Why does the Left want to contextualize events on 9/11 when it would never stand for contextualization for the death of a single individual such as James Byrd who was killed solely because he was black.
I've been asking this question since 9-11 and no one is willing to tell me why it is, precisely, that we should despise James Byrd's killers but "understand the root causes" of Islamofascist rage at the West and its concommitant mass-slaughters.Is it possible that the Left seems to think that the fight is really too big for them to comprehend? Or, does the Left find the fight distateful, especially because it is being fought despite their heated opposition, and that fight is going better than they can acknowledge?
Suppose we put up a memorial to James Byrd. (We probably have.) Now suppose I wanted a so-called "Tolerance Museum" to stand right next to it, in which I would display exhibits meant to explain the racist hatred of some whites against blacks-- the general animosity towards race-based quotas, the (sorry to bring it up, I know it's touchy) much-higher per-capita rates of ciminality among blacks, etc.
Liberals would scream. In fact, many conservatives would scream, too, and rightly so, as such an "Tolerance Museum" is either by design or by happenstance an apologia to some extent for the murder.
Racial tensions do need to be discussed... but not at a memorial for a man slain due to racist hatred.
Why is this such a difficult proposition for some on the left to comprehend?
No comments:
Post a Comment