Thu May 16, 2013, 08:48 AM
Plaid Adder (5,518 posts)
Answers to Two Rhetorical Questions
Last edited Thu May 16, 2013, 08:50 AM - Edit history (1)
I hear these questions in the media, social and otherwise, and I'm just going to answer them here:
"How come we can lock down an entire major east coast city over a bomber, but cannot get pitifully basic gun regulations through Congress? Why is something like Newtown, or like the New Orleans parade massacre, not treated the same way we treat incidents labeled as 'terrorism'?"
Well, this is an important question. It has a simple but terrifying answer:
Terrorism is a threat to the state. Gun violence, so far--and Republican rhetoric being what it is, we don't know how long this will remain true--is a threat to the citizens. The state, like any other institution, looks out for itself first. The state protects itself far more efficiently than it protects individual citizens.
"Why isn't the New Orleans parade considered a national tragedy on the order of the Boston marathon bombing?"
The Guardian piece that is currently asking this question gives us many useful answers, most of them boiling down to: New Orleans is poor and black and so the white middle-class Americans who are the target audience for media coverage do not care what happens there. I would refine this only slightly:
In general, in the eyes of enfranchised Americans--by which I mean that group of reasonably affluent Americans who are educated and compensated well enough to be full participants in the political system--the heinousness of a crime is not really determined by objective and measurable consequences. Enfranchised Americans divide crime into two categories: crimes committed against enfranchsied Americans, and crimes committed by the disenfranchised against each other. The second category--the disenfranchised attacking each other--is "normal." It can be explained by precisely the things that disenfranchse people: poverty, low educational level, unemployment, the environmental crime infesting low-income neighborhoods, etc. Though nobody acknowledges this openly any more, for many enfranchised Americans race is also one of the things that defines "normal" crime. Crime committed in low-income, depressed, blighted, overwhelmingly non-white areas of a city is 'normal'--even if in terms of individual motives it makes no fricking sense--whereas crime committed in higher-rent districts is extraordinary. This is why Newtown is a national tragedy, and the individual shootings of children that go on every day in Chicago is 'normal.' The kids at Sandy Hook were *supposed to be safe.* Kids on the Chicago south side, well, they are not safe, but that's 'normal.'
I owe this insight partly to the opening of Patricia Cornwell's 1990 novel _Postmortem,_ where her narrator/detective Kay Scarpetta lays this out in unusually blunt language in the opening chapter. Alas I cannot quote the passage from memory. But the passage is part of Scarpetta's explanation for why the murders she's investigating--all of professional women, in their own homes, tied up in an ingeniously sadistic way so that when the murderer rapes them they are strangled at the same time--garner so much attention. Murder in the poor and Black areas of the city, she explains, is normal. But these women, no, they are "somebody's sister, somebody's girlfriend, somebody's mother," etc. I imagine one out of about one thousand readers of that passage maybe stops to wonder what it takes, in this world, to become "somebody," as opposed to the nobodies who are losing their own loved ones to 'normal' crime.
All this contributes to the idea that crime amongst middle-class white people--especially if, as in the case of Newtown, it is also committed by middle-class white people--is somehow worse and more important and more devastating because it is 'crime out of place.' It's crime crossing the borders that are supposed to contain it. When people talk endlessly about the 'senselessness' of such crimes, part of what they are saying is that in the absence of poverty and all its problems (and, depending on who you're talking to, in the absence of brownness or blackness) crime does not 'make sense.'
I find this incredibly frustrating. To me murder never makes sense. Human life is so much more important than any of the reasons people take it, 'rational' or otherwise. To most everyone else in this country, murder is 'rational' (though deplorable) when it is committed for material gain (whether money, security, or power) and irrational otherwise (when committed either out of pleasure or compulsion, or where there is nothing obviously gained by it at all). And so a murderer like Adam Lanza provokes national fear and national curiosity, whereas a child killed by a man with a gun on the south side for equally nonsensical reasons is written off as part of an existing and comfortable narrative about 'normal crime,' such as the ever-popular "gang-related violence."
All crime is extroardinary to the people it happens to. It becomes 'normal' only at a distance. The farther away from you it seems, the more normal it gets.
The Plaid Adder
1 replies, 414 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Answers to Two Rhetorical Questions (Original post)
|Plaid Adder||May 2013||OP|
|sabrina 1||May 2013||#1|
Response to Plaid Adder (Original post)
Thu May 16, 2013, 09:16 AM
sabrina 1 (39,781 posts)
1. It is a good question.
'Terrorism is a threat to the state' maybe, but that raises another question 'what is National Security'?
I used to think it meant the security of people. Considering it that way ever murder, every death for lack of Health Care eg, is a National Security issue.
But the term 'National Security' is vague in this country. A country that denies basic care to the poor, care that IS provided in most other civilized countries.
To me, the reason why the Texas explosion and the New Orleans attacks or the daily shootings of people in poor communities, don't get the same attention as the Boston shootings, is because the State can't USE those killings to justify their wars and mostly the obscene amount of money they receive to 'protect our national security'.
Every shooting of every individual IS a terrorist act assuming the State views all threats to citizens, lack of HC etc, as a threat to the security of its citizens. The truth is War is big business and anything that keeps the people terrorized into thinking that war is necessary for their security gets the label 'terrorism' slapped on it.
It used to be 'Communism', now its 'Terrorism'.
There is also everything you say about the value of lives and how that is assessed here in the US. Poor people, minority lives are definitely not viewed as having the same value as wealthy lives. The poor and foreigners we kill apparently do not 'feel' the same sense of loss for their loved as the rest of society. Empathy for them is lacking. The question is why, why is it so hard to understand that every death is an equal loss to, especially those who love them, and in fact to society as a whole?
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
John Donne's view of each and every death. But to hold that view we would have to be a very evolved society with nothing to gain from the deaths of other human beings. Money, profit, power are what seem to drive our impressions of which deaths are important and which are not.