In the recent aftermath of the bombing attacks that gripped the areas surrounding Austin, Texas, many have been asking why? Why did the Austin bomber do it, and why did he pick the victims he did? Many have said that there is nothing that links the victims together, that they all came from very different places and backgrounds. Except many seem to be forgetting one important detail. The three targeted victims were either African-American or Latino, but this seems to be largely ignored.
Mark Antony Conditt has repeatedly been described as “quiet, respectful, and reserved.” Almost any online article will describe him as such, as if those traits somehow excuse what has happened, or mitigate the damage somehow. He was a white, conservative, Christian terrorist, regardless of how you try to spin it. His quiet-ness or respectful-ness does not excuse or remove the fact that he terrorized a community for weeks and killed two people and injured several others. Yet, many seem to want to almost ignore that fact in exchange for making the Austin bomber an almost tragic figure. His religion is being used to make Mark Antony seem like an upright citizen, yet if he was Muslim, then virtually everyone would be saying he was a terrorist because of his religion.
All of the bombers targeted victims who were people of color, yet no one, be it law enforcement or the media, wants to even entertain the idea that his motives were not racially motivated, simply because he did not explicitly state so in his taped confession. This bomber’s race and religion is being used to make him seem like a sympathetic person, when with any other race or religion everyone would be jumping to use them as a motivator. People often like to act like white privilege is not something that actually happens, that it is not real. But what do else do you call it when a white domestic terrorist is treated like a misunderstood child rather than the menace and monster he is?
Photo from the New York Post