In Jerry's thought-provoking post, he noted: Indeed, there has even been an open call by some (including a 'talk radio' host) for racial profiling. ___________ yes i have not paid any attention to talk radio but i hear one of the big shock jocks in the bay area ron owens is coming off across as a passionate racist and rabid dog. ______ The recent talk about 'sleeper' terrorists is intended to heighten this fear of neighbors (this was also something done in the McCarthy period when the public was told that 'the enemy' could be living next door). _________ yes, this will prove to be a very disconcerting problem in the years to come. ______ Both of these messages have a purpose. On the one hand, the first message is necessary for diplomatic reasons primarily. I.e. in order to win support from other nations, state policy has to be put forward in this way. _______ i also think there is concern about domestic protest being organized by muslims and arabs, and the fbi wants their full cooperation in ratting out the terrorists who have infiltrated the US. So the message of tolerance is motivated by domestic concerns as well. yet the message of tolerance is belied to me by the way in which the rise of attacks is being reported. the list of attacks is probably much longer than even most of us know; the empathy extended to the victims in television coverage--interviews with family, life histories of the victim, the violent nastiness of the things said, the money lost in burned shops and vandalized cars, the disorientation suffered, etc--seems to me quite limited. i have no doubt that most americans feel that there has been enough coverage of the rise of attacks already. in fact i fear that most americans are becoming bothered by the "politically correct" official reminders not to profile. this frustration is probably being expressed on talk radio more than anywhere else. we brown skinned people are not safe--not even in the sf bay area. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Oct 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT