Reading Response 10/7/19

April L. O'Brien explains in her article the definitions of terrorism and horrorism, and how the two definitions can easily be interpreted interchangeably. However, she argues that there are key differences to the two definitions that revolve around ontological dignity. Terrorism threatens an individual's ontological dignity as the individual's identity is a factor in a cruel act. These exemplify ISIS's recordings of beheading people, as those are targeted toward people with an identity that threatens their beliefs. Horrorism, in contrast, does not account for a human's ontological dignity--treating them as if they're "material". A serial killer that murders people randomly without a connection between the victims' identities would be committing an act of horror. With this definition of horrorism, O'Brien continues to explain how horrorism can be applicable to non-human subjects as well. Existing spaces can also experience the loss of ontological dignity and being vulernable. The case study that is presented in the article suggests that Pendleton, South Carolina, was created through an act of horrorism due to the previously Cherokee land being stripped of its ontological dignity. "In the way the marker glosses over the slaughter of Cherokee Indians and the enslavement of African Americans, it wounds by attempting to erase these histories from public memory.". This sentence in O'Brien's analysis destroys the illusion that the colonizers in America created in order to glorify their existence in the United States. The space that had previously contained the history and memories of human beings was eradicated in order to serve as a symbol of pride for a fraction of what it had represented through a marker placed in the village. This is only one example in the United States of a space's history being erased and replaced by beginning its history with an American triumph.

Would non-living spaces be subjected to acts of terrorism as well? And if so, what are some example?