“Why” as in, what’s the motivation? The causal explanation?
I’m getting several stories now in my facebook feed wherein it is seen that some public figure or other is openly doubting or denying that racism had anything to do with the shooting.
I don’t get this at all. And I don’t just mean “It’s so obviously true that racism is involved,” what I also (and for this thread, maybe primarily mean) is “How in the hell is it not the most obvious move politically to ascribe this to racism?”
Like even if racism weren’t involved I would expect all politicians of any standing whatsoever to respond according to an assumption that racism is involved.
What are these people gaining by doubting or denying it?
What does this say about what they know about their constituencies that I don’t?
What I find curious is why this isn’t being trumpeted as a terrorist attack, which is of course what it is.
Two guys killed some people in Boston and the word “terrorist” is used in basically every story about them. This guy kills nine people and the news outlets generally do not call him a terrorist. Yet by any logical standard that is precisely what he is. The KKK, a terrorist organization with a long history of murder, is actually permitted to hold rallies. I wonder what would happen if al-Qaida decided to have a parade.
Indeed, if you do a search for “South Carolina terrorist attack” almost every hit is people debating whether that term should be used or not - not just using it.
But “Terrorist” has to be applied to the threat the government WANTS you to worry about, and they want you worried about Muslims, not white supremacists.
I suppose there is a 1% chance maybe the guy is mentally ill and choose the church at random, but really, how could it not be racist? Why bother to argue otherwise?
Saying so would conflict with the smug avoidance position taken by so many of one party’s opinion-makers that we are a “post-racial” society now, that racism is behind us (See, there’s even a colored President!), and that what the real racists in the other party claim is race-baiting and race-driven voter suppression etc. is nothing of the sort, they’re just trying to pander to their own voting base … No, they can’t publicly allow the possibility that race is still with us, so they have to find something else to blame.
It isn’t puzzling at all, just tawdry and pathetic.
It’s hard to answer why some hypothetical person would say this. Is there some reason you don’t want to name the actual people and tell us what they are actually saying so we can try and address it directly? Otherwise, you’re just going to give the partisan bashers here an excuse for generic partisan bashing.
The belief that racism is an active force motivating bad people to do (significant) bad things in 2015 is a political belief.
A mass shooting has undeniable currency - you can’t say it isn’t important that this happened. If you say that it is racist, you’re saying something importantly racist happened in 2015. That’s not politics-neutral.
Politics must be driven by the facts, the facts are not driven by politics, not in an ignorance-fighting environment. This was racist. That is a fact. The fact has political implications, yes, but the politics do not have factual implications.
Frylock didn’t ask what the facts are. He knows the facts. He asked for an explanation why people would deny that the facts are what they are. And the answer is that admitting racism exists in a way that has any significance places you in a non-neutral position politically.
So? Denying it is non-neutral politically as well, in addition to being contrafactual. Which is better - denying reality in the cause of politics, or looking to use the political process to deal with facts?
This doesn’t make much sense, though. Having a lone nut who is an avowed racist carry out terrorist acts doesn’t invalidate the notion that racism is a fringe issue. Particularly where everyone lines up to condemn his actions.