A terrorist attacks a group, e.g., Americans, in an act of terrorism. Sometimes such an attack counterintuitively makes the attacked group stronger, e.g., causing them to band together against a common enemy, so it would have been better for the terrorist not to have attacked in the first place.
Hypothesize that the terrorist can avoid this problem by first studying the social stratifications within the group to be attacked, then attacking the lowest subclass within the group. Despite being in the same group, others in the group may feel, "those are the people I despise anyway; I have no qualms at seeing them be destroyed". We assume the terrorist's political goal remains achieved even if the targeted group thinks this way.
If a terrorist wanted to attack America, our lower classes are conveniently color-coded (though with some exceptions like "white trash" who are white but low class). We should decrease racial discrimination to make effective target selection more difficult for terrorists.
It's not just terrorists who do this. A government can select a group, for example African-Americans, for greater scrutiny: racial profiling. (This violates the constitutional right to equal protection.) However, it only attacks (e.g., convicting them of crimes detected because of the greater scrutiny) the worst members of the group. The civil rights of the whole group have been violated by the greater scrutiny and probably increased fear in their lives that the government is watching them, but no one complains because no one politically wants to defend the worst members of the group, those who are being sent to jail.
No comments :
Post a Comment