Here's a bit of casual racism from the New York Times' lead editorial today: "Poor neighborhoods are the killing box, and if a drive-by shooting occurs there it may touch the middle-class heart, but it does not chill the soul. When a criminal like the sniper demonstrates that he can strike anywhere — in a mall, by a school, at a bus — we tend to endow him with unique personal qualities."
Michael Moore's film Bowling for Columbine, in theatres now and worth a look, shows how the media demonizes the black male "other" as the main source of crime in America. After seeing that film's endless montage of blowdried talking heads saying "The suspect is a black male...", you couldn't help but wince when news outlets blitzed the world with John Muhammad's headshot, before he was officially accused of anything. Here we go again. Of course the rightwing nutball commentators seized on the accused's last name, trying to add fuel to Bush's Anti-Islamic Crusade, but surely the most salient fact is not Muhammad's race or religion but that he's ex-Army, and an angry Gulf War veteran to boot. Chalk 10 dead as more blowback from bad government policy in '91, add them to the five spouses brutally murdered by Delta Force guys returning from Afghanistan, and think about all the future mayhem GWB is about to unleash. As one of those kids whose deaths don't chill our middle-class souls might say, "Actions have consequences, yo."
Addenda: In an essay that appeared a few days after this post, Alexander Cockburn made a more fleshed-out argument for the sniper-as-blowback, including a recitation of all the domestic killings by US military personnel, post-Afghanistan. Also, a friend read the Times quote above and didn't believe me that that paper could be that callous. Surely I had misread a comment that was intended to be an ironic take on the average blockhead view. No, unfortunately it was that view straight up. In the comments to this post, I've included a longer excerpt from the editorial to put the remarks in context. I assume these lines were written by Gail Collins, the Times' editorial page editor.
The sniper's identity (like the anthrax "terrorist's") has been an interesting focus for ideology, never mind the facts. Assuming they've got him, he doesn't really satisfy anyone. Liberals wanted him to be a white, right-wing gun nut. Warmongers wanted him to be a foreign al Qaeda operative. Turns out he's something in between: a disaffected Afro-American former soldier Muslim convert with an illegal immigrant stepson. Not quite what any of the profilers came up with. Both sides can run with this, but it's not a clear path. In the 60's we would have been talking about how marginal characters were drawn to the "Movement"; today all movements are drawn to the margins, and things are never quite so clear as some would have it.
A couple of (not particularly useful) pieces from either side of the fence.
Maybe the fence is part of the problem.
Daniel Pipes, the guy in the Post, is a Zionist apologist whose "Campus Watch" project strives to get Muslim college professors fired from American universities. He's precisely the type of "rightwing nutball" I was talking about. I assumed the sniper was white and ex-military; turns out he's black and ex-military. Whether I'm guilty of projecting my own agenda onto him depends on the answer to the question: "Would he have committed the same crimes if he'd never served--or honed his skills as a marksman--in the Army?" I think the answer is no. I'm sure we'll find out more than we ever wanted to know in the coming days.
Here's a longer excerpt from the New York Times editorial of 10/25/02, published after Muhammad and Malvo were caught. These remarks assume that all readers of the paper are "middle class" and felt terrorized by the Washington sniper in a way no other event had ever affected them:
[...] "If ever there was a time for people to pour out of their houses into the middle of the block, to stand talking in parking lots and to take their time in public places, this is it. A basic confidence in the safety of open places needs to be re-established.
"Yesterday, the country was ravenous for details about Mr. Muhammad and Mr. Malvo. In the public mind, the story now rests in the faces of these two men. Mr. Muhammad's is stern and almost gaunt, Mr. Malvo's open and boyish. At 17, he is hardly more than a child. Mr. Muhammad, 41, received training as a marksman in the Army, but he was apparently far from the super-skilled gunman the public was expecting. Almost from the beginning of this case, there has been a tendency to exaggerate the psychological authority of the Washington sniper. When terrible things happen, we try to fence them in, find special factors that would exempt us from similar disasters. Poor neighborhoods are the killing box, and if a drive-by shooting occurs there it may touch the middle-class heart, but it does not chill the soul. When a criminal like the sniper demonstrates that he can strike anywhere — in a mall, by a school, at a bus — we tend to endow him with unique personal qualities. We instinctively reject the idea that a man with no more than average physical or emotional powers could claim that kind of control over life and death."
My response when I read this was "Speak for your friggin' self." I hate being included in that idiotic "we."
|
Here's a bit of casual racism from the New York Times' lead editorial today: "Poor neighborhoods are the killing box, and if a drive-by shooting occurs there it may touch the middle-class heart, but it does not chill the soul. When a criminal like the sniper demonstrates that he can strike anywhere — in a mall, by a school, at a bus — we tend to endow him with unique personal qualities."
Michael Moore's film Bowling for Columbine, in theatres now and worth a look, shows how the media demonizes the black male "other" as the main source of crime in America. After seeing that film's endless montage of blowdried talking heads saying "The suspect is a black male...", you couldn't help but wince when news outlets blitzed the world with John Muhammad's headshot, before he was officially accused of anything. Here we go again. Of course the rightwing nutball commentators seized on the accused's last name, trying to add fuel to Bush's Anti-Islamic Crusade, but surely the most salient fact is not Muhammad's race or religion but that he's ex-Army, and an angry Gulf War veteran to boot. Chalk 10 dead as more blowback from bad government policy in '91, add them to the five spouses brutally murdered by Delta Force guys returning from Afghanistan, and think about all the future mayhem GWB is about to unleash. As one of those kids whose deaths don't chill our middle-class souls might say, "Actions have consequences, yo."
Addenda: In an essay that appeared a few days after this post, Alexander Cockburn made a more fleshed-out argument for the sniper-as-blowback, including a recitation of all the domestic killings by US military personnel, post-Afghanistan. Also, a friend read the Times quote above and didn't believe me that that paper could be that callous. Surely I had misread a comment that was intended to be an ironic take on the average blockhead view. No, unfortunately it was that view straight up. In the comments to this post, I've included a longer excerpt from the editorial to put the remarks in context. I assume these lines were written by Gail Collins, the Times' editorial page editor.
- tom moody 10-25-2002 8:08 pm
The sniper's identity (like the anthrax "terrorist's") has been an interesting focus for ideology, never mind the facts. Assuming they've got him, he doesn't really satisfy anyone. Liberals wanted him to be a white, right-wing gun nut. Warmongers wanted him to be a foreign al Qaeda operative. Turns out he's something in between: a disaffected Afro-American former soldier Muslim convert with an illegal immigrant stepson. Not quite what any of the profilers came up with. Both sides can run with this, but it's not a clear path. In the 60's we would have been talking about how marginal characters were drawn to the "Movement"; today all movements are drawn to the margins, and things are never quite so clear as some would have it.
A couple of (not particularly useful) pieces from either side of the fence.
Maybe the fence is part of the problem.
- alex 10-26-2002 12:41 am
Daniel Pipes, the guy in the Post, is a Zionist apologist whose "Campus Watch" project strives to get Muslim college professors fired from American universities. He's precisely the type of "rightwing nutball" I was talking about. I assumed the sniper was white and ex-military; turns out he's black and ex-military. Whether I'm guilty of projecting my own agenda onto him depends on the answer to the question: "Would he have committed the same crimes if he'd never served--or honed his skills as a marksman--in the Army?" I think the answer is no. I'm sure we'll find out more than we ever wanted to know in the coming days.
- tom moody 10-26-2002 1:47 am
Here's a longer excerpt from the New York Times editorial of 10/25/02, published after Muhammad and Malvo were caught. These remarks assume that all readers of the paper are "middle class" and felt terrorized by the Washington sniper in a way no other event had ever affected them:
[...] "If ever there was a time for people to pour out of their houses into the middle of the block, to stand talking in parking lots and to take their time in public places, this is it. A basic confidence in the safety of open places needs to be re-established.
"Yesterday, the country was ravenous for details about Mr. Muhammad and Mr. Malvo. In the public mind, the story now rests in the faces of these two men. Mr. Muhammad's is stern and almost gaunt, Mr. Malvo's open and boyish. At 17, he is hardly more than a child. Mr. Muhammad, 41, received training as a marksman in the Army, but he was apparently far from the super-skilled gunman the public was expecting. Almost from the beginning of this case, there has been a tendency to exaggerate the psychological authority of the Washington sniper. When terrible things happen, we try to fence them in, find special factors that would exempt us from similar disasters. Poor neighborhoods are the killing box, and if a drive-by shooting occurs there it may touch the middle-class heart, but it does not chill the soul. When a criminal like the sniper demonstrates that he can strike anywhere — in a mall, by a school, at a bus — we tend to endow him with unique personal qualities. We instinctively reject the idea that a man with no more than average physical or emotional powers could claim that kind of control over life and death."
My response when I read this was "Speak for your friggin' self." I hate being included in that idiotic "we."
- tom moody 11-05-2002 8:57 pm