"Top Ten differences between White Terrorists and Others"

Essentially, Juan Cole finds it suspect that the media calls people like James Holmes or Wade Page "gunmen" whereas the archetypical "terrorist" is Middle-Eastern. He feels that Whites should be properly classified as terrorists, hinting at that oh-so-subtle thing we like to call White Privilege. 

Leeeeeet's take a look:

1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”
2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.
3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.
4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.
5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.
6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.
7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.
8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.
9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.
10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.

 As much as I love snarking all up and down on a numbered list, I feel there's one solid, end-game point to be made here: that's our word. "Terrorists," for as long as I've been alive, have been the bad guys that live between Africa and Asia. Of course, it's more complicated than that--what I want you to walk away with is that "terrorist" is an English (White) word, used by English speaking (White) peoples to describe our foes. They get to call us infidels.

As it stands, White people can't be terrorists in the same way that Black people can't be racist; it's only a terrorist attack when a Brown person slaughters White people. Not when White people slaughter Brown people. Not when White people slaughter White people. The same can be said for Asians and (Non-Muslim) Blacks.

White people, when they haul off and kill a bunch of innocents, usually are individuals acting out in rage, or depression, or anxiety, or some other crazy thing. Whites aren't usually spurred to mass murder by religious or political doctrines--and when they are--aren't usually acting out against White culture or religion. How then, could they be terrorists?

They could be terrorists if we called them terrorists. Then, by definition, we'd be able to snap up a lot more of them. This is what bothers me most about Juan Cole's train of thought. Terrorists are subject to all the wonderful civil rights loopholes available to the US government in a way that lone gunmen are not. And what exactly do people like Cole define a lone gunmen?

 "A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US?"

I'm given to understand that Juan Cole is a cool guy otherwise, so no hard feelings.

Update 810: Streets Still Not Safe

A guy who works at a gas station I frequent was fiddling with his front teeth when I stopped by yesterday. The owner, an Iraqi man who bought the place a few years back, brought his voice low and said, "The fucking brothers jumped him." The employee then brandished a foot-long hunting knife, which he said was, after the incident, his new self-defense system.The full story of the attack went something like this:

He was walking down Saginaw street and had stopped at the Sunoco when three upstanding African-American citizens approached him. One of them threw a hook, which the employee ducked. He backed away from the trio and was greeted with a ceasefire--the initial attacker extended his arm and offered a warm "Nah man, we cool." There was, as he described, not time enough to glance back up after looking down at the attacker's outstretched hand before the second sucker-punch landed. The three victims of racist oppression then literally beat his teeth out.

We--meaning I--here at The 810 Diaries feel that three crucial mistakes were made by the employee that night:

1. Being on any part of Saginaw Street, at any time of night, on any day of the year, and in any weather. I can't stress enough that FLINT IS A DANGEROUS PLACE FILLED WITH DANGEROUS PEOPLE.
2. Not owning a gun. Michigan is an open-carry state, meaning that someone as young as 18 can carry a legal gun in plain sight. Our guy is over 21, which means he should have already had one holstered under his coat when he made mistake number one.
3. Sticking around. If you're ever in a rough part of town without a gun and you see three Black guys coming your way, you cross the fucking street. You might feel like a good little anti-racist for giving them the benefit of the doubt, but the alternative is losing some teeth--or worse. (Look it up yourself, if you don't like the source.)

I don't care that the police won't ever bother to go after the attackers. I don't care that this wouldn't be considered a hate crime. I don't even really care about the guy who got his teeth knocked out--that's what he gets for mistakes 1, 2, and 3. What really gets me is that there are people out there who would excuse this behavior--we all know that White racism is what really jumped the guy, who probably said something racist to provoke it anyway.