Mass Shooting At Black Church In South Carolina

[AniThyng]

I remember a story that back when the adaption of The Sum of All Fears was in production (it came out in 2002, but filming was done in June 2001), the filmmakers decided to change the originally middle-eastern terrorists of the novel into Neo-Nazis because they thought middle-eastern terrorists pulling off a major attack on the US was too outlandish. Should tell you all about popular perception of terrorism pre-9/11.

Doesn't sound as clear cut as that, as that was only one given reason, with the rest being lobbying by the CAIR to avoid further negative stereotyping, and the screenwriter opining that arab terrorists were cliche.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sum_o ... evelopment

On the "making-of" DVD extra, director Alden Brown said that it was purely for elements relating to the plot, as Arab terrorists would not be able to plausibly accomplish all that was necessary for the story to work. In addition, the terrorists in the book received significant aid from elements in East Germany, a country which had ceased to exist before the novel was even published. The group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) did mount a two-year lobbying campaign that ended on January 26, 2001, against using "Muslim villains", as the original book version did.[9] Director Phil Alden Robinson is quoted in a letter to CAIR saying, "I hope you will be reassured that I have no intention of promoting negative images of Muslims or Arabs, and I wish you the best in your continuing efforts to combat discrimination".[10]


Screenwriter Dan Pyne claimed that the decision to not use Arab terrorists was "possibly because that has become a cliché. At the time that I started writing The Sum of All Fears, Joerg Haider was just starting to come into play in Austria. And simultaneous with that, I think, there was some neo-nationalist activity in Holland, and there was stuff going on in Spain and in Italy. So it seemed like a logical and lasting idea that would be universal."[11] It has also been noted that a larger percent of profits stems from international audiences, and American filmmakers work to avoid alienating large segments of this customer base.[11]

[AniThyng]

Obviously it wasn't as much of a panic issue as you say is it was after 9/11, but the idea that Americans were more focused on Ted Kazinskis over Lockerbies is bizarre.

What the fuck...

Are you serious?? Maybe you have a more worldly perspective, but I can pretty much guarantee that the average 90s American would be way more likely to be familiar with the Unabomber and Tim McVeigh than the Lockerbie bombing. Of course, Google zeitgeist didn't exist back then, so I can't prove this one way or another. I'm just pretty surprised to see another American claim that foreign terrorism was more of an issue back in the 90s than domestic terrorism. The only foreign terrorism that I even remember as being widely significant to Americans was the '93 WTC bombing - apart from that Tim McVeigh and other right-wing crazies pretty much stole the spotlight. I recall that foreign terrorism started to register as a potentially serious threat in the late 90s, when we started hearing about terrorist "sleeper cells" and whatnot. But before say, 1997, it was all about the right-wing militias and the Unabomber, etc. Yes... there were bombings overseas (USS Cole, etc.), but you're just deluding yourself if you think the average non-military-family American gave a shit about that. And the constant ongoing Palestinian/Israeli conflict (blah blah Yasser Arafat/Bill Clinton blah blah blah) likely registered as nothing more than background noise drowned out by reruns of Ricky Lake and Jerry Springer.

But yet the first suspects of the Oklahoma bombings were muslim terrorists...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_ ... a_coverage

Before any evidence could be introduced to say otherwise, the media presented stories to the public that accused individuals within Middle Eastern groups.[152] At this time in America, stereotypes that focused on the Arab race had affected many American Arabs within the United States.[153] These stereotypes may have impacted how individuals acted after the bombing, and can explain why the media assumed that Middle Eastern groups were responsible.[154] In the case of the Oklahoma City Bombing, Hamzi Moghrabi, chairman of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, blamed the media for the attacks on Muslims and Arabs that took place just days after the bombing.[155]

[Thanas]

And Japan was seen as a military threat before Pearl Harbor... just less of one.

The point is that terrorism wasn't seen quite so much as a 'panic button' threat, and that the average American's image of a terrorist was... racially diverse, in that a lot of the most high profile terrorists in American history were white.

To reinforce that, just watch any movie about terrorism from the eighties and nineties - overwhelmingly white guys. I mean, Die Hard 1 or 2, Under Siege 1 or 2 etc.

[Channel72]

But yet the first suspects of the Oklahoma bombings were muslim terrorists...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_ ... a_coverage

Yeah, I mean I'm not trying paint a black and white picture here - obviously the idea of a Muslim terrorist wasn't unknown to Americans in the 80s and 90s, especially after the '93 WTC bombing which occurred only 2 years before the Oklahoma City bombing. My point is simply that due to all the high-profile white terrorists in the 90s, the idea of a white terrorist wasn't anything out of the ordinary, and from my perspective and recollection at least, actually more prominent than the idea of a Middle Eastern terrorist. I mean, the body count in Oklahoma City absolutely dwarfed the body count in the WTC - so even though the WTC was more of a high-profile target, the Oklahoma City bombing was considered a much greater catastrophe. And it really left a major imprint on the American psyche which wouldn't really go away until 9/11.

Of course, on 9/11, Bin Laden was like "okay everybody shut up, this is how you do terrorism." And then all the right-wing crazies sort of crawled back under the rock where they came from. (And then later re-emerged to join the Tea Party or whatever.) Also, it's funny because in Spain, I recall that the Basque terrorists sort of just gave up after the Al Qaeda 2004 Madrid Bombing. After that, a Basque separatist spokesman was just like... "um... shit, we can't compete with that. Okay, nevermind - fuck our stupid cause."

So if there's one good thing to say about Al Qaeda, they tend to pretty much put other terrorists to shame.

[Patroklos]

And the body count in Beruit and Tanzinia/Kenya was just as "impressive." Do you think the even more numerous and influential evangical Christians of the day were not fly aware of the far more common attacks on cilvians back then? How about Kobar Towers? And once again this was an era when hijacking or bombing airliners was a far more common thing. You know the crazy attention modern audiences give non terrorism plane crashes today? It was the same then.

[Flagg]

For fucks sake, yes, there were more Americans killed by Muslim Terrorists in the 80's and 90's than by radical rightwing Christian terrorism. But I remember growing up in the 80's and the older brother being told by his mother he "looked like a terrorist". This is from the whole Iran "thing". However, in the mid to late 80's the only Muslim terrorists that could really hit us at home were the ones who either didn't need to because they could bomb our troops stationed there, which were quickly withdrawn, or were busy killing Soviets in Afghanistan with our weapons. Plus if Iran wanted to hit us "at home" they would have to divert funds away from defending themselves from the invading US backed Iraqi's.

So perceptions changed and with the communist and fascist and anarchist and every-fucking-ist terrorists blowing up shops in Northern Ireland, kidnapping and sending pieces of politicians to police, and all sorts of fun shit going on in western and central Europe, by the late 80's, early 90's, Terrorism happened "over there" and they could be Middle Eastern just as easily as they could be Irish, German, or hell, a South or Central American drug lord.

Then the WTD got bombed, so the lens kind of tilted back towards radical Islam, but then the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building got blown up, and it was white Christian terrorism. Then The Atlanta Olympic Park Bombing happened and after Janet Reno finished crushing Richard Jewels soul into dust they realized it was Eric Rudolf, a known and wanted, White Christian Terrorist. All the while you had Unibomber, who IIRC hasn't given any religious or pseudo-religious reason for him being a batshit crazy lunatic who built good bombs. And Serbians. Evil, devil Serbians.

So even with the Embassy Bombings and the USS Cole, the public perception was pretty much "Crazy Rightwing Nutjob, South American Drug Lord, or Maybe Muslim Terrorist = Most likely culprit to kill me in a terrorist attack" until 9/11. Even though once the Soviets fell and US troops were stationed in "The Holylands", and even though a terrorist leader who we supplied with weapons, training, and intelligence during his fight against the USSR in Afghanistan named Osama Bin Laden declared "war" on the United States saying he would hit us at home and abroad and then proceeded to do so, it honestly was not until he hit us at home that it became Terrorist = Muslim. Seriously, watch the first season of 24, which started production well before the attacks and aired the pilot episode just a few weeks after, IIRC. It's about Serbians getting back at a CIA agent and a Senator, one for helping order an attack that killed some of the Serbians beloved family members, and the only CIA agent that took part and lived. Season 2? Muslim Terrorists from Arabistan want to set off a nuke in downtown LA!
bleep boop... bleep boop... bleep... bloop...

[Flagg]

To add to that, on 9/11 when I knew right away it was Al Quaeda, and so did pretty much everyone else who knew who they were and what they were about, but until that evening, the news was still speculating about... White Christians Terrorists.

[Channel72]

All the while you had Unibomber, who IIRC hasn't given any religious or pseudo-religious reason for him being a batshit crazy lunatic who built good bombs. And Serbians. Evil, devil Serbians.

Yeah, his motivation never seemed to fit in too neatly with any established ideologies. I think he was basically an eco-terrorist and Luddite extremist, who wanted to protest technology, or industrialization, or bulldozers, or um... forklifts? Or maybe the Cardassian occupation of Bajor (I think that happened in the 90s...) I'm not really sure. But I'm sure he has a "manifesto" or something which explains everything.

[AniThyng]

To add to that, on 9/11 when I knew right away it was Al Quaeda, and so did pretty much everyone else who knew who they were and what they were about, but until that evening, the news was still speculating about... White Christians Terrorists.

Would be curious to see such an article if you could dig one up. The language would certainly be interesting.

I'm half convinced, because I still think it's more that the Oklahoma bombing changed perceptions, but my recollection of 90's news was that it was a shock that it wasn't a foreign/arab terrorist, as evidenced by the very need to append "domestic" to it as if plain "terrorism" wasn't enough.

Anyhow:

https://books.google.com.my/books?id=nc ... im&f=false

[AniThyng]

And Japan was seen as a military threat before Pearl Harbor... just less of one.

The point is that terrorism wasn't seen quite so much as a 'panic button' threat, and that the average American's image of a terrorist was... racially diverse, in that a lot of the most high profile terrorists in American history were white.

To reinforce that, just watch any movie about terrorism from the eighties and nineties - overwhelmingly white guys. I mean, Die Hard 1 or 2, Under Siege 1 or 2 etc.

I can't help but wonder if that's born out of a desire not to be painted as racist (for using a easily vilified minority) or a different kind of racism (because it takes a white person to pull off something so cunningly evil). Or kinda that whole "what do you mean we need minorities in our movie?" thing.

Also as a counterpoint, I again oint to that google books book i posted to flagg:

https://books.google.com.my/books?id=nc ... im&f=false

Scroll down a bit to page 98 onwards.

Counterpoints being executive decision and the seige, where again it is muslim terrorists.

[Flagg]

To add to that, on 9/11 when I knew right away it was Al Quaeda, and so did pretty much everyone else who knew who they were and what they were about, but until that evening, the news was still speculating about... White Christians Terrorists.

Would be curious to see such an article if you could dig one up. The language would certainly be interesting.

I'm half convinced, because I still think it's more that the Oklahoma bombing changed perceptions, but my recollection of 90's news was that it was a shock that it wasn't a foreign/arab terrorist, as evidenced by the very need to append "domestic" to it as if plain "terrorism" wasn't enough.

Anyhow:

https://books.google.com.my/books?id=nc ... im&f=false

No, it was live TV coverage and it was just speculating by reporters who mentioned the militia movements and the OKC Bombing and shit as being a possibility along with some guy named Osama, pretty much.

But you're 100% correct about Arabs being essentially "blamed" first and then it being a shock that it was actually a White Christian Terrorist. But you have to remember, it was in America and killed a lot of people. If the first WTC attack had killed a lot more people and done serious damage the public could see every day for a long time, I don't think our perceptions would have shifted that much. But again, the public focus as far as terrorism at least as portrayed in popular media was the current villain du jure. Yes, the excellent and almost prophetic 'The Seige' was made in the late nineties, but there was also a movie where Tim Robbins fights homegrown militia types, so...

But don't get me wrong, the specter of the Arab Terrorist was always there, they just had enough company at the time that they were one of many.

[jwl]

https://google.co.uk/search?q=terrorism ... F09%2F2001
Might be a useful tool for the current debate.

[GuppyShark]

Today I learned that the Confederate battle flag is on the official Mississippi state flag.

Great, take down the South Carolina flag, now it's only flying over every government building in an entire state.

[Flagg]

Today I learned that the Confederate battle flag is on the official Mississippi state flag.

Great, take down the South Carolina flag, now it's only flying over every government building in an entire state.

FL also has it's flag Confederate Battle-flag-esque, and it's intentional. But it's not like it comes right at you and kicks you in the nuts like the Mississippi flag. Same with Alabama, their flag is just the FL flag without any of the interesting bits. There used to be a few more states as overt as Mississippi, but they've changed them to less offensive things. Most didn't even have Confederate Battle Flags on them, but were actually changed to include it, during what else? The Civil Rights Movement!

Yes, the changes were all made to show their proud heritage as a bunch of traitors many of whom shouldn't exist as their ancestors (Every single "CSA" state or confederate officials, elected or appointed, and every officer in their "armed forces" Captain and above, including Generals should have been hanged as the filthy scum who committed their treasonous acts in the name of owning human beings, their corpses to the last put on sealed barges, towed out to international waters, and the barges sunk, with no identifiers as to who is inside, the only markings should be "Here Lie Traitors" and "Long Live the Union". And the first motherfucker who ever uttered the words "War of Northern Aggression" should've had his tongue ripped out. I mean putting all the white people back in power turned out real well, didn't it?

[jwl]

>Looks up flags.
>Sees St Patrick's saltire.
>Okay.

[Thanas]

Counterpoints being executive decision and the seige, where again it is muslim terrorists.

I haven't seen executive decision, but The Siege is in fact a very poignant tale against racism against muslims. The villains of the story are the US military and the Muslim terrorists at the same level., but especially the Military which is both incompetent and torturing assholes. It is especially chilling because a few years later, exactly this happened during US occupations.

[Dominus Atheos]

So apparently this is a thing:

There are 10 U.S. military bases that are named after Confederate figures:

Fort Lee
Fort Hood
Fort Benning
Fort Gordon
Fort Bragg
Fort Polk
Fort Pickett
Fort A.P. Hill
Fort Rucker
Camp Beuregard

The article is about how the US military has no plans to change them, but how the fuck did they get named that way in the first place?

[Elheru Aran]

So apparently this is a thing:

The article is about how the US military has no plans to change them, but how the fuck did they get named that way in the first place?

Southern apologist propaganda, plus the US Army had some initial respect for Confederate military leadership throughout the war. Many of them had fought alongside each other in the Mexican War. There were a lot of Southern victories early on (didn't help that the Union had some ridiculously incompetent generalship in the first couple years or so). Mostly the propaganda, though.

[Zaune]

Idle thought. Do you think the present state of affairs is better or worse than if the Union hadn't gone along with the South's excuses for the sake of not having to treat them like an occupied province for the next n centuries?

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly... probably better unless you're the sort of person who thinks 'honor' is more important than minimizing the number of dead bodies on the ground.

The political will to enforce a multi-generational occupation of the American South was really not there in the Union- abolition and defeating the secession were dominant political sentiments, but even the Radical Republicans would likely have been getting tired of having to keep a large standing army mustered to garrison the Deep South and keep trying (and failing) to suppress active guerrilla movements into the 1880s and on.

So trying to treat them like occupied provinces would most likely have failed, resulting in a South that would still end up getting to mostly govern itself on its own terms... and which, in its cultural narrative, would blatantly interpret this as the benefit of armed resistance to federal authority. The Confederate apologists would be more asinine today, not less.

[Elheru Aran]

The ideal result would have probably happened had that fuckwit Booth not gone after Lincoln-- the President wanted a fairly peaceable, swift settlement with the Confederates IIRC. He had enough popular support that Congress more or less had to listen to him. His death meant that the Radical Republicans led by men like Edwin Stanton (Lincoln's Secretary of War) could browbeat the much less prepossessing Johnson into rubber-stamping their moral crusade against the South.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Southern apologist propaganda, plus the US Army had some initial respect for Confederate military leadership throughout the war. Many of them had fought alongside each other in the Mexican War. There were a lot of Southern victories early on (didn't help that the Union had some ridiculously incompetent generalship in the first couple years or so). Mostly the propaganda, though.

I don't know if apologist propaganda had much to do with it. At least, searching around the history of the forts doesn't find anything to support that view. I think it was a lot more about simply respecting the military leadership in an apolitical manner. From a cursory search, it seems that most of these forts originally began as temporary camps set up for mobilization during the World Wars, and only later turned into permanent military installations, and the names just stuck. I don't get the impression that it was a systematic attempt at propaganda. Fort Lee, for example, seemed to have actual been commemorating his surrender to Grant at the end of the war.

[Flagg]

The truly appalling shit isn't the army bases, it's the schools named after such luminaries as Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis, Stone Wall Jackson, and yes, even Nathan Bedford Forrest. For the most part the neighborhoods these schools were originally built in were all white, meaning realtors wouldn't sell or rent to blacks. But eventually a black family or 2 must have managed to find a realtor that wasn't a racist shit, and the whites evacuated like there was a radiation leak. So now you have what are essentially all black/minority schools named after famous traitors who viewed blacks as things to buy and sell.

AMERICA!! FUCK YEAH!!!

[Vejut]

So apparently this is a thing:

The article is about how the US military has no plans to change them, but how the fuck did they get named that way in the first place?

Southern apologist propaganda, plus the US Army had some initial respect for Confederate military leadership throughout the war. Many of them had fought alongside each other in the Mexican War. There were a lot of Southern victories early on (didn't help that the Union had some ridiculously incompetent generalship in the first couple years or so). Mostly the propaganda, though.

The version I heard as a younger kid was more or less that when the appropriations for those forts were being doled out, they basically split the naming between northern and southern state representatives, at least partially because the southern representatives raised a stink over it. This is parental knowledge, though, not researched, so I'd not be surprised if I'm wrong.

[Tanasinn]

I can almost understand naming schools after traitor generals because of the cultural cult of the soldier/cult of the revolutionary we have in this country, but I've never understood the desire to erect monuments or remembrances to Jefferson Davis, a do-nothing and widely-alleged coward.