6 Comments
Jan 22, 2021Liked by Ida Yalzadeh

"The way in which both of these claims are framed centers the (domestic) United States in a way that discounts its many ongoing imperial projects and the violence it has brought upon and continues to bring upon countless communities both within and outside of its borders."

Okay, this is super interesting. There clearly always has been far more reason to be concerned about domestic white supremacist terrorism than anything else, and I think the shift towards paying greater attention to it is probably good on the balance, but it's a really good point that this kind of framing can be used in a variety of ways to take heat and attention off of continued imperialism. It's the difference in reactionary and liberal approaches; the former says "bomb the [Muslims/"terrorists"/brown people] and latter says "investigate [neo-Nazis/QAnon/white nationalists]," but both discourses are part of the overall methods for securing consent for various kinds of violence. (Not sure if I've over-reading what you're saying here, but still--thanks.)

Expand full comment
author

Hi there, thanks so much for your comment! Yes, addressing both are extremely important, I just found the rhetoric of "the end of the 9/11 era" troubling or something to interrogate further because of what it masks.

Expand full comment
Jan 23, 2021Liked by Ida Yalzadeh

Exactly--while I support increased attention to white supremacist terrorism (duh) it's always striking the ways that the fact of doing something can be put to rhetorical uses in service of things I don't support, and I appreciate you pointing out the way the post-9/11 era rhetoric (which I didn't know was in the mix until now) might be mobilized.

Expand full comment
author

Yes, totally!

Expand full comment

loved this

Expand full comment
author

Thank you!! :)

Expand full comment