During my recent struggle over the question of white privilege (something I have of course acknowledged having, whether I like it or not), my thoughts turned to Aurora shooter James Eagan Holmes, whose alleged conversion to Islam — including strict adherence to Islamic dietary requirements and prayer five times a day — has been reported in the British press, as well as in the Washington Times.
As to why these reports are not mentioned on Holmes’ Wiki entry, I am baffled. Have the Wiki editors decided the report of his conversion is untrue, or might they have adjudged his conversion insincere? Muslim sites like this are understandably skeptical.
It appears this story is fake. I haven’t been able to source it back to the National Enquirer – that doesn’t mean it isn’t true, but given the story doesn’t exist, the whole thing looks made up and unfortunately was picked up by certain mainstream media sources who have in turn been used as a tool to spread more misinformation by certain anti-Muslim bigots who profiteer on others’ hatred. If this story is as it appears, fabricated, then the best action we can do is counter this misinformation with the truth by debunking it wherever it shows up.
I’m skeptical too. Maybe the story is fake. However, I have noticed that when psychopathic killers like the Manson gang’s Susan Atkins claim conversion to Christianity in prison, such claims are at least reported, and they are generally taken at their face value. Ours is a country that does not generally question the validity of the religious claims of its citizenry. Even if the religion be a questionable one, like Scientology.
It seems there are two issues here. The first is whether Holmes in fact claims to be a convert. The other is the sincerity of any such alleged conversion. Has any serious attempt been made to verify these reports?
The reason it matters is that it might affect whether he is considered white by the leading white progenitors of whiteness theory and white privilege. In the eyes of the white men who decide these things, being white and being Muslim are mutually exclusive:
If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates. Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack.
It will probably be much different if the bomber ends up being a Muslim and/or a foreigner from the developing world.
To the white racialists, it would very much matter whether Holmes is a Muslim.
Those who care about whiteness need to know!
UPDATE: As White Man Roger Kimball puts it,
the main thing to worry about, if David Sirota is right, is “white male privilege.”
Via Glenn Reynolds (whose whiteness, it should be noted, is open to question).
Comments
9 responses to “There can be no whitewash where it comes to matters of white privilege”
I don’t understand what the big deal is. Its really in everyone’s best interests if the bomber is white. Its the only way we can assure the government / societal response will not be completely disproportionate or just moronic.
I particularly enjoy this because I’ve noticed for years the classical crowd has a very possessive sense of rights, that is, they belong only to good ol conservatives and not to the rest.
So it’s cute to hear conservatives start screaming as soon as a finger as pointed at them, because the #emotionalbullying is just so much worse than the actual bullying (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/bx_idiots_beat_up_arab_in_revenge_76qKozmZwDUpLUbacqqP3O)
We remember the outrage that was sparked when the government concluded that military veterans may be suspectible joining supremacist and right-wing groups. Mind you, there was no government overreach here, just a study and conclusion, but again the #emotionalbullying was too intense. To my recollection, it was a study commissioned during the Bush years, but came out during Obama’s term, so was obviously creeping sharia. Of course the consequence of conservative screamfest was to do nothing, and in as a result, we got a bombing at Holocaust memorial, assassination of an abortion doctor, supremecist assassination of cops in PA, the shootings of Sikhs in Wisconsin.
The last one will always strike me as funny, because conservatives, in all their fury of the Ft. Hood shooting being labeled an Islamic terrorist attack, didn’t really seem to care much about the shootings at the Sikh temple. Its okay, it makes sense, theyre just Sikhs.
And they’re not Muslims, but they do look like them, which is why conservatives and the classical values squad never stands up to government racial profiling (well, unless if it were to happen to whites). And of course other Indians and Mexicans.
But as soon as someone mentions whites you can bet your ass that Eric Schee is on it! We know that as soon as right-wing or conservative is brought up, any discussion at all will be completely silenced just like its always been, we’ll shrug our shoulders and that will be the end of it.
On the other hand, we know that if its a brownie, we can expect some sort of disproportionately stupid response of some sort on Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Mexicans, etc. We know that the classical values crowd will just stand by and passively encourage it (while screaming about Rights! And Freedom!) because again, doesn’t impact Us.
Knowing all this, is that much of a stretch to say we’re all better off if the suspect is white?
By the way, really, Susan Atkins? She made the claim of her conversion, herself.
It was, depending on your perspective, either a marketing ploy for clemency, or a repentance of evil ways and a turn toward being good and moral. Either way it was a public gesture and a sort of transformation many prisoners go through, and allow us develop sympathy for, not to tie the crimes to the religion.
On the other hand the claim on Holmes is from an unnamed prison source.
Do you need to have the difference explained to you?
White privilege? So what? If I were a black man in Nigeria I would enjoy black privilege. Try being anything but Japanese in Japan. No one seems to find these examples to be issues. If race is an individual’s be all and end all, perhaps he should live where his race is in the majority.
This cannot be changed, only argued against. Thought control and brain-washing are not options, assuming, optimistically, that a nation wishes to maintain its reputation as free.
Of course, one could set immigration policy to overtake the national majority. Such racist policy may reverse the status of groups, but will never result in ethnic harmony.
This temper tantrum about race (and sex, another topic) has been going on for over fifty years, doing no good and much harm. I really wish the aptly named Baby Boom would give up its failed and failing crusade–especially in our schools and universities.
[…] the main question in the minds of top white racialists who write for Salon will be whether they are white. Print […]
Well, how do you like that. Looks like it probably was a pair of Caucasian “white boys”.
Will,
White and Muslim by birth.
I know but in light of several articles (including David Sirota’s) it is ironic that they should turn out to be from the Caucasus region.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caucasus-political_en.svg
it is ironic that they should turn out to be from the Caucasus region.
You can’t get any more Caucasian than that.
[…] for those who want to control our thinking, what would have been a great opportunity for another white privilege lecture has most likely been lost. Print PDF Categories: Uncategorized 0 […]