Posted on 04/16/2013 7:16:57 PM PDT by Altura Ct.
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.
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.
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. 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.
“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.”
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.
To know that’s true is to simply consider how America reacts to different kinds of terrorism.
Though FBI data show fewer terrorist plots involving Muslims than terrorist plots involving non-Muslims, America has mobilized a full-on war effort exclusively against the prospect of Islamic terrorism. Indeed, the moniker “War on Terrorism” has come to specifically mean “War on Islamic Terrorism,” involving everything from new laws like the Patriot Act, to a new torture regime, to new federal agencies like the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to mass surveillance of Muslim communities.
By contrast, even though America has seen a consistent barrage of attacks from domestic non-Islamic terrorists, the privilege and double standards baked into our national security ideologies means those attacks have resulted in no systemic action of the scope marshaled against foreign terrorists. In fact, it has been quite the opposite — according to Darryl Johnson, the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, the conservative movement backlash to merely reporting the rising threat of such domestic terrorism resulted in DHS seriously curtailing its initiatives against that particular threat. (Irony alert: When it comes specifically to fighting white non-Muslim domestic terrorists, the right seems to now support the very doctrine it criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for articulating — the doctrine that sees fighting terrorism as primarily “an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort” and not something more systemic.)
Enter the Boston bombing. 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. 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.
If that sounds hard to believe, just look at yesterday’s comments by right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham, whose talking points often become Republican Party doctrine. Though authorities haven’t even identified a suspect in the Boston attack, she (like other conservatives) seems to already assume the assailant is foreign, and is consequently citing the attack as rationale to slam the immigration reform bill.
The same Laura Ingraham, of course, was one of the leading voices criticizing the Department of Homeland Security for daring to even report on right-wing domestic terrorism. In that sense, she perfectly embodies the double standard that, more than anything, will determine the long-term political impact of the Boston bombing.
“Of course the left want it to be a white American so bad, they HOPE for it.”
What else would you expect from someone that become aroused at the fantasy of being physically and sexually abused for being born a privileged American white male. These people have severe mental issues
ultra liberal homosexual Jewish activist to the left of Axlerod
a nutbag
I wish you were right but Massachusetts had been controlled by the Bulger brothers and the FBI for 40 years until a few years ago.
They ran the Mafia out of there and most are still in prison. The Boston FBI arranged some murders and covered up others.
Read some of Howie Carr’s books. Whitey Bulger was the crime boss and his brother was the longtime Senate Speaker. They had more power than the Kennedys.
my oldest boy used to projectile vomit like that after feeding at the boobie or bottle
For white males and females that aren't liberals the opposite is true. They are persecuted and have their rights attacked in the same way that the author hypothesizes the rights of minorities would be attacked if they were blamed for a terror attack. Just look at the current vitriol aimed at law abiding gun owners.
man...the comments are acary...a few brave realists
but I am convinced we are more radicalized in America now to the Left than ever in history
especially youth
Progressivism is their belief system
it’s a sharp cutoff between younger those born before 1980 and after
really astonishing
I live in Northern Idaho. I know that the FBI’s plan for Randy Weaver was to drop a load of accelerants on his cabin from a helicopter at night. Local cops found out about it and the feds scrapped that plan. The feds did not intend for Randy Weaver to survive their siege to tell his story.
Was FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi ever held accountable for murdering Vicki Weaver by shooting her in the head with a .308 as she stood on the porch of that same cabin holding her “assault baby”? NO he was not.
The FBI made sure that nobody found out about their plan for the Branch Davidians in Texas and look what happened to them.
Back in the 60’s and 70’s the feds and big blue city PD’s were quite fond of burning all of the radicals (mostly black lefties in those days) that they got into conflicts with. I did not agree with the radicals but their guilt had not been established in a court of law.
Most recently there was that Dorner guy they turned into a crispy critter in California. Long before him there was a white supremacist on Whidbey Island near Seattle who got torched.
The list of federal law enforcement malfeasance is a lot longer than the few examples I have written here.
Do I believe that the feds are capable of felonious actions when ordered to do so by their superiors in direct violation of the constitutional rights of those they are after for whatever reason? As a student of history I must answer in the affirmative.
The underlings may find evidence that the bomber was a “protected” politically correct type. What happens when they report that to their politically appointed bosses? They won’t be able to tolerate that.
I will believe that federal law enforcement does the right thing if and when they do it. They did good on the first WTC attack. Since then, not so much.
Oh yeah, how about that video that “caused” all of those muzzie riots and the attack on the Benghazi consulate on 09/11/12? Has anyone read the FBI report on that one yet?
Is it True the Feds built a friggin bridge so they could get tanks onto Weaver’s property during the siege on Ruby Ridge?
Perhaps there was a mistake in the placement of the bombs and that their intended target was the MSM.
Even the mob would turn in someone who killed an 8 year old and blew the limbs off of several other children. This isn’t about thugs knocking off one another.
You are right on the mark.
Sirota has it back-asswards. If this act was perpetrated by Muslims, the MSM and the government will assure us it was an isolated act. If it was done by a right-winger, however, all conservatives will be smeared and blamed, we’ll hear about the pernicious influence of talk-radio and Fox News and the “conservative climate of hate.” In fact, they’ll do that even if it ISN’T done by a right-winger, as in the Tucson shootings, when the perp was a loony left-leaning guy, but Palin and conservatives were blamed.
The fact that people were killed and maimed doesn’t seem to mean anything to this whacko Salon writer. All that matters to him is that no good could come of the ongoing investigation if it turns out that foreign or muslim terrorists were the perpetrators. If that happens, the sight of all those body parts laying around could jeopardize progressive legislation, like immigration reform. The only answer to embarrassing situations like that would be to focus like a laser on the hunt for the Great White Defendant. Another Randy Weaver, if you will.
Well, naturally a leftie Salon writer would prefer the bomber to be a cracker than a fellow traveler. More political upside that way.
Lets hope its a North Korean. Who ever did this —not the kid who placed the bombs but the people really behind it—will strike again. Somewhere in New England will be another strike, I believe. My bet—Islamic Terrorists.
Let’s hope the writer of this obnoxious nonsense is not a smarmy, opinionated *sshole.
But he is.
I suspect the epitaph you picked out for your tombstone will read: "I Was More Politically Correct Than You!"
I also suspect I would greatly enjoy pissing on it.
Because of the sheer volume of terrorist attacks around the world in the last 20 to 30 years, the first suspects MUST be Islamic. What other group, if you will, has been so prolific in murder and mayhem against purely non combatants?
What if in such a remote possibility its agents from North Korea?
In that case I am glad I didn’t get thru it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.