Maddow Asks: 'Why Do We Overlook Right-Wing Violence and Refuse to Call it Terrorism?'

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/maddow-asks-why-do-we-overlook-right-wing-violence-and-refuse-call-it-terrorism

Maddow Asks: 'Why Do We Overlook Right-Wing Violence and Refuse to Call it Terrorism?' Answer: Because They're White

The shooting deaths of three people near Kansas City by the noted Neo-Nazi Frazier Glenn Miller has refocused the public’s attention on the violent tendencies of the White Right in the United States.

On the Tuesday edition of her MSNBC show, Rachel Maddow concluded a segment on the Republican Party’s deep denial about (and active protection of) its violent “Patriot” and militia wing by asking the following question: why do we overlook right-wing violence and refuse to call it terrorism?

The answer to Maddow's question is simple.

"We" don't talk about right-wing domestic terrorists and other extremists because “they” are largely white and male.

The language used by Rachel Maddow—and how it undermines the scurrilous Right-wing lie that there is such a thing as a “liberal media”—helps to demonstrate the above claim. Once more, a "liberal" news analyst talks around the obvious and is afraid to connect the words "white" and "male" and "conservative" in their discussions of white violence, murder, mayhem, and treason.

[myrna minx]

1. K&R.

[intaglio]

2. It's probably because such right wingers are merkins

Sorry "Americans"

[Vinca]

3. If the Welfare Cowboy and his cronies were black, they'd be terrorists to the right.

[xchrom]

4. i think and feel pretty strongly they would have been treated differently

by the government as well. had they been black.

[Enthusiast]

11. Ya think?

They might have been killed. They certainly would have been jailed.

This an ugly, double standard fucking country.

[Dawson Leery]

7. Certainly.

[rustydog]

5. Because they are armed and they vote? They are mainly white, older now, and vote

because they are Americans and they vote...Republican mostly.

Just saying...

[Mc Mike]

6. Excellent report, important subject.

Thanks, xch and Rachel.

[treestar]

8. I think the shootings should not be called terrorism

Rather than muddy the definition, leave it as something with a political motive. The school shooters and those types are mentally ill people with guns. But they aren't trying to influence politics.

Bundy and that crowd - I'm not sure we should call them terrorists. We have easy gun laws in this country. So they had a right to have the guns at a large protest. Had they said if you come any further, we'll shoot, maybe. I'm not sure - I think of terrorism as hijacking planes or bombing with political intent.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. It is you who muddies the definition, which is this:

noun: terrorism.
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

So the shootings fit the definition exactly.

[Enthusiast]

10. If the President would call them terrorists it would only prove he is a Muslin.

[DirkGently]

12. Could it be ... entitlement?

Which is exactly their argument. It's "their" country, so everybody better watch and not make them mad, or people will be killed.

Liberals have won on every social issue, going back to slavery. And going back to slavery is the resentment of people who feel their geographic isolation or their heritage or their race or religion should be a ticket to some kind of superiority. And if it isn't, a violent, bloody tantrum will be thrown. School girls blown up. Clinics and clubs attacked. People dragged behind cars and sniped from the hills.

This is a deep cultural problem, and it's tied into a lot of other problems. The NRA sells this mindset in its newsletter. Miles and miles of tactical gear and combat style weaponry, lightly leavened with a few insane screeds about the power-mad (and suspiciously dark-skinned) Democrat in the White House. We went through a similar tantrum when Clinton was in office. Then nothing, until Obama.

As someone elsewhere pointed out, we need to be leery of these types hooking up with their likewise entitled bretheren in the economic elite. We've already seen black-rifled goons in boonie hats and camo gear guarding mining sites.

It's an ugly, leering threat, and it has everything to do with a perceived loss of cultural dominance going right back to slavery. To them, every minority group that gains some semblance of equality is a direct theft from them. Every liberal protest is a foreign commie threat.

And it's all enabled by the existence of a centralized federal government, which in their minds would work better as a loose affiliation of rural fiefdoms, where their preferred colors and creeds can be enforced with violence. Just like in the good old days.

They ARE terrorists, and while avoiding bloodshed is always the goal, we cannot afford to walk away from a bunch of self-styled guerrillas who think pointing rifles at federal cops over a few cows is a nice way to spend the weekend.

Where is Homeland Security, so busy tracking Occupiers and coming down with the force of a thousand hammers where a bank window was broken or a financial district's traffic flow was threatened? Where is the bear mace and the riot shields and multi-agency task force?

Apparently a lot of idealistic kids with laptops and a compelling idea is a more important threat to more important people than armed militias openly calling for murder. It certainly makes an easier target.

[napkinz]

13. K&R

nt

[IronLionZion]

14. Everyone knows terrorists are brown and muslim.

They still refuse to acknowledge that the white Boston brothers are quite literally the most Caucasian a person could possibly be. They even wear backwards baseball caps and listen to Eminem like most bros.

Two fort hood shootings, only one of them was terrorism.

Plus no one thinks its ironic that people from the "patriot movement" would have no problem murdering American civilian women and children (Oklahoma City) to punish the US government. Some people just need to punish someone for something. But they will never take up an armed rebellion against uniformed soldiers as this country was founded upon violent revolution.