On the Racism Behind the Terrorist Crutch – the Attacks on Oslo, Norway
On the Racism Behind the Terrorist Crutch – the Attacks on Oslo, Norway by cherokeetears
An explosion in the capital of Oslo, Norway, followed by a shooting at a youth camp shook the country on Friday. Immediately deemed an act of “terrorism,” blogs, reports, and hearsay worked to effectively place the blame preemptively on the shoulders of Islamic “extremists.” Reports blamed the attacks on a number of groups: Gaddafi, al-Qaeda, the Palestinians, et al. Positive that Gaddafi was acting on his threat to “bring the war to Europe,” (1) or that al-Qaeda had decided to act in retaliation on one of the EU’s “more peaceable” countries for their involvement in the occupation of Afghanistan(2), rumor and gossip spread about the “terrorist atrocity” that had led to the death of 93 Norwegian citizens. All of this speculation sounded the same tune: “blame it on the brown people.” When the Norwegian police finally discovered the truth behind the conspirator, the party responsible was not a coalition, it was not an Islamist faction, it was not a leftist group, and it was not a foreign attack on European soil. Quite the opposite: it was Anders Behring Breivik – a white, Christian, Norwegian reactionary acting on right-wing political motivations against what he saw as the “radically left” Labour Party in power in Norway and the invasion of “Muslim” and “multicultural values” into “white European heritage”. Despite the emergence of of Breivik as the suspect, the following day’s cover of Sun tabloid read: “al-Qaeda’s massacre: Norway’s 9/11,” showing us that demonizing others is the most effective way to shift the blame to somebody else.
It was not just the radical right that blamed the attack on “radical Islam:” First World “leftists” and “left-wing” political parties were also quick to place the blame on Islamic militancy, implying that the Islamist movement is the only movement capable of such a horror. First Worldists tend to discredit themselves when it comes to this assumption, since imperialism is the real “terrorism.” When we reflect on the reactionary and racist notion of the “terrorist,” it’s easy to see that far too often, First Worldism and the politics of its people jump to the racist conclusion that a “terrorist” can be nothing other than a Muslim, furthering the jihadist movement(3). This is not the first case where the racist stereotype has been wrong, but rather than changing the preconceived notions of what a terrorist is, liberalism continues the reactionary policy of disassociation with “radical” right-wing “terrorism.” Conservative hotspots are now trying to detach themselves from the man who has such an affinity for these movements. Alex Jones, the renowned “Libertarian Constitutionalist,” continued to blame Al-Qaeda even after the suspect was found to be of Norwegian nationality, stating on his Prison Planet website that a “white Al-Qaeda” is to be blamed.(4) The anti-Muslim blog “Little Green Footballs” released a post separating themselves from Breivik after it was found that Breivik had been citing the column in his racist blog.
The reactions of other right-wing advocates was similar to that of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy, claiming that Breivik was acting more similarly to a Muslim than any Christian.(5) Big Peace, another reactionary right-wing commentary with a fascination and admiration for the military “hero” had this to say about Breivik:
“This Norwegian terrorist was not a Christian or a conservative. He acted contrary to the teachings of the Bible and conservatives from Burke to Madison. He was instead a jihadist, blinded by an ideology who resorted to violence rather than engaging in a public debate of ideas. He was a coward who planted bombs and killed innocent people. For him, violence was the only answer. He claimed to be fighting jihadists…but he actually became one. He didn’t kill one islamist [sic] terrorist with his actions-only innocent Norwegians. Change the location, and he acted like so many jihadists in the Middle East. He became one of them.”(6)
The actions of Timothy McVey, Jared Lee Loughner (who took his assassination cues from Sarah Palin’s “Target Map”), Charles Manson, The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Ruby Bridge incident, and other examples of right-wing extremism were also not the actions of a Christian or a conservative? It seems like the right is having to distance itself from too many movements for it to be a simple coincidence. The truth is that imperialism, fascism, and right-wing hate groups fuel sentiments of animosity towards other groups, and when people react violently to this coaxing, the right is the first to denounce him with the reply “no respectable Christian/Republican/First Worldist/etc would ever commit such horrific acts, only Arab/Muslim/Third World/poor people would have the Satan inside them to commit such an atrocity. Whereas the Third World fights to survive, Breivik fought to “protect” his twisted Eurocentric nationalism, a theme that is professed far too much in the right-wing corporate media. So why is “preserving European culture” any more racist than “preserving American values?” Well, the answer is because Breivik is crazy, whereas the rest of the right-wing world is simply “patriotic” or “concerned.” At least, that is their reasoning behind it.
It is also interesting to note the difference in reaction to al-Qaeda and the Breiviks of the world. Al-Qaeda became, for the people of the First World, the “nature” of Islam. Islam was blamed for being a “religion that professes hate” and “encourages violence.” Groups like Little Green Footballs claim that “Muslims are terrorists until proven innocent,” but when a radical nationalist professes hatred and kills almost 100 people to promote “white European culture,” he simply represents himself. He acted mistakenly and the right does not profess hate. Once again, that’s what the right says.
Overall the racism that placed blame on al-Qaeda was a reflection of the racism that plagues the First World. The attack itself purveyed the intolerance that was so quickly exposed by those who observed the tragedy. Breivik was seeking to show that Islam was “evil” and tainted “European values,” and people bought it, because they claimed that such an act of malice could only be committed by al-Qaeda and all the Muslims that profess their “religion of hate” instead of the truth, that their fascism, imperialism, and First Worldism are the worst example of “terrorism” that the world has ever seen.
Sources:
Presidential Candidate Michele Bachmann compares slavery to todays times.
Presidential Candidate Michele Bachmann compares slavery to todays times by Cherokeetears
As the Tea Party continues to express the absolute worst of American nationalism and imperialism, its front-running presidential candidate, Michele Bachmann, signed a pledge from the Iowa Christian Group’s “Marriage Vow.” This “Vow” acted as a pledge to “preserve the family” by banning pornography, same-sex marriage, and the presidency of Barack Obama.(1)
Not only are these statements obvious and blatantly bigoted remarks, but they also find their shock value in historical inaccuracies. Part of the vow reads:
“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”
This abstraction that the vow mentions are not accurate, since they don’t take into account the exponential number of slave families broken up by the trade and selling of slaves themselves. Endless amounts of families were broken up because of slavery.(2) There were simply less free slaves that had the opportunity to decide the fate of their families than there are today. Therefore, there were less divorces. Lack of choice and mobility in slave society was hardly a positive aspect of life. This reactionary statement does less to expose the “horrors” of bourgeoisie culture today, and more to show how utterly close the Tea Party exposes it’s flat racism. No wonder other republican candidates refuse to sign such an act. They don’t want to be exposed as racists in such hard terminology. They would prefer to use “soft terms” like “political correctness,” “affirmative action,” and “sanctity of marriage.” Leading Lights see through this farce for the racist, sexist, and heterosexist nature of these reactionary, far-right imperialist comments. This may seem harsh, but it’s the truth.
This is the same woman who claims that the Founding Fathers “worked tirelessly to end slavery,” referring specifically and after the fact to John Quincy Adams, who was not a Founding Father, since he was 8 when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
The same vow pledges to “end Sharia law,”(3) a statement that shows that multiculturalism is not a priority of American Tea, and that no culture but Christian American culture is acceptable. But many aspects of this culture are more reactionary than Sharia Law, and Christian Culture is more reactionary than Islam, and further serves the ruling class. However, the “Marriage Vow” is a crusade of bigotry that sees itself as the only choice for others. This Vow is ridiculous and shows the fascism rising in the far-right of the First World.
We must fight the racism, sexism, and heterosexism that rises out of reactionary declarations of this “Marriage Vow,” because these reactionary concepts have no basis in reality or betterment, but only in metaphysical and supremacist concepts. This is nationalistic, chauvinistic, and absolutely elitist mentality that only the mentally insane, like Michele Bachmann and the Tea Party, would endorse.
Sources:
1.Star Tribunal:Source
Reflections on the 4th (Reich) of July
Reflections on the 4th (Reich) of July by Cherokeetears
(new-power.org)
Parades, fireworks, songs, and Empire. As the fourth of July ends for this year, it is important to reflect on the nature of the holiday, the country it represents, and the legacy that such an event leaves on the minds of bourgeoise nationalist First Worldists today. As Americans were reminded to “support the troops” that support their consumerism, they took pride in the romanticism of the “revolution” that made the way for a country founded on stolen land and genocide. They celebrated the forcible “American way,” and because they supported this way, they also supported the subjugation of others to achieve the American way. So, what is good about “Independence Day?” Well, let’s briefly review a few key moments in American History.
The forcible removal (read: ethnic cleansing) and mass murder (read: genocide) of 10,000,000 American Indians can be considered a monumental, if not completely under-appreciated, extension of the earliest American conquest so patriotically called “Manifest Destiny” among other names. The absolute destruction of all remnants of American Indian culture and history can be attributed to American “patriotism.” What about such horrors as the massacres and murders, residential schools for assimilation, repetitive reservation relocation, and the intentional spread of smallpox? Americans truly do have something to be proud of within their own indigenous populations: they can be proud of effectively destroying an entire population over the course of 100 years.
The era of slavery and the following years of Jim Crow are epochs of American history that continue to influence ethnic tensions and inequalities even today. There is no reason to believe that slavery was anything less than a crime against humanity, for which America never truly paid the price. The “Founding Fathers” themselves had slaves, Jefferson even fathering children with slaves, only to enslave them along with the other human workhorses. As slavery ended, bigotry continued. With the passing of Jim Crow, widespread lynchings, and racial prejudices that continue de facto today. Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson legalized “separate but equal” institutions. Dred Scott v. Sanford only further removed the rights of blacks, declaring that they are not citizens.
After we talk about the horrible inequalities that blacks were subject over, we can see a continued (but bought off) oppression of minority groups in the US today. Minorities largely inhabit the lowest economic strata in the US, and crime rates and socio-economic conditions are still bound in ethnic discrimination. The system hasn’t changed, and these groups, now as beneficiaries of imperialism, have no motivation or interest to stop the oppressors, and have become oppressors themselves. They too are “proud Americans.”
We have yet to mention today’s globalized system of US hegemony and imperialism, that rots the infrastructure of countries, causes wars, and bleeds countries of their economic power: all so that Americans can keep their cheap gap clothing and high standard of living. The US has been responsible for war crimes committed by US appointed leaders all over the world. The US can be proud of its support of the crimes of Augusto Pinochet. The US can be proud of the embargo in Cuba. The US has a lot to be proud of even outside it’s borders.
And now, globalization and Americanization teaches people around the world that they can be Americans too. They can buy nice clothes, and own nice cars if they simply open up their economies to “free trade.” However, we know that the American way of life is a parasitic wayof life that is inaccessible to 5 billion other people in the world. The fact of the matter is, not everybody can be an American, and I guess Americans are proud of that too.
The American way is a way of pride in destruction. It is a blind bourgeoisie nationalism that does nothing to further the cause of self-determination, but rather seeks to control the rest of the world “because it’s a country’s freedom” to do so. The American way is a way of little Eichmanns, a way of greedy American parasites seeking more of the pie, and acting in blind bourgeoise nationalism* and chauvinism to justify it. Yeah, I guess Americans do have a lot to be proud of.
*When “nationalism” is mentioned in this article, it is not the progressive nationalism that leads to liberation, but rather a fascist/imperialist nationalism that only seeks to further the interests of the ruling class.
Recent Comments