Professor Victor Davis Hanson on the deadly results of multicultural sensitivity

Professor Victor Davis Hanson dissects the malign effects of cultural timidity and rampant multicultural “sensitivity” on the very lives of Americans. The latest exhibit of that affliction of, primarily, American Whites to be nice, tolerant, inoffensive, culturally sensitive, and, yes, meek before those who are minorities is the failure to respond appropriately to the many clues to his deadly desires that the Fort Hood terrorist left along the way. That unwillingness to step up and to confront the developing evil is the result of a lifetime of indoctrination and guilt mongering by the Left-elite-controlled civic institutions. Perhaps it is just that people have lost the ability to recognize certain facts as they are, only able to see the world through modern liberalism’s distorted prism, rather than a conscious lack of involvement in a matter that would put them in the uncomfortable position of being judgmental. The cause of that inability is the same.

As I and others have long argued, the mindless multiculturalism that is the dominant current educational and cultural paradigm is eating at societal cohesion. Worse, it is increasingly costing American lives. For the head of the Army, General Casey, when confronted by jihadist terror, to have the immediate reaction that we must be vigilant about diversity is evidence of the lethal political correctness that infests even some elements of the armed forces and under which the ordinary soldiery must labor. Would any other group than Muslims be given such deference? Would soldiers who made the remarks, sent the type of emails, or gave the presentations that Hasan did, but, say, in relation to the KKK be treated with similar non-chalance? Why would the FBI, even while every official (including the President) was admonishing people not to rush to conclusions, almost immediately rush out a statement that there was no evidence of terrorism? Why is there not a similar restraint on rushing to judgment by officials or the media whenever they imagine that something can be pinned on Christians, FOX News, or conservative Americans, especially when, in the great majority of cases the facts show the asserted connection to be non-existent or tenuous? Why, as Mark Steyn enjoys posting, is there such a reluctance to affiliate jihadists with Islam and with radical Islamism? Such linguistic delicacy is notably absent when the accused is a member of some Christian congregation, has a cable TV service that allows him to receive FOX News, or has at some point listened to Rush Limbaugh.

As Victor Davis Hanson points out, “[W]e look for patterns in all cases of individuals’ shooting others on a mass scale. Hasan gave every indication that he was channeling his own personal sense of frustration into a larger Islamic writ against the West — as have some 20 other killers since 9/11 who have shot, stabbed, or run over innocents at malls, airline counters, military facilities, and Jewish-affiliated centers.” The mere fact that Hasan may have had other “issues” does not mean that he was not pushed into this particular action by the teachings of Islam, or at least by his interpretation of those politico-religious teachings. It does not mean that he was not furthering religious (Islamic) goals by his actions.

Hanson again: “[I]f we counted up the number of ‘lone wolf’ incidents and added it to the number of Islamist terrorist plots that have been foiled since 9/11, we would arrive at more than 40 incidents of terrorist killings or efforts to kill on a wide scale. If anyone could find a comparable series of anti-abortion terrorist acts, backlash attacks on Muslims, anti-Semitic attacks perpetrated by non-Muslims, Jewish attacks on Middle Easterners, or radical environmentalist killings, then one could argue that the public was unduly focusing on Islam.” A difficult conclusion to rebut, and an analysis that no amount of politically correct dissembling about what happened at Fort Hood and who perpetrated that deed and why, can undercut.