Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Blame the Victim

Expand Messages
  • normmcohen
    `Blame the victim acceptable when perpetuated by Islamics By Dennis Prager Feb. 28, 2006 / 30 Shevat, 5766 http://www.JewishWorldReview.com There s a certain
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 28, 2006
      `Blame the victim' acceptable when perpetuated by Islamics
      By Dennis Prager
      Feb. 28, 2006 / 30 Shevat, 5766

      There's a certain consistent pattern regarding the worldwide Left's
      assessment of culpability for Muslim terror. It is the fault of the

      The most recent example is the blaming of Denmark, or at least the
      Danish newspaper, for publishing cartoons of Muhammad. From Kofi
      Annan to The New York Times — and the other American newspapers that
      declared respect for religious symbols a new journalistic virtue —
      liberal and leftist opinion always condemns violent Muslim
      demonstrations, but always with a "but." The "but" is that in the
      final analysis, it was the Danish and other European papers' faults
      for insulting the Muslim prophet.

      This is only the latest example of finding the victims of Islamic
      violence responsible for that violence.

      For a decade or more, it has been a given on the Left that Israel is
      to blame for terror committed against Israelis by Palestinian
      Muslims (Palestinian Christians don't engage in suicide terror).
      What else are the Palestinians supposed to do? If they had Apache
      helicopters, the argument goes, they would use them. But they don't,
      so they use the poor man's nuclear weapon — suicide terror.

      The same argument is given to explain 9-11. Three thousand innocent
      Americans were incinerated by Islamic terrorists because America has
      been meddling in the Middle East so long. This was bound to happen.
      And, anyway, don't we support Israel?

      And when Muslim terrorists blew up Madrid trains, killing 191 people
      and injuring 1,500 others, the Left in Spain and elsewhere blamed
      Spanish foreign policy. After all, the Spanish government had sent
      troops into Iraq.

      When largely Muslim rioters burned and looted for a month in France,
      who was blamed? France, of course — France doesn't know how to
      assimilate immigrants, and, as the BBC reported on Nov. 5,
      2005, "[Interior Minister Nicolas] Sarkozy's much-quoted description
      of urban vandals as 'rabble' a few days before the riots began is
      said by many to have already created tension." Calling
      rabble "rabble" causes them to act like rabble.

      If you wish to test the thesis that the Left blames those blown up
      for being blown up by Muslim terrorists, have your son or daughter
      at college ask some liberal arts professors who is to blame for 9-11
      or Muslim suicide bombers in Israel, etc.

      In fact, one way to describe the moral divide between conservatives
      and liberals is whom they blame for acts of evil committed against
      innocent people, especially when committed by non-whites and non-
      Westerners. Conservatives blame the perpetrators, and liberals blame
      either the victims' group or the circumstances.

      We Americans are used to this. For decades, liberals have blamed
      violent crime in America on racism and poverty, i.e., on American
      society far more than on the murderers, rapists, arsonists and
      muggers themselves. Conservatives blame the criminals.

      During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, black mobs murdered
      innocent Korean shopkeepers and burned sections of the city. The
      liberal response in America was virtually universal: We must
      understand the anger of these people at American racism. The daily
      special section on the riots in the major local newspaper, the Los
      Angeles Times, was titled, "Understanding the Rage."

      Though Thomas Friedman, the New York Times foreign affairs
      correspondent, has been among the few prominent liberals to support
      the Iraq War, he regularly blames Islamic terror on unemployment in
      the Arab world.

      Since examples of liberals refusing to blame criminals and
      terrorists for their behavior are legion, let's try to figure out
      why this moral inversion is so common.

      Here are three hypotheses:

      One is that liberals tend to blame outside forces for evil. This
      emanates from the secular humanistic view of people as basically
      good — and therefore human evil must come not from the bad choices
      and bad values of the evildoer, but from the unfortunate
      socioeconomic and other circumstances of the person's life.

      The second explanation is that as you go further left on the
      political spectrum, it becomes increasingly difficult to blame
      the "weak" for any atrocities they commit. The Left does not divide
      the world between good and evil nearly as much as it does between
      rich and poor, and between strong and weak. Israel is stronger and
      richer, so Palestinian terror is excused. White America is stronger
      and richer than black America, so black violence is excused. The
      West is stronger and richer than the Muslim world, so Muslim
      violence is explained accordingly.

      And third, liberals tend to be afraid of the truly evil. That's why
      the liberal newspapers of America refused to publish the Danish
      cartoons, probably the most newsworthy cartoons ever drawn, but have
      never had any hesitance about showing cartoons and photos that mock
      Jewish and Christian symbols. Christians and Jews don't kill editors.

      We don't know who will be the next target of Islamic or other
      murderers from poor or non-Western or non-white groups. All we can
      know is that liberal and leftist thought will find reasons to hold
      the targeted group largely responsible.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.