« Who bears the guilt of the Tucson shootings? | Main | Good God, She Really Is That Stupid »

Identity Crisis

The other day, I commented on how quite a few observers -- mainly liberal -- had expressed relief that the Tucson shooter was a white man. They didn't couch it quite so blatantly; rather, they were glad that the shooter wasn't Latino or Muslim.

I explored that a little, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized I had only talked about half the story. So let's correct that.

Imagine, for a moment, that the shooter had not been a white man. Say the shooter had been a Latino man. Or a Muslim. Or a black man. Or an illegal alien -- a Latino illegal alien, just to play the odds. Or a woman. Or a gay man.

Hell, go all out and say the shooter was a half-black, half-Mexican illegal alien Muslim lesbian.

And just to keep the parallel going, assume that the shooter says nothing about his or her motives. Unlike the Fort Hood shooter, who cryptically shouted "Allahu Ackbar!" while murdering 13 of his fellow shoulders and wounded another 30 -- did anyone ever figure out what the heck he might have meant by that, and what sort of bearing, if any, it had on his motivation?

So, replay the shooting in your mind. How would you have reacted, in each case? How would the media change their coverage? And at what point after the shooting would the professional left stop blaming Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement for the shooting?

That last one's a trick question. My money is they'd immediately shift the focus from generic "inflammatory rhetoric" to specifically talking about how the right's "traditional hatred and intolerance of and discrimination against X" where "X" is the aspect of the shooter that makes him or her not a white male.

Go ahead. Game it out.

Personally, I'm pretty comfortable that my own reaction would be the same -- "No compassion." Oh, I'd certainly be a bit more interested in exploring the motives of the shooter were they a Muslim, as Muslims seem exceptionally susceptible to a very unusual condition called "Sudden Jihad Syndrome." Or if they were an illegal alien, as Representative Giffords is an unusual Democrat who was actually quite sensible and reasonable on that issue. (That is, she pretty much agrees with me.) Or if they were Mexican, as the Mexican drug cartels have quite a history for assassinating public officials in their own country, and Representative Giffords was interested in meddling with their business by increasing American border security.

And yeah, if it turned out the shooting had a political motive, or was part of a bigger conspiracy, I'd be howling for blood almost as loudly as the professional left is. (I'm not quite as good at it as they are -- as they say, practice makes perfect.)

But back to the shooter -- again, "no compassion."

As a nation, we dodged a bullet avoided what could have been an opportunity to venture into the minefield explore the treacherous ground that is identity politics. (Dang, it's tough to avoid the violent rhetoric and metaphors!) The shooter was of the one group that is denied "minority" status, and all the rights and prerogatives thereof, that tend to reduce the individual culpability and focus more on their identity as part of a group. But we should not let the opportunity pass to open a dialogue on a very important topic.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (15)

Heavens! You're gonna give ... (Below threshold)
Don L:

Heavens! You're gonna give the progressives a hissy-fit with this one.

If that happens, Don...... (Below threshold)

If that happens, Don...

Mission Accomplished.


As the overdone and overwro... (Below threshold)

As the overdone and overwrought discussion of this incident continues to eclipse all the other much more long-lasting and crises with impact on our world and nation, I'll pause to add this reflection I've previously described in the distant past.

The progressive/liberal mindset is pathologic. It operates very similarly to the pathos of mental illness currently described as Borderline Personality Disorder.

I am reminded of this by a recent interaction with my ex-wife. She had blocked telephone access to my daughter for 10 days. I had left voice-mail and e-mail pleasantly and succinctly requesting call backs at specified times in the early evening. [As I work and rise quite early, I go to bed about 9PM and turn my phone off at that time to avoid wake ups (After 35 years of having to be on call for work 24/7, I take the luxury of not having to respond to middle of the night calls as a cherished privilege).] She eventually let my daughter call my number late one night after my phone was off, so she could only leave a voicemail herself (at least I knew she was alive and I wouldn't have to call the local cops for yet another safety check the next morning when I turned the phone on).

My ex, quite incensed at the audacity I had not to have my phone on while I'm sleeping, called back on my line and left a very impassioned message, which I have saved for posterity (and the family court judge). I am assailed for my selfishness and all the hurt that I have inflicted on my daughter by playing games with her contact with me. The outside listener, if not acquainted with the background, might be brought to consider violence towards me, the evil child abuser so eloquently described in the message that has absolutely no relationship to reality.

And thus follows the rhetoric of the progressive left, so maniacally and psychotically projecting their guilt and illness on others.

I really enjoyed your exerc... (Below threshold)
Marco Polo:

I really enjoyed your exercise, Mr. Tea.

Try this one.

Imagine a Muslim from Detroit drew a map that targets twenty people, posted it on the Internet, and one of them ended up shot.

Would his ass be in jail or would he be interviewed on Fox news.

well, Marco Polo, that dep... (Below threshold)

well, Marco Polo, that depends on what the "Muslim from Detroit" meant with his targets, eh?

if the "Muslim from Detroit" posted the names of 20 people who represented Congressional Districts, and urged people to vote someone else into those districts, then it would be a non-story.

IF, on the other hand, the "Muslim from Detroit" indicated those 20 people should simply be "targeted"...then it just might be a story.

Then there's the DailyKos putting a crosshairs right ON the person...and saying they are "Dead to me". And that person winds up shot...

Oh, right, conservatives al... (Below threshold)
Marco Polo:

Oh, right, conservatives always protect the value of intentions. Expect when Arizona passed SB 1070 that let law enforcement completely BYPASS intent, and gave them the right to question ANYONE named Hernandez or Gonzales or the like if they are American or not.

What if the Detroit Muslim wanted 2nd Amendment solutions for a Muslim "takeover"? And what if he gave further instructions to "reload," which, in fact, the AZ shooter was doing, following his directions to the letter?

I'm sure JT and his followers would be defending him here, especially considering today's exercise.

And I'm glad that Justrand is the first to break ranks with this crowd and defend Muslims.

Justrand, I'm sure that since you value intentions you'll also sign the petition to bring down Arizona SB 1070.

Justrand rocks! Compassionate Conservatives aren't just Tooth Faeries.

dear Marco Polo...are you w... (Below threshold)

dear Marco Polo...are you wearing a red G-string? I'm asking because you're sounding a lot like the moron who killed a bunch of people a week ago.

No, Arizona SB 1070 does NOT do what you suggest. But yes, IF the "Muslim from Detriot" was simply promoting an ELECTORAL approach to change, then he would be within his rights.

In Kalifornicate, police routinely return criminals to the streets that they KNOW to be illegal aliens...and those criminals continue to prey upon us, often with fatal consequences. When instead those criminals could and should have been deported immediately! Sadly, we're not smart enough to enact a version of Arizona SB 1070...and thus will continue our death spiral.

Marco, welcome to our plane... (Below threshold)

Marco, welcome to our planet. We call it "Earth."

I dunno how things are on your planet, but here is the actual text of the bill you refer to as it was written and passed here. Unlike the version from Planet Stoopid, ours had provisions to prevent just what apparently happened there, your home world.


Now, Jay, you know what it'... (Below threshold)

Now, Jay, you know what it's like with the 'Reality-Based' types - the reality they fabricate and tell themselves about is the REAL reality, and the actual reality you and I live in simply is displaced by their consensus. They, in essence, can 'edit' the world to match their beliefs, or nuance themselves into believing they're right and everyone else is wrong.

Clouds are cotton candy. Oceans are filled with friendly cetaceans, waiting for US to wise up enough to communicate with them. Animals have more rights than people. Corporations are horribly evil, because they charge for what would otherwise be free - like food, water, furnishings, medical care, power, and internet. WalMart is even more horribly evil, because it has vast amounts of food and goods for low prices. Every culture has worth, except for ours which is uniquely evil and horrible and must be brought down however possible.

And if you disagree with their views you're evil too - if not simply stupid, ignorant and misguided by decades of propaganda extolling the virtues of capitalism.

So get with the program, man! LOL...

Mr. T, Please com... (Below threshold)
Marco Polo:

Mr. T,

Please complete the exercise. What would you do to the Detroit Muslim.

And SB 1070 requires law enforcement to ask. The other 49 states are allowed to asked. And we are allowed to say "no." But if your refuse to answer in Arizona, they can then require proof. Examine your own link. AZ is now our only "papers please" state.

Marco, as JayTea has alerte... (Below threshold)

Marco, as JayTea has alerted us to your status as Ambassador from Planet Stoopid I should really show you more deferrence. Sadly, that is difficult to do.

If you attempt to cash a check, are stopped for a traffic violation or try to fly on an airplane you are required to produce identification...or face consequences.

Further, in every country on Earth (except US, of course) foreigners are required to carry identification...and if they cannot produce it will face consequences.

So the ONLY people the Arizona law "targets" (note: metaphor) are those who are here illegally. And they ONLY time the Arizona law requires police to seek prrof of residence is IF they are already detaining the individual for suspicion of a crime. They are FORBIDDEN to walk the streets saying "Papers, please"

p.s. say "Hi" to Queen Piglosi when you return to Planet Stoopid.

If anyone needs to see Amba... (Below threshold)

If anyone needs to see Ambassador Polo's credentials, note that I said I would not change my position on the shooter's fate from my previously-announced position, and included a link to it.

I might have to review my assessment of Mr. Polo. He might not be the ambassador of Planet Stoopid. We might be being graced by a state visit from His Imperial Majesty himeslf.


Jay...does that means he's ... (Below threshold)

Jay...does that means he's MARRIED to Queen Piglosi??? That alone might explain his attitude.

Hey Marco, instead of being... (Below threshold)

Hey Marco, instead of being an echo chamber, why don't you READ SB1070?

I am a little confused here... (Below threshold)

I am a little confused here: It is ok to break the law coming across as an illegal. It is not ok to indiscriminately shoot people, because it is also against the law. If an illegal alien is in the US, driving an unregistered vehicle (agains the law) with no insurance (against the law) no drivers license (against the law) is drunk driving (against the law) and commits vehicular homicide (against the law) how come he is released on his own recognizance and the shooter guy is in jail?
Gee marco pullit, does that mean if one is here illegally breaking more laws its OK and if you are a citizen breaking laws its more serious? How do you determine which laws are OK to break? How do you determine which laws you can't break? There must be a list somewhere, could you send it?






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy