|
November 01, 2006
Avoiding identity politics (by any means necessary)
I'm way too cynical. Even to read ordinary news reports. Reading about a shooting in San Francisco's largely gay Castro district, my identity politics paranoia was immediately raised: Violence marred the annual Halloween celebration in San Francisco's Castro district Tuesday when seven people were shot in the 2200 block of Market Street just as the event was drawing to an end, police said.Were they anti-gay attacks, perhaps? Not a word about it. We are given only the vaguest possible clues. Nothing about the shooters -- and only second hand information that "the victims" were "young": "This is tragic," [San Francisco Supervisor] Dufty said. "I'm disappointed. All along we've been concerned about an increase in the climate of violence, especially among juveniles." He said his information was that all the victims were young.I'm baffled. In another account, two people were being questioned, while only "some" of the victims were described as "innocent": Two people were being questioned early Wednesday in the shooting, though it was not immediately clear if they were suspects or witnesses, said police spokesman Sgt. Neville Gittens. No arrests had been made, and the motive was unknown, he said.The plot thickens. One of my problems is that I just want to know what happened, and it often feels like there's a vast conspiracy not to tell me. This makes me engage in speculation about the meaning of statements like this: Officials and members of the gay community also said the party had begun attracting gay bashers, and many gays and lesbians stopped coming.So, considering that the Castro is one of the world's largest and most famous "gayborhoods," were the shooters gay bashers or were they not? In an identity politics driven world, whether they were gay bashers depends on a lot of factors. At minimum, these factors would include: I notice the references to other hometowns and "other San Francisco neighborhoods," so I'm wondering to what extent that might be relevant. But there's no hard information on the hometowns or the neighborhoods of the victims, much less the shooters, so there's not much to go on. In fact there's nothing. Apparently no one in a crowd of thousands saw the shooter empty his gun. (Or, at least, no reporters have asked any eyewitnesses what they saw -- and that's despite the unavoidable relevance of identity politics to the shooting of ten people in a gay neighborhood.) However, based on my experience with identity politics, I'm tempted to assume -- even without any evidence -- that the victims probably weren't gay, and that the shooter definitely wasn't. Normally, I wouldn't be making any such assumptions, but I find myself thinking that if a gay man had gone off his rocker and emptied his gun into the crowd as the witness alleged, that fact would have been known, discovered, and reported, and by now there'd be a chorus of blame. While a gay shooter would be far more blameworthy than a non-gay shooter from "other" neighborhoods (the reasons why are very complicated and beyond this post), the blame would not be limited to the shooter. Rather, I suspect there'd be outrage over the existence of gay gun owners, who'd be vilified collectively as self-loathing hypocritical Republicans who'd created the climate that led to the shooting. In any case, we are all to blame for tolerating guns. UPDATE (07:32 p.m.) San Francisco police are now blaming gangs from certain neighborhoods: The altercation involved two groups of young people, ages 15 to 25, officials said. At least one of the groups was from San Francisco, police said.Commenter Rhodium Heart speculates that the failure to mention race is evidence that the troublemakers were not white. I don't know about that, but I do think there's a double standard with hate crime. Had the victims been gay, and the shooter white, I think it's more likely that a hate crime would have been charged. It makes no sense to say that only white people hate homosexuals, but then, identity politics is another form of nonsense upon stilts. posted by Eric on 11.01.06 at 10:19 AM
Comments
Kerry Apologizes to Troops, Families for 'My Poorly Stated Joke' ---------------- rfr · November 1, 2006 05:40 PM RH, if that's true, what if the victims had been gay and the shooter white? Would the presence of a white shooter make it more likely that this would be seen as a hate crime? Is there some unwritten rule that only whites are capable of hating homosexuals? Eric Scheie · November 1, 2006 07:28 PM Gotta agree with Rhodium on this one. Poring over all the quotes you sited Eric, I was steadily coming to the conclusion that lacking the absolute accusation of a hate crime combined with the lack of the race of the shooters, it was pretty clear that it probably WAS a hate crime commited by some minority or other. It seems if you want to know what really happened in a news story, all you have to do is look at what they AREN'T saying. Mick · November 1, 2006 09:16 PM It's not that the media will use the word "white" when the perp is white. It's that we get all sorts of physical description adjectives. Tall short young old middle-aged blonde dark-haired bald thin overweight muscular tattooed mustachioed bearded unkempt "looks like John Mark Karr" whatever. We get a picture from the narrative. When we don't, that usually means something. Rhodium Heart · November 1, 2006 11:59 PM Responding to Eric's question "Is there some unwritten rule that only whites are capable of hating homosexuals?" To the mainstream media, the answer is unequivocally: YES. Have you ever read a mainstream media paper or hear a broadcast news station talk about how poorly gay marriage polls among African-Americans? But it does! Or how little stink is made of the fact that homosexuality is a capital crime in the (non-Israel) Middle East? A hate crime is not a hate crime unless the perp is a white male. Race, sex or sexual proclivities of the victim are irrelevant. Only the white-maleness of the perp. Rhodium Heart · November 2, 2006 12:04 AM "Have you ever read a mainstream media paper or hear a broadcast news station talk about how poorly gay marriage polls among African-Americans?" To add to this, I read an article about this same type of poll not too long ago with the author stating that the reasons were "religious in nature and not due to bigotry". Yet if whites sited religious reasons for their opinions they were double lambasted. Heck, Im not sure but I may have seen that article here. Did you post about that before Eric? Mick · November 2, 2006 08:30 PM I live in southwest Houston. Whenever some heinous crime occurs here, on the news we hear "anyone with a hint of who did this contact this number", but we don't hear physical descriptions which might help us tip them off. The missing word here is "Katrina". David Ross · November 3, 2006 01:01 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Way too often the mainstream media thinks that its job is too obscure and prevent the real facts from coming to light.
For example, if a spokesperson for the police, repeated in the media, that an incident is "not terrorism related," that usually means the opposite. It usually ends up meaning that the shooter was Muslim, most likely an Arab or North African migrant, and it was a little free lance jihad activity.
Likewise, when the media absolutely refuses to give any identifying details of the physical appearance of the perpetrator -- especially when the perp is at large -- that usually means that the shooter was African-American. Caucasian criminals we get the details in depth.
Us racist yay-hoo newspaper readers apparently can't handle the truth that sometimes a black man is a criminal and, on very rare but still detectable occasions, a Muslim in the USA is a free lance terrorist.
I just wish the media would go back to reporting the facts. Might help them survive in the electronic world.