« | »

Salon: ‘Let’s Hope Bomber Is A White American’

From Salon Magazine:

Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American

There is a double standard: White terrorists are dealt with as lone wolves, Islamists are existential threats

By David Sirota | April 16, 2013

As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.

"Privilege." Clearly, this ‘reporter’ has been privileged with a careful indoctrination in ‘self loathing.’

This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

These ‘white dudes’ have been mostly "children" under the age of 26. And, lest we forget, there

Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters.

Really? We thought they were said to be representative of the rightwing extremists? Militia types.

Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.

And simply because they shout ‘Allahu Akbar’  and extol Muslim jihad. That is so unfair.

“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise. “White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”

According to Discover The Networks: "Tim Wise is a self-described “antiracist essayist” whose career is devoted to condemning the “white racism” and “white privilege” which, in his view, infest America."

Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail — it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks. That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues

This is liberalism today.

Coming at the very moment the U.S. government is planning to withdraw from Afghanistan, considering cuts to the Pentagon budget, discussing civil liberties principles and debating landmark immigration legislation, the attack could easily become the fulcrum of all of those contentious policy debates — that is, depending on the demographic profile of the assailant.

If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates.

Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack.

It will probably be much different if the bomber ends up being a Muslim and/or a foreigner from the developing world…

Remember how we were constantly told that the ‘Beltway Snipers’ were Muslims and extolled Jihad? (We don’t either, because it was seldom mentioned.)

As we know from our own history, when those kind of individuals break laws in such a high-profile way, America often cites them as both proof that entire demographic groups must be targeted, and that therefore a more systemic response is warranted. At that point, it’s easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston as a reason to block immigration reform defense spending cuts and the Afghan War withdrawal and to further expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties…

We don’t know what this author is concerned about, anyway. Apparently, Janet Napolitano already knows that the attacker was a white American, since she has declared that the bombings were not part of a larger plot.

From the Politico:

Napolitano: No indication Boston was part of ‘broader plot,’ but still cautious

By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | April 16, 2013

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Tuesday that there is no sign the explosions in Boston were part of a "broader plot," but that her department is still being cautious.

"While there is no current indication to suggest that the events in Boston are indicative of a broader plot," she said in a written statement.

They don’t know anything, and yet they know this?

"Out of an abundance of caution," she added, "DHS continues to keep in place enhanced security measures at transportation hubs, utilizing measures both seen and unseen." …

But isn’t it a waste of money, if this was just a lone attack?

Anyway, we suspect it was part of a broader plot called "jihad."

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, April 17th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “Salon: ‘Let’s Hope Bomber Is A White American’”

  1. mr_bill says:

    In my lifetime, I cannot recall a single airplane that was hijacked and/or blown up by non-muslims, yet the TSA strip-searches children, veterans, and the elderly, muslims are given a pass so as not to offend the people who look like every hijacker in the last 50 years.

    On the flipside, I had to check FBI statistics for domestic terrorism. in the 2002-2005 statistics (the latest I could find on a quick glance) 24 of 25 domestic terrorist acts were committed by eco-terrorists or animal rights terrorists, both firm constituencies of the political left. Yet, everytime there is any sort of terrorist act, of foreign or domestic origin, we are told that it’s likely a Tea Party affiliate, militia member, radical right winger, etc. In spite of the miniscule statistical chance that the culprit will belong to the political right. (I would love to see some numbers on how many terrorist acts were committed or attempted by the OWS people that the left loves so much).

    It would seem that there is indeed some “privilege” enjoyed by the guilty parties, but the guilty parties aren’t the ones Salon, or the rest of the rabid leftist media, hopes they are.

  2. GetBackJack says:

    Probably is …

    … an acolyte and student of Bill Ayers’ bombing career

    /hero worship

    • captstubby says:

      maybe the movie The Company You Keep,

      Robert Redford’s homage to the terrorist group The Weathermen
      will get a Oscar.

  3. canary says:

    If the Boston bomber was white he’d have been caught by now. If a foreigner he will be quietly released so he can be followed to gather more evidence by the king of letting terrorists go.

  4. canary says:

    At any given time photos and footage were being taken at the finish line, yet alone the security cameras. Security was beefed up 70% more police this year.

    Obama called it an act of terror so he could have the FBI take over.

    Obama said anytime bombs are used it is an act of terror. That from the king of drone bombs. lol.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »