Why  did the Atlantic publish this piece of _cr@p_ (mailto:cr@p)   ?
 
 
Answer :   This is what happens when someone is  totally ignorant
of the subject of religion, does not begin to understand the  phenomenon,
really does not understand Islam at all, and yet writes about events
as if something in which religion and Islam played a central role
don't even matter.
 
This is inexcusable. Yes, the Atlantic is, in one sense, Radical  Centrist.
In another sense, however, it isn't Radical Centrist at all, it is  
warmed-over
Leftism. It now looks like, in common with the Left, the Atlantic is
anti-religion or perhaps, to be more charitable, indifferent to  religion.
What a colossal mistake.
 
Finally, see one reader's comments following the article for
an excellent rejoinder.
 
Billy
 
 
 
The Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So?
Why we turn to labels in times of crisis -- and why we  should stop 
_Megan Garber_ (http://www.theatlantic.com/megan-garber/)  Apr 19 2013

 
Here is what we know -- or what we think we know -- about _Tamerlan  
Tsarnaev_ 
(http://deadspin.com/heres-everything-we-know-about-tamerlan-tsarnaev-the-476415081)
 : He was a boxer and a "_gifted  athlete_ 
(http://www.bloomberg.com/video/tamerlan-tsarnaev-said-to-be-nice-gifted-athlete-qhoJaJPcRGyP0NZp7
axAgg.html) ." He did not smoke or drink -- "God said no alcohol" -- and 
didn't  take his shirt off in public "so girls don't get bad ideas."  He was 
"very  religious." He had a girlfriend who was  half-Portuguese and 
half-Italian. In 2009, _he  was arrested after allegedly assaulting his 
girlfriend_ 
(http://spotcrime.com/crime/5748198-4e235631fcb0dc07e75e0cf62ef5001b) . He 
was "_a  nice guy_ 
(http://www.bloomberg.com/video/tamerlan-tsarnaev-said-to-be-nice-gifted-athlete-qhoJaJPcRGyP0NZp7axAgg.html)
 ." He was also a "_cocky  
guy_ 
(http://www.bloomberg.com/video/tamerlan-tsarnaev-said-to-be-nice-gifted-athlete-qhoJaJPcRGyP0NZp7axAgg.html)
 ." He was also a "_a  normal guy_ 
(http://www.bloomberg.com/video/tamerlan-tsarnaev-said-to-be-nice-gifted-athlet
e-qhoJaJPcRGyP0NZp7axAgg.html) ." He loved the movie Borat. He wanted to  
become an engineer, but his first love was music: He studied it in school,  
playing the piano and the violin. He didn't have American friends, he said -- 
"I  don't understand them" -- but he also _professed to appreciate  the 
U.S._ (http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_23061347)  ("America has a lot 
of jobs .... You  have a chance to make money here if you are willing to 
work"). He was training,  as a boxer, to represent the U.S. in the Olympics. 
We know, or we think we do, that Tamerlan's brother, _Dzhokar_ 
(http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/who-is-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston/64382/)
 
,  is "very quiet." Having graduated from the _Cambridge Rindge and Latin 
School_ (http://crls.cpsd.us/)  -- a public  school known for its diverse 
student body -- he received a scholarship from the  City of Cambridge. He went 
to his prom, with a date and in a tux. He had  friends. He posed with them, 
smiling, at graduation. He _tweeted  pictures of cats_ 
(http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/this-might-be-djohar-tsarnaevs-actual-twitter-account?=343)
 . He _skateboarded  around his Cambridge neighborhood_ 
(http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=9071754) . His 
personal 
priorities, he has said, are  "career and money." He is a second-year medical 
student at UMass Dartmouth. He  is seemingly Chechan by birth and Muslim by 
religion, and has lived in the U.S.  since 2002. He is "_a  true angel_ 
(http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=9071754) ." He 
has 
uncles in Maryland. He _called  one of them yesterday_ 
(http://www.ibtimes.com/tamerlan-dzhokhar-tsarnaevs-uncle-ruslan-tsarni-boston-marathon-bombing-su
spects-they-do-not-deserve)  and said, "Forgive me." 
 
These are provisional facts. They are the  products of the chaos of 
breaking news, and may well also be the products of  people who stretch the 
truth 
-- or break it -- in order to play a role in the  mayhem. They are very much 
subject to change. But they are also reminders of  something it's so easy to 
forget right now, especially for the many, many  members of the media -- 
professional and otherwise -- who currently find  themselves under pressure of 
live air or deadline: Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev  are not simply "the 
Marathon bombers," or "murderers," or "Chechens," or  "immigrants," or 
"Muslims." They might turn out to be all of those things. They  might not. The 
one 
thing we know for sure is that they are not only those things. They  had 
friends and families and lives. They had YouTube accounts and Twitter feeds.  
They went to class. They went to work. They came home, and they left it  
again.  
And then they did something unimaginable. 
*** 
That the brothers Tsarnaev are more than the labels we would hastily apply 
to  them is obvious, I know. Then again, labels are especially tempting 
amidst the  twin confusions of breaking news and _municipal  lockdown_ 
(http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/who-is-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston/64382
/) . Stories like the one that has now been shorthanded as the "Boston  
Bombing," or the "Marathon Bombing" -- among them "Aurora," "Newtown,"  
"Columbine" -- have their cycles. And we have entered the time in the cycle  
when, 
alleged culprits identified, our need for answers tends to merge with our  
need for justice. We seek patterns, so that we may find in them explanations. 
We  confuse categories -- "male," "Muslim" -- with cause. We focus on  
contradictions: He had a girlfriend, and killed people. She was a mother, and  
a 
murderer. And we finally take refuge in comforting binaries --  
"dark-skinned" or "light-skinned," "popular" or "loner," "international" or  
"homegrown," "good" or "evil" -- because their neat lines and tidy boxes would  
seem 
to offer us a way to do the thing we most crave right now: to put things in  
their place. 
The problem is that there is no real place for the Boston bombings and 
their  aftermath, just as there was no real place for Aurora or Columbine or 
Newtown.  Their events were, in a very literal sense, outliers: They are (in 
the U.S., at  least) out of the ordinary. They were the products of highly 
unusual sets of  circumstances -- of complexity, rather than contradictions. 
But we don't often treat them that way. Instead, in times like this, we 
tend  to emphasize adjectives rather than verbs. "How can you be a good person 
and a  terrible person at the same time?" _CNN asked  this morning_ 
(https://twitter.com/GrahamDavidA/statuses/325250988288126976) . That it would 
feel 
the need to wonder says a lot.  
*** 
There is a kind of ritual, at this point, to interviews aired and published 
 after murderers and terrorists and other high-profile criminals have been  
apprehended: "He was quiet, never bothered anyone," someone will usually 
say.  "She always seemed so nice," another will offer. Or "I just can't 
believe he  would do this." We _saw this  again_ 
(https://twitter.com/hereandnowrobin/status/325228906183553024)  with the 
Tsarnaev brothers today: the shock, 
the betrayal, the  confusion. People who knew, or thought they knew, the 
suspects -- or people  whose lives, in one way or another, intersected with 
theirs -- try to make sense  of things, and cannot.  
And their voices often get amplified: The neighbor goes on CNN, the boxing  
buddy goes on Bloomberg, WBUR gets aired on NPR. Which gives the local 
confusion  the air of a national trend. In the media's megaphone, these 
conversations  become a kind of blanket commentary on the banality of evil. The 
idiosyncrasies  get erased. The circumstances blur. The humanity gets 
whitewashed. The terrorist  -- the person with a lifetime's worth of unique 
circumstance -- becomes A  Terrorist, and we load him with the freight of our 
own 
frustration. (Why  would someone do this? How could someone do this?) We turn 
people into  caricatures -- we decide that they are "crazy" or "disturbed" or 
"ideologically  motivated" or "radical" -- so we can distance their actions 
from our own. And so  that we can more easily deal with their actions in 
symbolic terms. "Evil" may  not offer an explanation, but it does offer an 
answer. Sort of.  
But it's that kind of conversion process -- people into People -- that led, 
 this week, to the _public  fears_ 
(https://twitter.com/LibyaLiberty/status/323888461524398080)  that the bombers 
would turn out to be Muslim. It's the 
process that  led, two days ago, to headlines like "In Boston Bombing, 
Muslims Hold Their  Breath" and "_For  Muslim Americans, Boston Bombings Bring 
Added Anxiety_ 
(http://abcnews.go.com/US/muslim-americans-boston-bombings-bring-added-anxiety/story?id=18988357#.UXGguCs4W5w)
 " -- and that led, this  
morning, to stories about Muslim leaders now "_fearing  a backlash_ 
(http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/19/muslim-boston-bombing-suspects/20
96659/) ." The sad assumption carried in these reports is that Americans  
lack the intellectual equipment and moral imagination to tell the difference  
between an individual and a group. It's an assumption that has, in the 
past, _occasionally  proven valid_ 
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/muslim-discrimination-cas_n_842076.html)
 . 
Yet it's also symptomatic of a tendency, in the media and beyond it, to 
privilege  caricatures over characters. Particularly when we have so much 
access to  people's interior lives through social media -- _this  Twitter feed 
seems to be Dzhokar's_ 
(http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/this-might-be-djohar-tsarnaevs-actual-twitter-account)
 , and it is revealing -- we have new  
license to think beyond categories (and metaphors, and stereotypes). We 
have new  ways to bolster our categories -- "Muslim," "Chechen," "Causasian" -- 
with the  many caveats they deserve. The Tsarnaev brothers may have been 
Muslim, and that  circumstance may have, in part, motivated them in their 
actions on Monday. They  may have been Chechen. They may have been male. But 
that was not all they were.  Their lives were like all of ours: full of small 
incongruities that build and  blend to drive us in different directions. 
Another thing we think we know about  the brothers is that they lived in the 
middle of _one  of America's richest cities_ 
(http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/2/25/cambridge-expensive-wealth-being/) 
, near a gas  station. And a 
retirement home. And an auto-body shop. And a really good cafe _that serves 
homemade ice cream_ (http://christinasicecream.com/) . As a  place it is 
tranquil and gritty, urban and not at all. It is messy and busy and  real.  
One day, the brothers left it for Boston. And to  understand why they did 
that -- to have even a prayer of progressing towards a  world where two more 
young men don't do that -- we have to embrace  complexity. 
----------------------------------------------- 
 
 
I disagree. This article seems premised on an exception that swallows the  
rule; that is, if we can identify a sufficient number of variances in 
anyone's  life, then we can't characterize their violent act as being part of a 
 
particular, group-oriented strain of conduct. At the risk of breaking 
Godwin's  law, this would lead to our focus on Hitler as a unique, nonsmoking 
vegetarian  and well-read individual whose acts could not simply be understood 
in 
the  context of fascism/Nazism. But that analysis would glaringly miss the 
point.  Similarly, it is absurd to discount the propensity among Muslims in 
recent years  to become radicalized and carry out deadly acts of terrorism, 
even where,  logically, the odds would seem against them doing so, e.g. 
being an  American-raised UMASS med student in relatively comfortable 
circumstances. This  is not to buy into a rightist interpretation of that 
phenomenon, 
but if the left  continues to treat the subject as entirely irrational and 
off-limits, they will  be sure to lose the public argument. The issue of why 
certain people are willing  to maim, kill, and die themselves absent any 
existential threat to themselves  deserves a better response than claiming the 
moral high  ground.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to