When 9/11 happened they started looking for Muslim men at airports. Someone pointed out there are billions of Muslim men in the world so you shouldn’t racially profile—then there were some black and white convert muslim perpetrators too in subsequent terrorist attempts.
So western folks got down to patting everyone on the airport without distinction—which is totally fine but no one asked the question, even though there are billions of Muslim men in the world, there are really very few on any given airport in US—so you don’t need to consider a billion but rather few dozen every day—so perhaps little bit racial or religious profiling is ok?
Then a lot of gun violence related incidents happened in US and the white man terrorism appeared on the scene. But there is a problem with that narrative that some liberals mindlessly accepted: Muslims killed because of their religion—whites didn’t kill because of their whiteness —yes, many did kill because of racial issues (NC church shooting for example) so in many cases it’s justified to use the term but on its own in all other cases it’s just a term to appease far left woke liberal. When majority of people in a country are white, chances are violence is going to be committed mostly by those whites unless something like 9/11 happens.
So the terrorism and violence having to so with race or religion needs to be called out as such but when you just say white man violence you’re bunching up even violence that has nothing to do with race at all. So this whit man villain only makes sense in racially motivated crimes but at the same time the term itself encapsulates pretty much every white man in the country.
This is like going to a Muslim majority country and calling all violence there islamic terrorism while only fraction of it will be motivated by religion.
So western folks got down to patting everyone on the airport without distinction—which is totally fine but no one asked the question, even though there are billions of Muslim men in the world, there are really very few on any given airport in US—so you don’t need to consider a billion but rather few dozen every day—so perhaps little bit racial or religious profiling is ok?
Then a lot of gun violence related incidents happened in US and the white man terrorism appeared on the scene. But there is a problem with that narrative that some liberals mindlessly accepted: Muslims killed because of their religion—whites didn’t kill because of their whiteness —yes, many did kill because of racial issues (NC church shooting for example) so in many cases it’s justified to use the term but on its own in all other cases it’s just a term to appease far left woke liberal. When majority of people in a country are white, chances are violence is going to be committed mostly by those whites unless something like 9/11 happens.
So the terrorism and violence having to so with race or religion needs to be called out as such but when you just say white man violence you’re bunching up even violence that has nothing to do with race at all. So this whit man villain only makes sense in racially motivated crimes but at the same time the term itself encapsulates pretty much every white man in the country.
This is like going to a Muslim majority country and calling all violence there islamic terrorism while only fraction of it will be motivated by religion.
