There are other troubling aspects of the Daily News story that reflect an unobjective skepticism of Arab and Muslim people. Despite starting off with “He didn’t do it,” the piece goes on to emphasize that police questioned his roommate for five hours and searched his apartment. It says he never mentioned to his roommate he was going to the marathon. Without context, the piece implies that these things should call into question the police statement that he’s only a witness. It also says he “spoke excellent English,” as if that matters.
Why was he interrogated by police at all? The Daily News doesn’t say, but The New Yorker does, in a beautifully acerbic piece by Amy Davidson. The Saudi man, it seems, was injured and running away from the blast, like dozens of others, when a bystander tackled him and handed him over to the police. “We don’t know yet who did this,” Davidson wrote of the bombing.
The bombing could, for all we know, be the work of a Saudi man—or an American or an Icelandic or a person from any nation you can think of. It still won’t mean that this Saudi man can be treated the way he was, or that people who love him might have had to find out that a bomb had hit him when his name popped up on the Web as a suspect in custody. It is at these moments that we need to be most careful, not least.
It is when we do not know that we need to be most careful. Our words in the media have consequences—speculating that Muslims are responsible for the Boston bombs when we don’t know for sure encourages Americans to think of Muslims as being dangerous others, instead of part of America’s fabric. And this leads non-Arab Americans to feel justified in being violent toward Muslims, people of Arab descent, and people who just look like they might be one of those things.
Islamic jihadists have committed grave acts of terror, but all Muslims, all Arabs, aren’t terrorists. Let’s not terrorize those communities by framing stories as if we expect that they are.
Considering the day--Patriotic Day--and the Marathon race, I was guessing and seem to be more right that I would like--the suspects are more likely to be white American males. The few done by middle eastern men were done in open areas but not big crowds, Big crowds means too many witnesses and too likely to pick one not their own--therefore like the Indian man and the Saudi man questioned--too obvious. An announcer on MSNBC mentioned that the Indian man was very nervous. So?? Wouldn't you be after a bombing went off and police stop you because you are injured??? Just being there--whoever one is--will most likely be nervous in appearance in answering the police. Police in these situations anywhere are definitely not Miss Polly in their manner to those being questioned--no matter who he/she is. Besides most people there were nervous simply wondering whether or not another bomb may go off before they are out of the area and into some place a little safer. Like the author illustrates, a person's skin tone or manner of dress does not make them guilty. If the pictures the FBI have of 2 men in jackets and back packs are correct, these two men are both white. One is a little darker in skin tone but that may mean his ethnicity is Greek or Italian or another country from which his great grandparents left decades ago. My mother was his skin tone and she came from Lichtenstein. We must get off judging people by their ethnicity in terms of right or wrong, legal or illegal innocent or guilty. It's seldom right.
#1 Posted by Trish, CJR on Fri 19 Apr 2013 at 02:07 AM
You use that term — jihadist — rather cavalierly. What does it even mean? Can you imagine how it comes off to folks who live by a nuanced, spiritual understanding of jihad? I hope you're not inadvertently parroting the mindless, bigoted language of neocon pundits et al.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 19 Apr 2013 at 03:51 AM
"Considering the day--Patriotic Day ... the suspects are more likely to be white American males. ... We must get off judging people by their ethnicity in terms of right or wrong, legal or illegal innocent or guilty. It's seldom right."
Double standards much?
"Big crowds means too many witnesses and too likely to pick one not their own--therefore like the Indian man and the Saudi man questioned--too obvious."
But being a "white American male" would be just obvious enough?
Hey, what about all the "white American males" — and other humans — in the FBI, CIA, DHS, etc.? How's that for not too obvious on Patriots' Day?
#3 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 19 Apr 2013 at 03:58 AM
Well, on the plus side for people like David Sirota and Jennifer Vanasco the two terrorist were Chechens so being from the Caucuses that are indeed caucasian. The bad news for Sirota, Vanasco and Co. is that, yes, they are Muslims.
I do understand the desire for the left to have these terrorists be “right wing ‘mericans” … it would help them transform political and ideological opponents into true enemies of the state.
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 19 Apr 2013 at 03:25 PM