Terrorism as a Colonial Term

The concept of terrorism is often presented as a universal and objective category of violence. Still, in reality, it is a deeply political and colonial term, shaped by historical power relations. Far from being a neutral description, “terrorism” has functioned as a label applied selectively to delegitimize resistance against domination, while simultaneously obscuring the systematic violence of empires and states. By tracing its evolution from the French Revolution to colonial and postcolonial struggles, it becomes clear that terrorism is less about the act itself than about who commits it, against whom, and who has the power to define it.

The modern use of the word “terror” dates to the French Revolution, particularly the Reign of Terror (1793–1794). At that time, “terror” referred to state violence carried out in the name of political order and revolutionary survival. Ironically, then, the earliest meaning of terrorism was tied to government repression, not insurgency. However, in the 19th century, as European powers expanded globally through colonization, the term shifted. Violence by colonized peoples seeking liberation was increasingly branded as terrorism, while state terror by empires was framed as “pacification” or “civilization.” This semantic reversal marked the birth of terrorism as a colonial term.

Examples from the 20th century demonstrate this colonial weaponization clearly. In Kenya, the British called the Mau Mau fighters “terrorists” for resisting land theft and racial subjugation, even as they used concentration camps and torture against civilians. In Algeria, France branded the National Liberation Front (FLN) as terrorists, though it was France that massacred Algerians in cities like Sétif in 1945 and used systematic torture during the war. Similarly, the British in Palestine, the Dutch in Indonesia, and later the South African apartheid regime all employed the label “terrorist” to delegitimize liberation movements. In each case, the colonial powers wielded far greater violence but avoided the label themselves. The asymmetry of definition reveals that “terrorism” has always been about power; those with authority name the violence of the oppressed as illegitimate while normalizing their own.

In the postcolonial era, the same colonial logic persists. After 9/11, the “Global War on Terror” further entrenched the term as a geopolitical tool. States have used it to justify invasions, mass surveillance, and drone warfare, often disproportionately targeting movements or regions already marked by histories of colonization. Meanwhile, liberation struggles in Palestine, Kurdistan, or Kashmir are frequently dismissed as “terrorism,” while state violence by powerful nations is framed as defense or counterterrorism. Thus, the colonial genealogy of the term continues to shape contemporary global politics.

Ultimately, the history of the word terrorism demonstrates that it is not a neutral descriptor of violence but a colonial and political weapon. Its meaning has shifted from describing state violence during the French Revolution to criminalizing anti-colonial resistance under empire, and finally to serving as a justification for global interventions in the 21st century. To uncritically use the term is to reproduce colonial narratives that delegitimize struggles for self-determination while masking the far greater violence of states. Recognizing terrorism as a colonial construct allows us to see through the asymmetry of its application and to question whose violence is named, whose is silenced, and who has the power to decide.