I saw this interesting article someone else posted yesterday: Why isn't the co-pilot who downed the GermanWings flight being called a terrorist?
The author of the article, Zak Cheney-Rice (who has perhaps the most Republican-Slash-Fiction name ever), made some salient points about religion and race and the skin color of the pilot. All of the author's points are spot on, and yet I think he made a critical linguistic error - that is, that the word "terrorism" isn't the right word to be using for anyone, regardless of race or religion, who simply commits mass murder. Instead, it is a word reserved for those who act in such a way as to make others terrified.
In fact, the U.S. State Department is pretty clear about their definition:
"the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;" (source).
They are missing the purpose for these attacks. Using this definition alone, the U.S. has long been responsible for terrorism (that is, our clandestine agents have made premeditated, politically motivated, violent attacks against non-combatant targets frequently in the past 50 years). If we assume that our nation is not potentially responsible for terrorism, then we also need to expand the definition.
The Patriot Act also provides its own definition with regards to terrorism on U.S. soil:
(5) the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. (source)
And that seems to be more in-line with what I would expect of such a definition. We could cobble those together to exclude references to U.S. or state law, perhaps adding a provision for the execution of peoples by a country in-line with that country's laws regarding such execution. We could merge the definitions under 5B into the U.S. State Department definition.
Regardless, the definition must always include a political motivation - an attempt to influence national or state policy. We have no evidence of such a thing happening in the case of the pilot. We have no indication that the pilot's motivation was anything other than personal. He made no videos for youtube or statements on facebook indicating that he felt mass-murder might be necessary to accomplish a political goal.
Yes, we sometimes jump to audacious claims about Muslims who murder people, that they are "terrorists" when they are also not acting for political gain. Such was the case here in Oklahoma when Alton Nolen beheaded a woman at work. Immediately, many people made the claim that he was a terrorist, such as CNN commentator Mel Robbins. The claims about this being terrorism apparently prompted the FBI to actually come out and say that this case had nothing to do with terrorism. This is what Cheney-Rice got right.
The problem may be race, or it may be simple linguistics, but if we jump at every murder or act of mass violence and call it "terrorism," we forget the point of terrorism, that these acts are an attempt to divide us and conquer us through the use of fear.
Of course, violence itself isn't necessary. The point of these attacks is to achieve political change by scaring a population. Given that we immediately threw out Habeas Corpus and made it legal for our country to monitor everything we do through the Patriot Act, maybe the people who perpetrated 9-11 were successful terrorists. Interestingly, though, they were only a part of the problem, as another group of people around the same time began engaging in a massive fear-based propaganda campaign, aimed at terrifying the populace and using that fear to motivate them into voting for laws that reduce personal liberty and security through increasing violence and economic depression. Such an organization has far more in common with terrorism than a co-pilot who never expressed such a political interest.
So, perhaps our newest great political commentator is Russell Brand, for recognizing and not being afraid to say just as much.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Why isn't there a NAAWP?
The title refers to a complaint I heard recently, and a thought I used to have long ago - why is it acceptable to have a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), but not a National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP)? Why is there a Black History Month and not a White History Month?
To many, this doesn't seem racist. After all, the fight against racism is a fight FOR equality, and what's more equal than having separate-but-equal organizations?
If we were a truly post-racial society, perhaps that would be true - but in a truly post-racial society, the organizations wouldn't be separate. We wouldn't see the NAACP as an entity that specifically serves the needs of other. "Colored People," in our definition, would include "extremely-light tan" and "pale."
And that distinction between self and other is part of where this argument hinges. Note that no one ever proposes that all races have their own chapters of the NAACP, or similar organizations, but rather that there are two: NAAWP/NAACP. It's a distinction between "White" and "Colored."
But, it's also more than that - the only reason for a NAAWP is the perception that people of other races are somehow benefited by the NAACP in a way that the self-race is not. It's a perception of a loss of power in comparison to other that must be regulated through the use of an imposed power organization benefiting self. It is, essentially, the perception of war.
That's the heart of the argument - the belief that the other is waging war against the self, and is doing so through establishing special history months, etc.
It fails to recognize that we are not in a post-racial society (which you can read about in my last post). It fails to realize that every other organization is an NAAWP, that the basic power structures of our society are still built to support White Men to the detriment of women and minorities. It fails to recognize that the other 337 days of the year are White History Month, and the other 334 days of the year are Men's History Month.
It fails to recognize these things because it is entirely self-perceptive - that is, people who fall into this trap are only able to see their own experiences, and not the experiences of others.
Imagine that you could measure power. When white men held slaves, the power ratio was something like 99.99/0.01 - that is, a white man might occasionally have to fear a slave revolt or runaways, but the chances of such a thing were so small and the punishments for slaves so great that this was realistically unlikely. Runaway slaves surviving to freedom were the exception, rather than the rule. When slavery ended, the power shifted slightly, to perhaps 99/1 - truly significant to the former slaves, but relatively minor to the former slave-holders (after all, they were still able to hire former slaves at effectively slave-wages). By the 1960s, the power had shifted to perhaps 90/10, and when segregation ended, the power shifted to maybe 75/25.
Since 1970, we can measure that ratio in terms of income. Doing so reveals that the power ratio today is 57/43 for men and 47/53 for women (black women actually make more than white women). The power ratio of white men to white women is 55/45 (and white men to black women is 52/48). That's assuming the statistics are correct - In 2010, just 5 years ago, the ratio for white men to black women was 59/41, and had been for many years. At any rate, equality would be 50/50 for each group.
Now, imagine you can't see that second number. As a white man, you see your power dropping: 99.99, 99, 90, 75, 57.... your power is slipping through your fingers, and that means that other groups are stealing it away.
It's the cause of so many in this country feeling like they're under attack - and why Fox 'News' uses attack descriptions in their demagoguery.
That's not to justify these feelings, but rather to point out how they're based in an inability to perceive and empathize with others. If we would like to reach people who feel this way, we need to understand why they do.
Maybe the NAAWP needs to be an organization that advances the White Race by teaching people who feel this way to empathize with other races, to support changing those ratios to 50/50, to show how such a change strengthens everyone of all races, white included.
To many, this doesn't seem racist. After all, the fight against racism is a fight FOR equality, and what's more equal than having separate-but-equal organizations?
If we were a truly post-racial society, perhaps that would be true - but in a truly post-racial society, the organizations wouldn't be separate. We wouldn't see the NAACP as an entity that specifically serves the needs of other. "Colored People," in our definition, would include "extremely-light tan" and "pale."
And that distinction between self and other is part of where this argument hinges. Note that no one ever proposes that all races have their own chapters of the NAACP, or similar organizations, but rather that there are two: NAAWP/NAACP. It's a distinction between "White" and "Colored."
But, it's also more than that - the only reason for a NAAWP is the perception that people of other races are somehow benefited by the NAACP in a way that the self-race is not. It's a perception of a loss of power in comparison to other that must be regulated through the use of an imposed power organization benefiting self. It is, essentially, the perception of war.
That's the heart of the argument - the belief that the other is waging war against the self, and is doing so through establishing special history months, etc.
It fails to recognize that we are not in a post-racial society (which you can read about in my last post). It fails to realize that every other organization is an NAAWP, that the basic power structures of our society are still built to support White Men to the detriment of women and minorities. It fails to recognize that the other 337 days of the year are White History Month, and the other 334 days of the year are Men's History Month.
It fails to recognize these things because it is entirely self-perceptive - that is, people who fall into this trap are only able to see their own experiences, and not the experiences of others.
Imagine that you could measure power. When white men held slaves, the power ratio was something like 99.99/0.01 - that is, a white man might occasionally have to fear a slave revolt or runaways, but the chances of such a thing were so small and the punishments for slaves so great that this was realistically unlikely. Runaway slaves surviving to freedom were the exception, rather than the rule. When slavery ended, the power shifted slightly, to perhaps 99/1 - truly significant to the former slaves, but relatively minor to the former slave-holders (after all, they were still able to hire former slaves at effectively slave-wages). By the 1960s, the power had shifted to perhaps 90/10, and when segregation ended, the power shifted to maybe 75/25.
Since 1970, we can measure that ratio in terms of income. Doing so reveals that the power ratio today is 57/43 for men and 47/53 for women (black women actually make more than white women). The power ratio of white men to white women is 55/45 (and white men to black women is 52/48). That's assuming the statistics are correct - In 2010, just 5 years ago, the ratio for white men to black women was 59/41, and had been for many years. At any rate, equality would be 50/50 for each group.
Now, imagine you can't see that second number. As a white man, you see your power dropping: 99.99, 99, 90, 75, 57.... your power is slipping through your fingers, and that means that other groups are stealing it away.
It's the cause of so many in this country feeling like they're under attack - and why Fox 'News' uses attack descriptions in their demagoguery.
That's not to justify these feelings, but rather to point out how they're based in an inability to perceive and empathize with others. If we would like to reach people who feel this way, we need to understand why they do.
Maybe the NAAWP needs to be an organization that advances the White Race by teaching people who feel this way to empathize with other races, to support changing those ratios to 50/50, to show how such a change strengthens everyone of all races, white included.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Race V. Culture
Had a recent Facebook argument with someone who is convinced that racism is over in America. I eventually walked out on the conversation, because it was clear that no good could be accomplished from further discussion, but he did remind me of an old argument I used to make...
That is, that what we call racism today is really "culturism" - or the hatred of particular cultures rather than races.
As if that is somehow better.
But let's assume for a moment that culturism is acceptable, while racism is not. It assumes that all of the negative things I used to say about race and which I've recently refuted about race aren't appropriate to apply to race, but are appropriate to apply to culture.
Rather than a black person being more likely to be targeted by police because of skin color, for instance that black person is more likely to be targeted because of obvious cultural elements which are expressed through clothing choices, tattoos and piercings, and so on.
I used to believe this myself, for a brief while between the time I was unabashedly racist and the time I think I really started to understand racism. It was a step in the healing process between the two, although only a baby step.
What I didn't realize at that time was that it betrayed certain assumptions on my part. For instance,
We know that blacks are far more often pulled over by police, and far more often arrested for the same crimes, and far more often convicted. If we make the assumption that those blacks who were pulled over, etc., were all members of the same culture, then we can easily say that this is a cultural issue, that police were targeting those markers of black culture rather than black race. But, that betrays inherent assumptions about race - such as that black people will all (or mostly all) be wearing the same types of clothes, be featuring the same hair styles, or jewelry, or whatever.
And you know what we call such assumptions about members of a race?
The fact is that black people in America are all more likely to be targeted by police, across all cultures of black. We can't say "African Americans" even, because the fact is that foreign-born black men and women are also targeted, and in most of these cases it should be abundantly clear to us that the victims share nothing in common with what a culturism-proponent might term "American black culture" or I used to call "stereotypically-black culture." Even applying such a name itself reveals its racist origins, and yet we all know what people mean when they say "stereotypically-black" and we can easily extend such a phrase to culture.
Because we're all racist.
And that's OK, as long as we face it head-on and try to cut it off. We can't do that if we're trying to dress up our racism as something else.
Final thought on this subject: only a few days ago, a news story broke right here in Oklahoma where a group of young men did their best to openly embrace racism, without even the veil of culture. The students who led the racist chanting have been expelled, which is a great start, but clearly we have a long way to go.
That is, that what we call racism today is really "culturism" - or the hatred of particular cultures rather than races.
As if that is somehow better.
But let's assume for a moment that culturism is acceptable, while racism is not. It assumes that all of the negative things I used to say about race and which I've recently refuted about race aren't appropriate to apply to race, but are appropriate to apply to culture.
Rather than a black person being more likely to be targeted by police because of skin color, for instance that black person is more likely to be targeted because of obvious cultural elements which are expressed through clothing choices, tattoos and piercings, and so on.
I used to believe this myself, for a brief while between the time I was unabashedly racist and the time I think I really started to understand racism. It was a step in the healing process between the two, although only a baby step.
What I didn't realize at that time was that it betrayed certain assumptions on my part. For instance,
We know that blacks are far more often pulled over by police, and far more often arrested for the same crimes, and far more often convicted. If we make the assumption that those blacks who were pulled over, etc., were all members of the same culture, then we can easily say that this is a cultural issue, that police were targeting those markers of black culture rather than black race. But, that betrays inherent assumptions about race - such as that black people will all (or mostly all) be wearing the same types of clothes, be featuring the same hair styles, or jewelry, or whatever.
And you know what we call such assumptions about members of a race?
The fact is that black people in America are all more likely to be targeted by police, across all cultures of black. We can't say "African Americans" even, because the fact is that foreign-born black men and women are also targeted, and in most of these cases it should be abundantly clear to us that the victims share nothing in common with what a culturism-proponent might term "American black culture" or I used to call "stereotypically-black culture." Even applying such a name itself reveals its racist origins, and yet we all know what people mean when they say "stereotypically-black" and we can easily extend such a phrase to culture.
Because we're all racist.
And that's OK, as long as we face it head-on and try to cut it off. We can't do that if we're trying to dress up our racism as something else.
Final thought on this subject: only a few days ago, a news story broke right here in Oklahoma where a group of young men did their best to openly embrace racism, without even the veil of culture. The students who led the racist chanting have been expelled, which is a great start, but clearly we have a long way to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)