorism were not committed by anarchists. They were committed by nationalists, rent lists, socialists, police spies, agent for marketers, and the mentally imbalanced. All of whom were labeled in the media as anarchists. Im going to try and cut this short, to give her enough time to talk. Whyd, i explore the reasons certain nations werent more successful and others in dealing with anarchist terrorism. Im especially interested in britain, italy follows britain. If you have more questions about that, you can ask afterwards. Im just going to jump to my conclusion. Combination ofa economic and social, and political factors, combined with the systematic government effort to redefine it and downplay the nature and importance of anarchist terrorists, to explode the anarchist myth or suppress it, provides the best this form ofor why violence declined in certain countries, but not in others. Careful Police Intelligence work and international Police Cooperation, together with a more rigorously professional system of protection for monarchs and heads of state there was very little of this at couldime, before 1900 aid in reducing the problem of anarchist terrorism. But heavyhanded repression, together with the use of agent provocateurs only worsened. , agentagents provocateurs, carry out a surprising number of terrorist acts attributed falsely to the anarchists. At best, police measures proved complement 32 and supportive of the more important social, political, and economic policies and reforms designed to extricate nations from the impasses that had caused anarchist violence to erupt in the first place. At worst, policing measures exacerbated the very problems they were designed to alleviate. Macabre e dolls of terrorism went into an extended intermission. At worst its bloody gyrations continued on and on. [applause] this is a great group of scholars to be talking to. I will try to make my statement relatively brief. The online comedy website the just recently had a parody article about historians. Historian dressed in a mustard jacket and maroon shirt. He is seen their giving a talk. Headline reads historians politely remind nation to check what happened in the past before making any big decisions. Share at least to some sentiment that we are giving polite reminders. I primarily study the historical intersections of dangerous technical speech like bomb making manuals. Those that intersect with terrorism policy and criminal prosecutions. It really begins in the 19th century. I often have a case of deja vu. I recently read a good article that givesl scholar context to the phrase shouting theater. Crowded larson finds in the 19th century there were numerous incidents of people shouting fire and credit pedsers, caused human sand human stamp eased human stampedes that killed dozens of people. The word feeds is often used is often used as terrorists. The one of violence case the x of violence in one case of shouting fire a theater stands out, because in the infamous case of shank versus United States in 1919, which upheld the espionage conviction of a protester distributing antiwar literature. It was argued the First Amendment did not protect speech that presents a clear and present danger, like shouting fire in a crowded theater or obstructing war efforts. It was the analogy of a case trying to bust up labor unions in michigan. Was a gathering of copper miners, a Holiday Gathering that was organized by a Benevolent Society and there were lots of. Eople gathered in this room everybody rushed to the exits and 73 people were killed, many of them children. We have used in prior legal cases. It is the power of the shouting fire analogy and reveals its entanglement with speech that we may today argue as pure rustic because of its use as a course weapon. See that holmes has an application of shouting fire, the antiwar literature was an over reach that took several decades of legal debate to uncover, even though the clear danger is with us. Im interested in governments, and the u. S. Governments have and as punishable what the u. S. Governments have defined as punishable terroristic speech. There are anarchist cookbooks or mayhem manuals. And these instructions on how to make explosives, toms, and other weapons. These appear in the late 19th century. There is some precedents but they appear in the late 19th century. By groups whouced wanted to overthrow the ruling class. With the invention of dynamite a few radicals thought it would be easy to arm a relative arm a revolution with handbooks. Includingcarnations, files,hnics and anarchy became the precursors to al magazine, which provides instructions for bomb making. One of the articles is inspires articles it inspires is how to make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom. To make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom was used in the Boston Marathon bombing, and shotbly by the pair who people in san bernardino. Recent versions of the popular weapons manuals are based on a andckaging of ideas instructions. Maybe they are given a glossy photographs or a greater idea of laboratory procedure. They are mostly older stuff. Copied and weapons are almost directly from those or they can be taken from accessible mainstream science and technical literature. I kept seeing the same formulas and designs being repeated over time. Some interesting conclusions that can be drawn. First we can see the image of the diabolical genius bar maker, which goes back always, is often the media is overblown. We can see a relationship bomb makers, and official sources. Finally, what really interests me is if we think of these manuals as a form of speech, they are not easy to define as a possible acception to free speech. If the Technical Information is widely available already, then what speech would we be censoring if we decided to censor anything. The danger is the Technical Information calls for the revolution, then the effort to censor is punishing political speech. Im going to jump ahead. Im going to end with. Eflections cases in which Constitutional Rights have been an issue and i have examined them over time, im really cautious about the label. Simply calling for revolutions, does that make one a terrorist . At least in the United States we have understood abstract undertion to be protected the Supreme Court ruling in ohio. Without any concrete plans for carrying it out. Frequently made threats to burn down the british empire. Himthe riders will point to as the first tourist. On what basis is he the first terrorist . That is something we have to keep in mind. I work terrorism in the 20th century. I think of it as a specific crime that often springs from criminal conspiracy. Speech asl mere we all of us who study recent history no governments can overreact to perceived threats by putting security over liberty. We all know the consequences of deportation. Nd i will urge some caution as we discuss the concept of terrorism. Is an incident of current formulations and criminal cases that are redefining tolerance of speech, especially among certain groups like muslims, even as we speak. [applause] thank you for the presentations. We have a little bit over 45 minutes. Ask if summary has a question or comment, has that gone live . Give me your name and affiliation. We will assemble a couple of names. Yes. Thank you all for the fascinating remarks. I have a short remark and a question. Israel whereens in palestinian was murdered by. Ewish terrorist the government discovered in the wedding of extremist activists. People stabbed a picture of the baby. That goes to this presentation. The groom was arrested, the singer was arrested, and bydiers were courtmartialed participating in an event of insightful speech. They started to arrest anyone who was involved. It is kind of a second degree. A professor which kind of corresponds but not completely agreeable. Act designed to invoke fear. Which is also not directly intended or mainly intended to undermine the military potential of the ed me of the enemy. Directthing is not a military act, im wondering what you think about these kinds of negative a couple of questions and then go from there. This is a fascinating round table. Im a doctoral student finishing up my dissertation in my dissertation is called nixons war on terrorism. And the origins of watergate. I have two related questions. You were talking about the history of terrorism that is necessarily going to engage, and im wondering about engaging with at the subfield of critical terrorism studies, which have emerged more recently, and in related to that i think there are at least two ways of thinking about terrorism historically. I think you are talking about the history of terrorism in a way that is similar to though to the way terrorism experts have done so. And that is sort of a definitional approach, even though we talked about that about the problem of definitions, coming up with some sort of definition and pushing it back in time and trying to in certainchanges type of behavior, we give a definition for it in the beginning. Comes aapproach that little bit more out of the critical terrorism studies approach, ishronic the way in which the term terrorism has been used to ofegitimize certain types violence, and the implications of that in terms of state power and violent political contacts once political consequence. Im thinking the history of terrorism, as well as disciplining terror, in which he argues terrorism experts who emerged in the 1970s actually invented terrorism in terms of how we understand it popularly almost irrational. Actors. Ally by nonstate and cons of pros these different approaches . Are there fruitful ways we can cipro we can see both approaches with one another. Anybody else want to throw out a question now . Spend the next few minutes responding to that. Two elements, i wanted to respond to the notion of defining terrorism in terms of provocation. Back it wasng violent acts that were designed not to directly feet iraqi defeat designed to not to directly feet the romans but would destroy the middle ground, that would radicalize the population, force people to take up defense of their homeland. They were successful in that they got the romans to invade. They got to take part in a war of independence. Provocation,of when repeated and developed across the 19th century, particularly some of the works of iming the mantle they talked about the role of. Rovocative violence i would add one caveat or asterisk. It is not just violence that is meant to solicit fear. I want to step back and symbolic terrorism and symbolic violence that has an audience in mind, and different audiences are imagined by those who use terrorism as not reacting just out of fear, that as a positive inducement. I think one of the most isortant examples of that bin laden and al qaedas use of violence on 9 11. From the standpoint of the United States, it was designed simply insulated prove and designed simply and solely to produce terror. It was an act that was meant to suede the behavior of the themselves,l qaeda to revolutionize them, to downalize them, to break all the to unify the members of al qaeda. They were as much of an audience , and people across the middle to react imagined positively to this sort of violence. Not just the provocation intended to create an action out of fear, which is important. Otherwise i agree with that entirely. I have a couple of other reactions, let me move down the line here. About the comment whole issue of definition of terrorism. Many people want to create an essential list of terrorism. I am disagreeing with that. I will give you one example. In 1904 there was a revolutionary terrorist, he was head of the combat organization. Implicated in the assassination of a couple of top czarist government officials. The czarist government asked for his extradition from italy to russia. It wasnty granted for a number of reasons. What a prime reason was it was an extradition between treaty. Ion his actions today, according to any Axis National list definition of terrorism, would be considered terrorism, was not consider terrorism, if a theorist crime was against law of nations, against humanity. Virtuallyhere are no cases in which an anarchist was refused extradition. Crimes are considered crimes against the nation, against humanity. I really think those are really necessary. Like this, imyself felt rather uncomfortable i was working alongside terror experts, i was watching them testified before congressional and in court cases. Obviously had this preexisting agenda to prosecute terrorists. I do didnt i didnt want to fall into that. Danger, thatsible we can get entwined with rhetoric. To standt is important back and be cognizant of it. The insightful speech was stabbing the photo of the baby . [indiscernible] and dance with knives and guns. The definition of incitement is very across nations. Terrorism in the u. K. , it is possible to be imprisoned for all kinds of speech, like the speech i have studied. In the United States we have been less willing to go in that direction. I think that is quite an ,nteresting thing to look at how different nations are looking at what is terroristic speech. I was thinking about the other part of your question, if thaterstood right, and act is not designed to degrade the. Ilitary capacity i think in the premodern world, and i only visit this world pay my electric bill, but when you think about an act of terrorism, the idea of affecting the many, then all acts of terrorism are political maneuver. And for me the continuum between military and political shades together really quickly. Im not sure that is a piece of the definition i would see as key to understanding it. Its meant to create a reaction, whether that reaction, diplomatic, political, inaction. It seems like a copout, but these people know the field of terrorism studies and History History more and than i can ever hope to. That arose is terrorism as a term calls to mind a certain set of images. It is not necessarily work across the board. The way i danced around that was to use phrases like terror inducing violence or terror inspiring tactics. Recognizing there is a connection between these early forms of violence and our own trying to avoid using the word terrorism specifically, because then it opens up too many cans of worms. Those are just my thoughts. Richard jackson contributed a chapter to this book. Very good at reviews. I would say this, critical notorism studies, it is that old, it is since 9 11 and centered on the journal of the same name and a series of various books collected. Problemustrates the between humanity and andifically historians working on terrorism studies. He just had communicated very much about this. As much as i value of a lot of a lot their stock of that is in the literature from historians and some social scientists going back to the 1970s and 80s. There is no terrorism except when something is called terrorism. Something calling it that of calling something terrorism makes it terrorism. Theouglass book from 1990s, the mid 90s where they talk about the world trade center, but they are talking about 1993. There is a lot about terrorism as a communicative act which tend to get lost, which is why the critical terrorism state folks had to get back to basics and say that terrorism is fundamentally a linguistic social construct. It is very valuable work. Other questions or comments please. Go out to the middle and give your name and affiliation end use the mic please. I might be a Good High School teacher or a bad one because my kids are definitely because my kids are working on the definition of terrorism. Im curious about the context of terrorism as it pertains to the context of peace. World is increasingly peaceful, what does that do to a longer view of terror, when were morend terror normal across everyones experience, and now the shock alue is so much higher . I had a question about symbolic violence in symbolic spaces. Im curious to hear your thoughts and particularly since 9 11 there has been an increase on tourist attractions. Im hoping that is not a new phenomenon either. Im hoping you can interpret and help usss especially in leisure and way of life. I am a phd candidate, one of the great things is the huge expanse of time. One area is the difference between counterterrorism and or terrorism by the state and terrorism against the state. We see that even in first century. You have crucifixion, both potential forms of terrorism. Is there anything we gain from what wetinction and potentially lose . That is my question. We have a lot on here. We seem to be stuck on terms, which is important when talking about Something Like terrorism. If youd is if you define something you negated. The only things that have no history can be defined. We run into this problem with a lot of things, because so much of the world has a lot of history. In a room with a lot of historians, we agreed that we agree with that. Question this is a watereddown version of the questions we already have here, what you think is the role of historians when talking about and writing about terrorism . Im actually anxious to talk about the first two questions together. I said hey im going to talk about terrorism next and they all looked at mes do provide at least to provide at me stu pified. They wished me well and ran in a different direction. It applies to some stuff i have , to both theon question of the shock value of is it certainwhy spaces are targeted, something has happened just in the nature of Human History that, lets say after the industrial revolution, we have gained a space of security and stability we take as normative. When you move backwards in time to a place and this is part of what i was trying to invoke with some of my comments. When everybody knew the rules of war were fair game. It is a whole bunch of fourlegged critters howling outside the city walls. Statictes a background of never ending angst. I think theres a problem of looking at terroristic acts in the earlier age when people have , its not a comfort level, its exactly the opposite of what i want to say. Fear that is quite different from our circumstances today. It becomes such evocative targets, because they really strike at that place. Of a set of generations for humanity that have vacation spots, places, something that they are getting used to enjoying. In the late 19th century the symbolic spaces become about critical infrastructure. You mentioned the targeting of gas lines. That is why i think of terrorism as more recent as really emerging in the 19th century because of those particular kinds of tax. I would also like to think about symbolic violence. The weather use, they put a bomb in the capital, it went off in the middle of the night. They decided they were not going to cause any casualties. And bernadine said this is symbolic violence. I was never really sure what she meant by that and what this distinction was between symbolic violence and other forms of violence. I would like to pursue that question. I would say this goes back to the first question, i would say symbolic violence is violence that primarily serves a symbolic function, violence that serves as a message rather than violence that is meant to , and militaryde violence, which is meant to occupy territory, violence that is meant to destroy the enemy army. Violence that has a function as a message, because it is meant it conveys aecause message to the audience. One of the terrorist in the 1870s spoke of terrorism as a , that is meanter to assault the enemy and not gain a military victory. Their strength becomes a weakness, so the enemy defeats acts thatough its own the needked into being to act. I would like to say a few things about all of those questions. The gentleman was asking about, can we ever have a society . We probably always will have terrorism of some form or another. The period i studied, there were periods where there were less terrorism than there is after 1990s. About,stion was asked what determined which spaces to target. Many of the anarchist terrorists were not anarchists. Many of the targets were ideology,by anarchist which does not believe in state. Wereost famous of terror acts on the heads of state or monarchs. She was shopping and visiting. This anarchist wanted to be famous and strike back at the ruling class. It may be is because anarchism emphasize the importance of liberating humanity through education. Any never even bombed religious schools, which is harder to understand. They thought the Catholic Church was part of the hierarchy of control. There are cases of anarchists assassinating priests. Against therudge economic system, so there is an attempt to blow up an exchange in england. Although it turns out the exchange is no longer a stock exchange, so it had nothing to do with capitalism and this poor italian anarchist to not realize that. Its kind of a shopping center. There is a certain permeation of ideology that suggests the anarchists, even if many anarchists were not in favor of terrorism. Relationship between ideology and terrorism is very problematical. Last question was what is the role of history is talking about terrorism . You mean about the definition of terrorism or terrorism in general . Both. I think historians need to problem a ties need to store problematizeeed t and historicize terrorism. The use of terrorism was not used as frequently in the 19th century as it is today. That is why i like to say anarchism wasnt in the 19th ,entury, because if you look at for example i look at the index to the london times, and they have all kinds of stories about the bombings going on in paris in the 1890s. The people of terrorists were panicked. It is not listed under terrorism or terror. In response to the question, i willit was mike start with my essay. You had something that is by most modern definitions and act of terrorism. Holding the federal arsenal and the 1816 political process and so on. You start with this sharp focused terrorist event. You trace the narrative strand that may have brought something to that point. The point is if something mina be called terrorism, it may be an ancestor of terrorism. I try to shy away from it a little bit. I think the historians role is to push back against these to push backives, against the cookiecutter definitions of terrorism to see what works and what doesnt work. I see it especially in my teaching. Because of the times in which we live, many of our students have very limited conceptions of terrorism and very limited conceptions of the role of violence in American History. Gohink one of the things we we we need to deepen understandings. That is where i see my role. Throw it out to the audience. I want to mention anybody who had a chance to ask a question or make a comment provides some sort of feedback. Bueller . Bueller . Wrong audience. On the role of historians, i cank historians typically be somewhat lampooned when they publicly on apeak current event. They say could back to me in 20 or 30 years, when we have the requisite perspective to make sense of what is happening, or when we have the documents that are made available to give us what we actually need to know about the present. Most historians are not keen to comment based on initial newspaper account or something. And i think it is a kind of, the kind of abdication of responsibility. One a few i think we have an expertise, a duty as theseectuals to get in kind of public debates, not to hit the silly public kneejerk response. I love listening to the news shows and simply saying, well i have no idea what happened but this is my analysis of it. That doesnt help us at all. But to say i dont really know let usppened, but simply look at the back story, lettuce problem with ties let us problematize. I think historians have a duty to show where the back story is and how that back story creates a context. And how that should make it difficult for us to respond quickly based on limited information. We see constantly around us, is that populations become more terrified and populations demand security from their government and inns in essence they want their state act quickly if it is an improper inappropriate response. Look busy, do something. There is a dynamic created their when states seal the need to respond quickly, to show they are masters of the situation, even if they are not responding based on good or appropriate information. And that is the problem with terrorism. Look at how france turned on a entireodified its foreign policy, its stance in the middle east, its stance towards isis, syria, and iraq, towardsmed its austere these attacks, which were admittedly horrific. Based on thelear rhetoric of francois hollande, by the need to show strength. Of the publics reaction to it. These are the moments where historians can get involved and voice thatrt of doesnt come or reinsurer the kind of perspective. Think lessons can be john in history. I dont think that is the job of historians. There are things you can draw from looking at how nations dealt with anarchist terrorism. It is a different age now. Italy was quite successful in redefining the anarchist terrorist, who had been a martyr before. Against been fighting an authoritarian government. The massive population had very little and he was very able at redefining a couple when he was even redefining them as juvenile delinquents, as mentally ill. Just dont talk a anarchism at all. His idea was we dont discuss anarchism. He doesnt even mention that the assassin was an anarchist. We have plenty of historical evidence. That letsforget just forget that. These are unbalanced people. Psychiatrist, the doctors, the social workers, the ordinary Law Enforcement should take care of them, but they are not for parliaments to take care of. He refuses to pass any antianarchist laws. Down his book is fabulous. And he talks about how governments made decisions about policing. And these are the same kind of questions. A lot of those questions are still with us. I think policy questions persist, the treatment of courts persist, that these precedents are really relevant. I think it is a great question and it has hung over us. Overnk it has been hanging us and since randy approached us to write these chapters. Me this is not some distant thing. Im not going to be tough about another continent, another people, another culture. It has been a thing. Been a fresh problem in terms of how i construct a telling of the plan a telling of the past. Want to define it and that is a judgment. At the same time we want to slow the rush to judgment. That is what i am hearing from several of my coparticipants here. Then i was struck by another thing, just as rick was speaking. Several times, where we have to say this is what so and so says, but this is what the facts are. This is part of the safeguard, the rush to get the version out in front of the others as the documents come free, as we get access to the real material, we can say ok, here is the narrative that really transpired, despite what the spin doctors have to say about it because of political agendas or whatever. I would echo what he said. I am very leery of the word lessened. I speak to students about avoiding it. History doesnt give us blueprints in the effort to apply a blueprint almost always leads to an error. It gets us to ask better questions. What a historian can do in the heat of a moment. To the of reacting kneejerk responses, let us come up with a set of questions that will guide us as the material becomes, as the information the d percent of and what happened, what are the questions that can guide us . And these questions are about state versus substate, so on, so forth. These are the sorts of questions we can ask in a moment and the consequences we can ask in 20 years. I think you were also going to respond. Them i have another i have another cautionary, a lot of the documents i were collecting i was collecting were collected by governments and police. I wonder how we get out of shaping our ideas of historical moments. You think that that shapes your of these in a limited way, possibly, i dont know. Just looking at government collections of documents. Dont claim to be an expert on anarchist terrorism. Although i have tried to Read Everything i could about anarchist terrorists. Certainly it does shape in my view. One comment that and made some really opened my eyes that i sort of sol sort of sol was there. Sort of saw was there. Im not just talking about not to terrorism. Not just nazi talking about nazi terrorism. Send them to horrible devils islands kind of places in the spanish saharas, that they promote terrorism. Through the phenomenon of problem turned us phenomenon of provocateurs, we t know how much we do see quite a bit of information about secret agents, Double Agents being behind the prosecution of terrorists in the United States. So far they havent engaged in any violent acts. Police agents, carrying out terrorist act. About that, how important is that, how fundamental . I want to welcome the middle road there and say there are some examples of this. Lets see if i can give a really good example. Least the terrorists try to blow up the emperor of germany in the 1880s, when he was at baker memorial. He was given money by a German Police agent to travel to the site of the commemoration. This happens again with more famous anarchists that threw a bomb into the French Parliament in 1893. Money been provided supposedly by an anarchist robber, but was this a police who wanted him to throw this bomb, which was not a very powerful bomb at all. It didnt kill anybody. It hurt the anarchist itself. Line of questions, why didnt they prosecute, the money to pay for his bombs. Was it because the French Parliament passed all kind of anarchist laws yet this is not improvement though. Difficult story to try and uncover. Murky, this relationship between Police Investigators and the groups they are investigating over time. Find theficult to information. Some provocateurs have admitted that they were. It is hard to know how much that is going on. Does anybody have a last parting shot . In that case i would thank you all for coming and thank you all for your questions and comments, and we appreciate you being here. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] you are watching American History tv. To join the conversation, like us on facebook at cspan history. This weekend, matthew angers of the university of North Carolina at chapel hill talks about how the racial tensions of the 1980s were reflected in the sports of the era. Here is a preview. The fight takes place in las vegas, june 11, 1982. Millions more are watching at home on payperview. I was one of those millions. Factare some interesting is from this night and this fight. One, theng fact number Las Vegas Police department employed their swat teams. They surround the arena up on the roof, snipers were pointing their guns at the crowd as the crowd went in. Members of the ku klux klan said they were going to assassinate him in the rain. Organizations said we are going to be armed if any harm goes to larry holmes we are going to fight back. This is much more than a sporting event. Watch the entire Program Saturday here on cspan lupup next, former gal Senior Editor david moore talks about his book, the opinion makers. He discusses the way poll results are reported by the news media. Waters ofecorded at street bookstore in New Hampshire in 2008 and is about one hour and 10 minutes. Dr. Moore i want to turn to essentially the theme of the book. Anays. ,tle insider reveals the truth about the polls. They dont tell the truth