Social Privilege and Allocating Blame
November 7th, 2009 by SocProf and tagged Social Privilege, Social Sanctions, Social Stigma
- If a white person commits an atrocity, it’s because that person has mental health problems
- If a non-white person commits an atrocity, it is because non-white people all have self-control problems of some kind (translation: they’re not as civilized as “we” are)
- If a person with an Arab name (Note to the media: there is no such thing as a “Muslim” name) commits an atrocity, it’s terrorism as part of some global jihad
So,
- A white person committing atrocities does NOT mean all white people should be stigmatized, it meant this person should have been helped
- A non-white person committing atrocities means that “they” cannot assimilate to “our” country and “our” culture. They are forever foreign and they are a suspicious categories that needs scrutinizing for their legal presence. Or confined in large numbers.
- A person with an Arab-sounding name committing an atrocity means ALL Arabs and Muslims (they’re all the same, right?) are jihadists, except some of them are “active” and others are still “sleepers” (like we learned by watching 24). Therefore, they should be subjected to society-wide stigma and scrutiny, and maybe a little roughin’ up or anything in the name of security.
No, no, don’t thank me, I’m glad I could clarify that for y’all.
Posted in Social Privilege, Social Sanctions, Social Stigma | 2 Comments »
November 10th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Really? I thought “Muhammad”, “Fatimah”, “Zainab”, and “Islam” are Muslim names, in the same way that “Christian”, “Joseph”, “Mary”, “Jacob”, etc. are Christian names.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
@Restructure!,
Huh no, they are names common in certain regions, that just happen to be featured in the Bible or the Koran.
If someone sneezed in the Bible, that would not make sneezing a christian act.