With the horrific aftermath of Las Vegas, a simplistic observation of the politicization of the issue provides another face of the issue.
Upon the aftermath of the shooting in the Mandalay Bay Hotel, the country was stricken with shock at the horror of the situation as well as the grim nature of the aftermath, and rightly so. Expectedly, a large portion of the population cried out for gun control policies to finally be put into place in the face of massacre after massacre. Instead, what was provided was simply a blanket statement of sympathy and an attempt to silence political discussions.
We cannot deny the most predictable possible outcome that had the shooter ascribed to some sort of established narrative, with an established schema of recognition, they would be immediately crucified. Insightful public commentary that was in the minds of every person of color was seen in shows such as The Daily Show, addressing this very concern. The implication was evident in the responses: had Stephen Paddock been Muslim, Black, or some other person of color, the narrative would be extremely different.
If Paddock were Muslim, immigration and anti-terror rhetoric would be immediate. Had they been black, it would immediately be utilized as fuel to power a reverse racism and pro-law enforcement narrative. Had he been of Hispanic descent, the narrative would be deportation. Yet, due to this person being of white descent with no discernible minority identity, no definite narrative has been ascribed, and the massacre has only been labeled as one that deserves sympathy and mourning, and nothing else.
The ascriptions of narratives that govern and direct discourse in the status quo are marred with bias, yet we operate with recognition of that aspect without actively participating to thwart it. Such behavior is simple complacency that only serves as an enabler for racism to run rampant. Doing nothing about it and wanting to avert the discussion, in the face of blatant favoritism and prioritization with a white person being the perpetrator of a crime, is just as bad as openly airing racism. Perhaps, this is even worse as a lack of openness in the discussion just normalizes the behavior, whereas blatant racism carries the shock value that sets the scene for discussion.
Yet, here we are. At the aftermath of yet another mass shooting, with the victims mourning their losses, and the NRA and its supporters strengthening their coddling of assault firearms. Absent the debate about discrimination, while another crucial conversation that alludes us is the discussion about gun control, the key concept that sits as one of the main root causes of this conflict. The simplest of solutions are present to this issue, with precedents from countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and many other countries serving as crowning jewels of the strategy’s success. However, the US is reluctant to adopt such a solution, even if it means the loss of hundreds, even thousands, of lives from mass shootings due to the pervasive nature of neoliberalism into the political sphere.
When money and hatred dictate politics, casualties are simply the tip of the iceberg.
