Print

xvi INTRODUCTION ends. Reagan had invoked the phrase in referring to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels who were fighting the communist Sandinista government in that country. The glar- ing weakness with President Reagan’s assessment is that the differences between terrorists and freedom fighters are completely subjective they are distinguishable only by those who are doing the viewing. “Freedom fighters” may oppose tyr- anny and fight for freedom and justice, but those dubbed “terrorists” may fight for exactly the same things. “Where you stand depends on where you sit” is a line first used in American politics to describe bureaucratic decision-making processes that involve actors who come to a “game” with “varying preferences, abilities, and positions of power” (Durbin). The assessments and decisions of the actors are col- ored by the determination of what will best serve the interests of the actor and the organization that he or she represents. In the same manner, designating one as a “terrorist” or a “freedom fighter” is a function of the end result desired by the play- ers of the game—in other words, suppression of undesirable elements (terrorist) or support of desirable elements (freedom fighter). Interestingly, terrorists rarely, if ever, refer to themselves as such. They use the terms “revolutionaries,” “militants,” “freedom fighters,” or “activists.” Thus, both extremists and terrorists, however they are designated, articulate that the cause for which they are fighting is just and honorable, thereby suggesting that the moniker that is applied to them should be more descriptive of their overall purpose—to bring about change: change that will be beneficial to the greatest number of people over the longest period of time. This text identifies extremists and extremist groups as well as incidents of domestic terrorism in American history. However, as discussed above, these terms are highly charged and subject to debate. There are several individuals and groups within these pages who have been designated as “extremist” because of their atti- tudes and actions toward issues, groups, and ideologies. Some are even branded with the viscerally charged term “hate.” Yet many groups and individuals so desig- nated reject these labels. They argue that they are being characterized as racist, intolerant, misogynistic, or hateful because of their beliefs. In some circumstances, however, these beliefs are informed by religious or personal convictions, so there is the countercharge that those making the characterizations are themselves intoler- ant. In like manner, the term “domestic terrorism” is difficult to pin down, as the understanding of the phrase may depend greatly upon whether violent actions are considered as pro- or antiestablishment. This is the same conundrum that plagues attempts to define incidents of international terrorism. Many of the individuals and groups identified in this text have been labeled extremists from a variety of sources. However, the most definitive sources used in this text are the designations provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Inves- tigation (FBI). The SPLC is undoubtedly the preeminent tracker of hate groups in the United States, defining “hate group” as “an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society” (Phillips 2016). However, there is no universal