We're all STILL reeling from multiple mass shootings in a week's time (Gilroy, CA, El Paso, TX, and Dayton, OH) and other shootings (Wisconsin, Mississippi, Tennessee, Maryland, Virginia, Indiana, NY) that were still tragic and horrible, but didn't make as much news because 1) low death counts and 2) we had TWO FUCKING SHOOTINGS in 24 hours--El Paso then Dayton. Even by our shitty standards, 2 in 24 hours is a bit much. When I say the Dayton breaking news alert on my phone, I thought my app was glitching. Nope. ANOTHER FUCKING SHOOTING while cops and media were still gathering info on the first one.
I've tried to limit my exposure to all the non-stop news about the shootings and only took time to read articles when something truly caught my eye, like the fact that the FBI are pursuing domestic terrorism charges or the fact that Mexico is considering suing the U.S. government since some of the people killed in El Paso were Mexican nationals or this article: "Shootings Renew Debate Over How to Combat Domestic Terrorism."
Yes, these acts are domestic terrorism. Honestly, after reading I Am Malala recently, I don't really see how mass shooters--whether they are all a part of one group or not--are any different from the Taliban who took over Swat Valley and ultimate attempted to kill Malala. They espouse a strong ideology in something, use force and violence to make people do what they want, use fear and intimidation and terror.
No, it shouldn't be difficult to pursue domestic terrorism charges against these mass shooters. As was so eloquently pointed out in this Congressional hearing, it seems that when the shooters have more melanin (pick your shade, ethnicity, background, religion, and/or country of origin) domestic terrorism is instantly on the table (even when it turns out NOT to be the case), but if the shooter is white, whoa, hold your horses there, let's examine more info.
THESE ACTS ARE DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
So, reading this article, a few specific things came to mind that I want to address:
//From the perspective of the courts, white supremacy is a hateful but protected form of speech,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University. “What courts resist are efforts to classify whole movements as violent as a result of the actions of some of its members.//
I guess the distinction here is "from the perspective of the courts" because what I know of history is that law enforcement, i.e. FBI, has NO problem classifying whole movements as violent. COINTELPRO (COunter INtelligence PROgram) and the harassment, surveilling and ultimately, take down of damn near any Civil Rights Era leaders they could comes to mind. The bullshit, fictional Black Identity Extremists label that the FBI made up from whole cloth also comes to mind. Even the false accusation that Black Lives Matter movement wants to kill cops is bullshit--BLM wants cops to stop killing citizens. These examples DO align with the idea of classifying whole movements as violent--except when they are white. So, the real issue here is that whole movements have been declared as violent--except not white ones, other than the KKK, and look how many lives and how damn long that took, and then that shit turned right back around. I mean, how much more fucked up can we get when the FBI viewed the KKK as victims of conspiracy against their rights by leftist organizations.
“If they did the same thing that they did with the Muslims, they’d say every white guy is a potential terrorist,” said Martin R. Stolar, a New York civil rights lawyer. “You can’t do that with white people. The blowback would be outrageous.”
So, let me get this right--when we declared that al Qaeda and Bin Laden were responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, we had no problem declaring anyone who even remotely looked Middle Eastern and brown (govt. says: sorry, not sorry to Indians, Sikhs, and other Southeast Asians) as a bad guy to be viewed with all sorts of suspicion, but when we repeatedly see that white males (by whatever name you want to call them) of a certain demographic are by and large causing domestic terrorist acts, we can't then decide to look upon all white people, or just all white males with the same demographics as the shooters with suspicion? No? Because that would be unfair?
Ohhhh, so now it's a problem?
Just like people tried repeatedly in vain to say that that same round up and suspicion of Middle Eastern-looking people was unfair. Just like people tried to say then, and definitely say now, that the round-up and internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was unfair. NOW, it's a problem, because it's whites who would be under suspicion? Hmmm... Unfair now, but not unfair then? Wonder what's the difference?
This reminds me of the opioid epidemic. It wasn't until soccer moms, suburbanites, and good old, all American white folks started dying in droves that the conscience of the "average" American started screaming "this is a health problem! Do something!" When it was communities of color screaming the same, we were met with handcuffs and lengthy jail sentences. It was a problem then and it's a problem now.
Hypocrisy is going to eat us alive.
Domestic terrorism in any form is wrong and should be combatted with all the available resources possible. I mean, even former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein says "that law enforcement needs to model its domestic terrorism response after the international counterterrorism efforts undertaken in the wake of the 9/11 attacks."
My god. This isn't difficult, or at least it shouldn't be. But this country has a good habit of sticking its head in the sand when those among us who society has cultivated as the "normal," upstanding, average people break bad. But the reality is, white males have been breaking bad since before the founding of this country. (And that isn't to say others haven't. But we know others are rounded up and punished.) Racism, hatred, white supremacy is woven into the stars and stripes so folks have been breaking bad for a long ass time. What generation will finally have the temerity to stand up and say ENOUGH and then put all the weight and force behind it?
I'm tired of seeing mass shootings.
I'm tired of seeing yet another memorial.
Yet another hashtag.
Yet another name or city we need to try to remember and honor but we can't keep up.
By the time one name commits to memory, more bullets have stopped someone else's future.
I've tried to limit my exposure to all the non-stop news about the shootings and only took time to read articles when something truly caught my eye, like the fact that the FBI are pursuing domestic terrorism charges or the fact that Mexico is considering suing the U.S. government since some of the people killed in El Paso were Mexican nationals or this article: "Shootings Renew Debate Over How to Combat Domestic Terrorism."
Yes, these acts are domestic terrorism. Honestly, after reading I Am Malala recently, I don't really see how mass shooters--whether they are all a part of one group or not--are any different from the Taliban who took over Swat Valley and ultimate attempted to kill Malala. They espouse a strong ideology in something, use force and violence to make people do what they want, use fear and intimidation and terror.
No, it shouldn't be difficult to pursue domestic terrorism charges against these mass shooters. As was so eloquently pointed out in this Congressional hearing, it seems that when the shooters have more melanin (pick your shade, ethnicity, background, religion, and/or country of origin) domestic terrorism is instantly on the table (even when it turns out NOT to be the case), but if the shooter is white, whoa, hold your horses there, let's examine more info.
THESE ACTS ARE DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
So, reading this article, a few specific things came to mind that I want to address:
//From the perspective of the courts, white supremacy is a hateful but protected form of speech,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University. “What courts resist are efforts to classify whole movements as violent as a result of the actions of some of its members.//
I guess the distinction here is "from the perspective of the courts" because what I know of history is that law enforcement, i.e. FBI, has NO problem classifying whole movements as violent. COINTELPRO (COunter INtelligence PROgram) and the harassment, surveilling and ultimately, take down of damn near any Civil Rights Era leaders they could comes to mind. The bullshit, fictional Black Identity Extremists label that the FBI made up from whole cloth also comes to mind. Even the false accusation that Black Lives Matter movement wants to kill cops is bullshit--BLM wants cops to stop killing citizens. These examples DO align with the idea of classifying whole movements as violent--except when they are white. So, the real issue here is that whole movements have been declared as violent--except not white ones, other than the KKK, and look how many lives and how damn long that took, and then that shit turned right back around. I mean, how much more fucked up can we get when the FBI viewed the KKK as victims of conspiracy against their rights by leftist organizations.
“If they did the same thing that they did with the Muslims, they’d say every white guy is a potential terrorist,” said Martin R. Stolar, a New York civil rights lawyer. “You can’t do that with white people. The blowback would be outrageous.”
So, let me get this right--when we declared that al Qaeda and Bin Laden were responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, we had no problem declaring anyone who even remotely looked Middle Eastern and brown (govt. says: sorry, not sorry to Indians, Sikhs, and other Southeast Asians) as a bad guy to be viewed with all sorts of suspicion, but when we repeatedly see that white males (by whatever name you want to call them) of a certain demographic are by and large causing domestic terrorist acts, we can't then decide to look upon all white people, or just all white males with the same demographics as the shooters with suspicion? No? Because that would be unfair?
Ohhhh, so now it's a problem?
Just like people tried repeatedly in vain to say that that same round up and suspicion of Middle Eastern-looking people was unfair. Just like people tried to say then, and definitely say now, that the round-up and internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was unfair. NOW, it's a problem, because it's whites who would be under suspicion? Hmmm... Unfair now, but not unfair then? Wonder what's the difference?
This reminds me of the opioid epidemic. It wasn't until soccer moms, suburbanites, and good old, all American white folks started dying in droves that the conscience of the "average" American started screaming "this is a health problem! Do something!" When it was communities of color screaming the same, we were met with handcuffs and lengthy jail sentences. It was a problem then and it's a problem now.
Hypocrisy is going to eat us alive.
Domestic terrorism in any form is wrong and should be combatted with all the available resources possible. I mean, even former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein says "that law enforcement needs to model its domestic terrorism response after the international counterterrorism efforts undertaken in the wake of the 9/11 attacks."
My god. This isn't difficult, or at least it shouldn't be. But this country has a good habit of sticking its head in the sand when those among us who society has cultivated as the "normal," upstanding, average people break bad. But the reality is, white males have been breaking bad since before the founding of this country. (And that isn't to say others haven't. But we know others are rounded up and punished.) Racism, hatred, white supremacy is woven into the stars and stripes so folks have been breaking bad for a long ass time. What generation will finally have the temerity to stand up and say ENOUGH and then put all the weight and force behind it?
I'm tired of seeing mass shootings.
I'm tired of seeing yet another memorial.
Yet another hashtag.
Yet another name or city we need to try to remember and honor but we can't keep up.
By the time one name commits to memory, more bullets have stopped someone else's future.
Comments
Post a Comment