The Shattering Silence: How Race and Racism Shape the Narrative of Mass Violence
In the wake of the devastating mass shooting at an adult education centre in Örebro, Sweden, where 11 lives were lost (including the killer) and several were injured, the world paused in collective disbelief. Yet, the narrative that unfolded was not merely one of shock and grief; it was a reflection of race, media framing, and societal biases. This incident underscores the profound impact of racial identity on how such tragedies are perceived and reported. It is imperative that we critically examine these dynamics to foster a more nuanced understanding of mass violence. What is also quite disturbing, but the Swedish authorities are not wanting to raise this at this moment, is that the attacker’s motives were racist, anti-immigrant, and anti-minority—and this is all the more realistic given the ethnic and racial origins of the victims, almost all of whom appear to be Syrians and Bosnians.
The immediate aftermath of the shooting was marked by an overwhelming sense of shock and sorrow. Eyewitnesses recounted scenes of chaos, with victims bleeding and crying. Media outlets initially centred their coverage on the human toll and the community’s collective mourning. The Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson labelled it “the worst mass shooting in modern Swedish history,” highlighting the unprecedented scale of the tragedy. Headlines emphasised the magnitude of the event, focusing on the loss of life and the impact on the community. People gathered to mourn, creating a shared sense of grief and unity. However, as details about the shooter emerged, the narrative began to shift, reflecting a subtle yet significant change in public and media perception. This shift is crucial for understanding how race influences the emotional and informational response to such events even as the racial identities of the victims are not being made openly apparent.
As the identity of 35-year-old Rickard Andersson, a Swedish man and former student at the school, came to light, the narrative took a different turn. Described as a recluse with limited social interaction and an unemployment history spanning a decade, Andersson’s background provided context but also altered the emotional tone of the story. His lack of apparent ideological ties and his mental health status—rumoured to include Asperger’s syndrome and high-functioning autism—were highlighted. These details framed the shooting as an isolated incident of individual mental instability rather than a coordinated act of terrorism. This framing significantly influences public perception and policy responses. It also takes the attention of the failing social services and policing structures due to the inherent biases they are likely to maintain, with the motivations of the attacker also specifically indicating that he targeted people of colour.
As the media focus turned to individual mental health and personal grievances, effectively neutralising the emotional charge associated with terms like “terrorist,” it took attention away from overt and covert expressions of racist ideologies taking hold, which are likely to be made known eventually—and this playbook is no different from what occurred in Norway in relation to Anders Breivik and in New Zealand in relation to Australian-born Brendan Tarrant. The report starts off with a lone attacker with no obvious ideological motivations for the truth to be revealed soon after that they were motivated by the idea of the ‘great replacement theory’ in order to make their countries ‘racially purer’ again—all of which play on eugenicist ideas that took hold of Europe and America from the mid-1800s onwards and seem to have made a remarkable return to mainstream politics, particularly in the US.
The current official stance that Andersson acted without ideological motives is noteworthy. In many instances, mass violence perpetrated by individuals from marginalised ethnic or religious groups is swiftly labelled as terrorism, often fuelling public fear and calls for stringent security measures. Such labelling frequently leads to the demonisation of entire communities. Conversely, when the perpetrator is a white male with no apparent ideological connections, the narrative tends to focus on mental health issues or personal aberrations — only to be proven wrong numerous times. This differential treatment exemplifies the racial biases embedded in how society constructs and responds to acts of violence. Andersson’s whiteness allows the narrative to pivot toward individual pathology, reducing the emotional resonance and urgency surrounding his crimes—at least for now. What is also disturbing is how the ‘colourlessness’ of the victims is to mask the racist nature of this mass shooting—but neither the Swedish authorities nor the global media are willing to call this one out.
When the perpetrator is white, the emotional response to a mass shooting is often muted, largely due to the absence of the stereotypical terrorist profile. This de-emotionalisation allows for a less neutral discussion centred on individual factors like mental health, rather than systemic issues such as polarisation, cultural tensions, or religious extremism. The absence of a clear ideological or external motivation diminishes the event’s perceived threat to the dominant group, thereby reducing its emotional impact. Terms like “lone wolf” further depoliticise the act, reinforcing the notion of isolated incidents rather than systemic problems. This differential treatment perpetuates harmful dichotomies that obscure the root causes of violence. Understanding these dynamics is vital for dismantling entrenched biases and fostering equitable responses to all forms of aggression.
The Örebro shooting illustrates the socially constructed nature of “terrorism.” Acts of violence are not inherently defined by their brutality alone but by the societal interpretations and frames applied to them. The Swedish authorities have thus far classified the incident as attempted murder, arson, and aggravated weapons offences, rather than terrorism. This classification reflects a common approach to violence committed by white perpetrators, especially when the victims are not white, where ideological motives are downplayed. When a perpetrator is not white, the incident is more likely to be framed as a deliberate act of terror, especially if indeed the victims are white, linked to political, religious, or ideological extremism. This bias often obscures other factors, such as mental health or social isolation, and creates a narrative that is heavily influenced by stereotypes and prejudices.
The Örebro shooting lays bare the deep racial and ideological fault lines that shape our understanding of mass violence. By refusing to confront the racist motivations behind this tragedy, Swedish authorities and global media risk perpetuating a dangerous double standard: one where white perpetrators are afforded the shield of individual pathology, while victims of colour remain erased, their lives reduced to statistics. This silencing not only distorts the truth but also emboldens the very ideologies of hate that seek to divide societies. To dismantle these biases, we must demand accountability—not just from those who commit such atrocities, but from the systems that frame them. Only then can we hope to rewrite the narrative and honour the humanity of all those affected.
Update: On 11 February, the Swedish government stated that ‘most of the people killed had a migration background,’ but without releasing the full details. In a generation, Sweden has become a diverse society, but without the full appreciation of what this means in practice—it also indicates that there is a body of young males who are on the wrong end of the societal changes facing Sweden and are incapable of finding a path on their own. The idea that this attacker was a ‘lone wolf’ somehow devoid of ideological commitment is a misnomer and one that is likely to continue to haunt the nation as it comes to terms with this horrific event as time goes on. This murderous rampage is a wake-up call for the whole of Swedish society and potentially the whole of Northwestern Europe, and much needs to change in order to prevent the next attack.
