Racism in the media

OK, so when brown people blow stuff up, are suspected of wanting to blow stuff up or have connections to organizations that blow stuff up, the label of terrorist is slathered liberally all over them, but when a white guy blows stuff up for political reasons that label is nowhere to seen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/09/national/09rudolph.html

gah -- l/p?

I can't even read the article.

Wasn't the unibomber called a terrorist?

with the exception of lone crazies like the unabomber, most of the whitepower militias, like the ones that spawned the Oklahoma city bombing, are rarely labeled as terrorists within the USA, but they are terrorists. They just happen to be, from statistics I've read, more republican than democrat so make your own conclusions...

Damn subscription news sites, here's another link.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/09/MNGIOC5MMK1.DTL

I don't know, was the unabomber called a terrorist in the media? I meant more the usage of the word since 911 where it seems to be convieniently slapped on people or countries that oppose the American Government regardless of circumstances, but not regardless of race it seems.

Specifically, I feel that had this man been of middle eastern origin the word would certainly have been used to describe him and his crimes, while that is speculation it certainly seems odd that while the word is thrown around so abundantly and carelessly in the media these days it is not being applied to a case that actually fits the definition of terrorism beyond a doubt.

Tim McVeigh = Terrorist

Yet the media portrayed him as a "mass murderer".

"Rudolph was also charged in bombings outside a family planning clinic and a gay club in Atlanta in 1997."

"...became emblematic of a link between white supremacists, anti-government sentiment and the anti-abortion movement. In ninth grade, he wrote an essay arguing that the Holocaust never happened. For a time in his teenage years, his mother took him to Missouri to live with a religious sect called Christian Identity, which opposes abortion, homosexuality and interracial marriage."

You can't call him a terrorist because he does things in the name of (the christian) God... and that would make most of the administration at this time feel oogy.

Disclaimer: I know that not all christians want to blow up abortion clinics and gay bars. This guy is an extremist. Just like... *gasp* muslim extremists? Wow...

lets face it, people are people no matter where you go.

there are extremist, violent morons in every culture.

of course 'we' are not going to say 'our' extremist, violent morons are terrorists, only the 'other' culture's extremist, violent morons are terrorists, unless they are liberals who want to save trees and lab animals then they are terrorists....

Calling these people "Terrorist" gives em sumthin to live for.... lets just call em a$$holes.
brown or white thats what they are!

Give em all a free second life acct. if there in world as much as I am they wont have time to make attacks.

second life = world peace!

We're communists as well, don't forget that.

No kidding --

The fact that the word terrorism is thrown around so abundantly is becoming the butt of many jokes is a sign.

Though middle-eastern peoples have been demonized by the American media since the early 80's. 9/11 was just the kickoff for this media frenzy surrounding terrorism. Frankly it makes me nervous and rather disgusted with some people.

Of course armchair warmongers also confound me.

People. People confound me. Merh.

Not me. More of a provisional fascist, really.

Processes of demonization are as old as theocracy. Who's a witch? In league with the devil? You don't want to label something too close to your own position as RED otherwise someone might eventually come your way looking for an answer.

I think that violence does have its place in the world, but there are consequences to that. Unfortunately, any organization of people that commits an act can point the finger at a minority and consider itself clean and convince itself that it is guiltless. Why have big fish populations fallen by 90% since 1950?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html
Because no one is responsible for the ocean. Under collective ownership, each individual can take as much as he or she desires and figure that it's NOT THEIR PROBLEM (think about that next time you eat fish). The answer to this will have to be privatizing parts of the ocean- which is a real nasty can of worms to open up, but it is necessary because a large portion of people have no broad sense of responsibility.
MMM... hamburger... a large portion of the world is starving while someone eats it. An acre of land can produce approx. 250 pounds of beef in a year... but the same acre could produce 50,000 pounds of potatoes or 30,000 pounds of tomatoes in a year. Responsibility. It is a very inconvenient thing to have. Democracy will never work because it works against accountability. People usually limit their big leaps forward as a community to reactions to terrible things happening to them. "Why didn't we know?" is the common cry, but the answer is pretty simple and stupid: people are willfully ignorant. Going off track: The best representation of this idea of forcing people to change through "terror" I've seen in literature was the conclusion to Alan Moore's "The Watchmen."

So, back to the terrorists. The government has a monopoly on "legitimate" violence so it's easy to blame any minority or individual as being evil and everyone wants to believe it so that they can wear the goodguy badge without having to ever do anything for it. If anything should threaten the spotless hue of the goodguy badge, it's the citizens' duty to the community to distance themselves from it.

I know most of what I've said is "common sense" but common sense is uncommon, and I tend to rant about this stuff because I hate people. Misanthropy +10.

there is enough food to feed everyone on the planet. there are corrupt governments and organizations that prevent this from happening.

i don't belong to the state. nor do i belong to you. my actions, labor, and mind are not yours to control. terribly inconvenient, i know.

no ideology or purpose is so virtuous that it deserves to intentionally murder innocent people to accomplish it's goals.

i'm uncertain what places or nations you could mean. in the united states, there's plenty of political debate. rather than trying for a "goodguy badge" people are organizing to repeal the patriot act.

things aren't as bleak as you imagine them. maybe the difference is that i don't hate people.

Populations are expanding and the current situations are not sustainable. Look at the fish article for instance. I'm sure that we will survive as a race, it's just that things will have to get worse before they get better.



I never said any such thing to the contrary. But governments are not run by you, they are run for you. Why mock me when you don't even know me? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I am attacking you as an individual. There is no way I could have known you would even reply.


You're entitled to your opinion (but your statement is not a fact to everyone) and this particular one is a question of placing a value on human life. I don't happen to think that every life is precious.


There is political debate, but politics is still a community system and is very cliquish. "Goodguy Badge" is a term relative each clique or community. It describes the relationship between seeking approval from peers and success within a group. See "Goodguy Badge" in The Devil's Notebook for further description of the term I was using. An example would be: within your group you might win approval for pushing forward agendas or actions that might be unethical as long as they serve the "greater good" of your particular group, thus winning you status within that group.

And before you put words in my mouth again, let me add that nowhere in that did I suggest we should destroy society. To me, hope is the only thing worth living for.



How condescending of you (if that isn't sarcasm, then sorry...otherwise...). Noted.

Hmmmm.....

So what exactly were the Nazis and the Soviets?

What about the Serbs?

Maybe they were not called 'terrorists' but I have heard them called much worse.

Here are a couple of well known, and often called "terrorist" organizations that may meet your standards:

IRA - Ireland
ETA - Spain

And of course, to be fair, we must keep in mind that one person's terrorist may be another's hero...

How do you think the Palestinians call the Israelis? How do you think the Israelis call the Palestinians?


We don't even have to go international to find terrorists. Here in Chicago, we have plenty.

Go to 26th St. or Humboldt Park, it's full of terrorists. Mexican and Puerto Rican street gang members terrorizing their own community. And you know what? Working people and families in these communities call those gangsters terrorists, not because they are "brown", simply because they make them live in fear.

It will be a great step forward when we start looking at people as individuals for the good and bad that they do, instead of lumping everyone together because of the color of their skin, their religion or nationality.

Tito

That's how I felt at the end of the terrorism class at USC. I took it just the semester before 9-11. We were allowed to write our term papers on anything we wanted and I happen to choose Osama Bin Laden by strange coincidence. That's not really relevant to your point, though, I just thought it was odd.

What is relevant is how a huge amount of people suddenly realize how important it is to know what goes on outside of the US after disaster strikes, as if they didn't think to look outside their own community for possible future threats (--and no, I'm not talking about you, Biff Pendragon).

It would be a great step forward to consider the views of individuals before writing them off as "those crazy people," but it would also be an enormous step forward for the average person to start thinking broadly about the future rather than just what is happening today.

They were pretty quick to label the Earth Liberation/Animal Liberation Fronts as terrorist organisations. I have seen Eric Rudolph referred to as a terrorist.

Pure conjecture, but maybe it has to do more with political affiliation. Don't minorities usually lean left? Isn't that one reason the Right was redistricting Texas (to get more Republican control by splitting up minority concentrations)? That hypothesis makes more sense as to why Green groups are labeled terrorists while W.A.S.P. terrorists are only labeled madmen.

According to several global media watch organizations, George W. Bush is consistantly referred to as a terrorist more than Osama Ben Ladin.

*shrugs.... Scapegoating and the process of demonization politicize words and strip them of their original meaning. "Terrorist" means nothing now.

Sometimes, however, that's a good thing. Arguably "terrorist" was a simplistic epithet that ever conveyed a meaningful idea. A tool to confuse people who never looked beyond the surface of the issues.

According to several global media watch organizations, George W. Bush is consistantly referred to as a terrorist more than Osama Bin Ladin.

*shrugs.... Scapegoating and the process of demonization politicize words and strip them of their original meaning. "Terrorist" means nothing now.

Sometimes, however, that's a good thing. Arguably "terrorist" was a simplistic epithet that never conveyed a meaningful idea. A tool to confuse people who never looked beyond the surface of the issues.

I agree with Seth on this one.

I try to see beyond the words. Don't we all (I hope) know what Rudolph, Al-Quaeda, Mcveigh/Nichols, The Unabomber, Muhammed/Malvo, Bundy, Manson, Gacy, etc. are?

They are all people who have killed innocent people, who chose the most selfish route possible to deal with their problems. That is the only definable common link. What people choose to call them is of absolutely no import to me. I do think it's very important that we try to find out why they did what they did, it can only better the human race in the long run, but wrestling with labels can only slow down that process, as I see it. Labels are, in my mind, the cause of most of the bloodshed in human history.

There are two sides to the coin. Labels are an intrinsic part of the learning process of human beings. No two trees are the same, yet we lump them together as trees. We learn about things by ignoring their differences and lumping them into classifications. It is necessary since every thought you will ever think is entirely semiotic, and no system of semiotics can grasp reality in totality (or as some argue: at all). It is a system of representation, so there will always be things we don't know. Learning anything is about judging and applying labels. You have to start broad, forgetting many of the major differences between things and then slowly narrow it down to specifics- always adding to the cadre of labels.

Unfortunately, once people have a strong ego, they convince themselves that they have all the answers they need instead of searching for new differences and new labels. The aim of language is to grasp reality, so it pleases the ego to believe it isn't deficient in its assessment, which is why people pass premature final judgement. However, eliminating labels, judgement, or the ego will not solve anything for us as a human race because they are intrinsic to our existence and all their negative sides have a positive one as well. I think that encouraging humanity to recognize its permanently deficient grasp of reality would greatly help to curb idiocy, but that requires a sledgehammer to put the ego in place and unfortunately entheogens are illegal in most countries.

I love it when people say we are going to run out of food.

Oh, and when someone makes the statement that we could feed the worlds hungry with all the grains we use to fatten our meat making animals. That's funny too (though true that producing a pound of meat requires an enourmous amount of "energy" (feed, land, processing, transportation, waste).

But still, what a statement that we should stop eating meat so that there will be more bags of corn in Africa. And, as the story goes, all americans should feel guilty while eating their meat because someone somewhere is dying of starvation.

Thank god (not the evil christian god, but a benign multidenominational god) that there are reasonable and thoughtful people who would try to keep me from feeling guilty about my role in perpetuating such human misery.
Also, you are wrong about non-brown people being called a terrorist..What about GW? (more than what Seth mentioned, people all over this country, around the world, and here in the forums are happy to call GW a "terist". He looks white to me (er, non-brown).

So, my question is: Do you want consitency or accuracy??

So, you're saying LSD would solve all the worlds problems?? Sign me up!