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.
Mr. Sirota, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
[Paraphrased from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112508/trivia?tab=qt]
This is a case where beating the leftists brains out might result in them becoming smarter.
You just nailed that one!
For reporters that believe there is a political side to the FACTS of the story...
Kiss my &*^%ing a$$.
If it is a white male, politically connected to whatever...
Kiss my #%$*ing a$$.
REPORT THE FREAKING STORY! Quit trying to pretend you are not defending one side or the other, and REPORT THE FREAKING STORY!
Otherwise, kiss my ^*&%ing a$$.
I am sure when some crime happened in Nazi Germany, the Nazis openly hoped it had been a Jew, so they could feel good about punishing him.
Obviously it’s bound to be a “typical conservative white male” which implies racist, capitalist and a woman hater.
There is so much faulty logic and manipulated “fact” in this article, it is beyond me to keep my temper long enough to correct.
I think the timing of 0bama’s increased allowance of Saudi nationals coming to the U.S. a week or two prior to this event is highly suspicious. He would’ve met much resistance to it had he waited until after this event. Hmmmm...
What a load of toro mierda.
It was an awkward read, wasn't it?
I read it aloud to my wife...and, several times, had to pause to consider what was meant by what I'd just said.
No, not Ivy League. David Sirota is a Northwestern grad, with degrees in journalism (!) and political science.
Let’s hope that Salon finally goes bankrupt.
It was the DNC.
Its purpose is to increase spending.
“And you can call me naive or whatever, but I just don’t believe it. Regardless of the guy at the top, this is a good country filled with good people.”
I don’t think that you are naive. I think you need to consider the likelihood that the law enforcement side of our government has been co-opted by leftists and unions and is corrupt from top to bottom. I’m about 90% sure that it has.
“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.”
White privilege is knowing that evreyone will call your group to be profiled as racists because of the actions of about 2% of your group well over a hundred years ago.
White privilege is knowing that you will be subjected to special screening, and will lose the college position, job, or contract because of the color of your skin.
And who care about deportation? White privilege means tht your home nations, and your home nations alone, will be marked for the multicultuaralism experiment. And if you protest the higher crime rte, failing schools, and growing welfare state that occurs as a result... well... then you’re more evil than the treasonous politicians.
White privilege also means that you’ll have to foot the bill for the growing number of invaders in your country.
And White privilege means that you may get targeted for a bob attack.
Oh, wow, this white privilege that Liberals created and always cry about is oh so awesome.
Probably the biggest white privilege that there is, is you can become a conservative without being called racist terms like Uncle Tom the rest of your life.
The author is the product of a university environment that's identical to the indoctrination of Stalin's Young Pioneers or Hitler's Jugend. We are under attack and now I realize this can only end one way. Les jeux son faits.
And a Pit Bull.
Do you know any cops? I do. And do you still seriously believe that?
What a bunch of stupid, self-hating leftist crap.
Contrary to the MSM’s speculation-
Why would a fat, old, white American male conduct a bomb protest for Israel’s Memorial/Independence Day (Apr 15-16)?
General Casey: “And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse,”
Salon: “As horrific as this tragedy is, if a right winger didn’t do it, it’s even worse. “
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.