I'll assume you know most of the details. (If not, they're easily located.) For the purposes of this entry, the pertinent facts are that Amy Bishop, a female professor (a native of Massachusetts and Harvard-educated, as they insist on telling us every single time, like it's almost impossible for someone from Harvard to be mentally unbalanced... *eyeroll*), brought a gun to a board meeting and, somewhere in the middle of that meeting, began shooting at her colleagues. Three were killed and three others seriously injured. This appears to have been motivated by a tenure denial. Since then, disturbing stories about Bishop's past behavior have come to light. Let's just say that it seems that the woman has some serious, long-running instability and that she has sometimes acted out violently. We've also read that she is extremely liberal and such an admirer of Obama as to be described by some as obsessed. (Make of that what you will.)
Now some would like to say that Amy Bishop's attack was racially motivated-- and more than that, they're linking it (by covering it in the same article) to the Tea Party movement. (Yeah, makes perfect sense, doesn't it?)
In November of 2008, a prime debate was whether the United States – with Barack Obama’s election – lived in a post-racial society. Fifteen months later, the answer is a resounding, “hell, no.” The proof: last week’s shooting in Alabama, where a disgruntled white professor murdered three minority professors; and the growing success of the Tea Party movement, which is overwhelmingly white and increasing vocal in its violent dislike of the nation’s first black president.The author goes on to point out the race of the three people who died in the UAH shooting-- two were black and one a native of India. And-- dun dun DUN!-- Amy Bishop was . . . (wait for it. . .) . . . white. That's it. What more proof do you need? It must've been racially motivated. (Though one wonders about the race of her other intended victims. What about the three who were seriously injured? What about the ones Bishop was still attempting to murder when her gun mercifully jammed? Were they all minorities? Surely not.)
According to the brilliant mind behind this story, "Bishop may have been, in the words of a Boston Herald report, a 'far-left political extremist who was "obsessed" with President Obama,' but she may still have had issues with non-white people in authority." Well, yes, I guess she may have. It's possible, I suppose, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely. If she had "issues" with "non-white people in authority", why would she have been so vocal in her support for a non-white person in the ultimate position of authority? Why go bonkers for Obama, if she was secretly seething with hatred for minorities? Doesn't it make much more sense that she was outraged over her situation and lashed out at the people she felt were to blame, regardless of race? Do you honestly believe she wouldn't have started shooting if all of the faces looking back at her had been white? I don't believe it, and I don't believe the author does, either.
If we go by this type of logic, every time a white person kills a member of a racial minority, it may be because that person was racist-- even if on the surface they had no appearance of it-- even if they practically idolized a minority leader. Does it work the other way 'round, too? Is it an act of racially motivated violence every time a white person is killed by someone who isn't white? Every time a man murders a woman-- or a woman murders a man-- should we question whether the crime was at least partially motivated by a hatred of the opposite sex in general?
This type of logic is not logic, and (though I'm sure they march under the banner of equality for all and peace among all races) it feels like people who suggest it are secretly hoping to further engender distrust and strife. What can be their motivation, I wonder?
