There is No Terrorism But Islamic Terrorism
posted by Silvana
Every Arab-American knows what I'm talking about: when you heard about someone flying a plane into the IRS building in Austin, you thought "Oh god, I hope it's not a Muslim."
Just like every other time something like this happens.
But no, it was an aggrieved white dude with a private plane. And the reaction from the administration was predictable. This is Not Terrorism. It's a criminal act. As Glenn Greenwald says: "The term now has virtually nothing to do with the act itself and everything to do with the identity of the actor, especially his or her religious identity. It has really come to mean: "a Muslim who fights against or even expresses hostility towards the United States, Israel and their allies.""
This is absolutely right. But as he notes, the problem isn't that we should call more things terrorism; the problem is that too many things are called terrorism. And criminal acts that are perpetrated by people in that weird Arab-American/Muslim nexus. Which means, being non-Anglo and Muslim is sufficient to make you a Terrorist, but being Muslim isn't really a requirement. If you're from that blob of the world that has expanded from the bonafide middle east into countries like Pakistan that are practically seen as Arab countries because they're predominantly Muslim, you qualify. Does that make sense? It's like "Muslim" has become an ethnicity almost.
Which really scares me, even not being Muslim.
And the reason we call it terrorism when the acts are perpetrated by people from that nexus of Arab-non-Anglo-Muslim-otherness,is because, for racist reasons, we are more afraid for our safety when they do it. That's what terror is about, right? Striking fear into people's hearts. And we just simply are more afraid when the Brown/Muslim people do it.
Why is that?
Just like every other time something like this happens.
But no, it was an aggrieved white dude with a private plane. And the reaction from the administration was predictable. This is Not Terrorism. It's a criminal act. As Glenn Greenwald says: "The term now has virtually nothing to do with the act itself and everything to do with the identity of the actor, especially his or her religious identity. It has really come to mean: "a Muslim who fights against or even expresses hostility towards the United States, Israel and their allies.""
This is absolutely right. But as he notes, the problem isn't that we should call more things terrorism; the problem is that too many things are called terrorism. And criminal acts that are perpetrated by people in that weird Arab-American/Muslim nexus. Which means, being non-Anglo and Muslim is sufficient to make you a Terrorist, but being Muslim isn't really a requirement. If you're from that blob of the world that has expanded from the bonafide middle east into countries like Pakistan that are practically seen as Arab countries because they're predominantly Muslim, you qualify. Does that make sense? It's like "Muslim" has become an ethnicity almost.
Which really scares me, even not being Muslim.
And the reason we call it terrorism when the acts are perpetrated by people from that nexus of Arab-non-Anglo-Muslim-otherness,is because, for racist reasons, we are more afraid for our safety when they do it. That's what terror is about, right? Striking fear into people's hearts. And we just simply are more afraid when the Brown/Muslim people do it.
Why is that?
Labels: m. leblanc
Posted at 6:32 AM
|
