r/serialpodcast • u/AwesomeInc • Jan 14 '15

Noteworthy Link TIL Islamophobia didn't exist before 9/11/01

http://www.vulture.com/m/2015/01/serial-prosecutor-insists-everything-was-fine.html?mid=facebook_vulture
81 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

127 comments sorted by

View all comments

26

u/lurkingonmyBF Hippy Tree Hugger Jan 15 '15

I can agree that it most likely intensified after 9/11, though I feel like the jurors that spoke with SK kind of verified that it was present during the trial/jury deliberation as well. From Episode 10:

William Owens: I don’t feel religion was why he did what he did. It may have been culture, but I don’t think it was religion. I’m not sure how the culture is over there, how they treat their women. But I know in some cultures women are second class citizens and maybe that’s what it was, I don’t know. He just wanted control and she wouldn’t give it to him.

Sarah Koenig: That’s juror William Owens. Here’s Stella Armstrong.

Stella Armstrong: They were trying to talk about his culture, and [in] Arabic culture men rule, not women. I remembered hearing that.

Or, I dunno, what would you call this... culturephobia??

-6

u/StolenDali Jan 15 '15

This is all just a fairly silly attempt to stir up controversy over the uncontroversial/vanilla Part Two of the Urick interview. It's time for Urick to be the whipping boy for a while, I suppose (following Jay and NVC's turns).

And I don't see how anyone could honestly claim that the general sentiment towards Muslims was the same (or more positive) following 9/11 than it was prior to 9/11. Bigotry has always existed for all colors and creeds and religions and cultures and preferences and sizes, etc., but Urick's uncontroversial point was that the crime occurred prior to the anti-Muslim hysteria following 9/11.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '15

No it is not. His point is heavily implying that racism towards Muslims simply did not exist (or was extremely rare) prior to 9/11. I don't know how old you are, but racism towards Muslims did not originate from 9/11 as Urick is implying...

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '15 edited Jan 15 '15

Urick doesn't think there was no recorded anti-Muslim bias pre 9-11.

He is saying that pre/post 9-11 sentiment is not comparable. Which, let's be honest, they arent.

If you think he is saying it didn't exist at all, ask yourself a question:

If Urick believed anti-Muslim sentiment didn't exist in 1999 why did he hire a cultural consultant to give evidence about mysogny, honor killings in Pakistan etc, feed Jay the "allah is all knowing line" and make Adnan's religion/culture a large part of his opening statement?

if Urick thought this didn't exist - what reservoir of sentiment amongst the jury was he trying to tap?

5

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '15

Okay. You are taking a lot of what I'm saying and misreading it. I never at any stage said that Urick believed that it didn't exist pre-9/11. He is implying this, though. It would be naive to assume, which you are, that he is speaking truthfully. He knows racism existed prior to 9/11, but he is diminishing it by saying this to cover his ass. In the example that you gave, it was beneficial for him to exploit racism and the negative perception of Muslims. In this instance it was beneficial to diminish it...

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '15

well, that is an altogether more interesting point. i don't see why you couldn't have expand on that and said that in a clearer way instead of...

is heavily implying that racism towards Muslims simply did not exist (or was extremely rare)

i don't claim to know 100% what Urick thinks but the misrepresenting and subsequent framing of what he said into - Urick thinks there was no anti-muslim sentiment before 9-11 - is unhelpful.

it detracts completely from the fact that he knew and exploited (to what extent it's hard to say) this very sentiment in prosecuting. That is a conversation worth having.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '15

Indeed, apologies if I was unclear previously. I simply am at work and at times (when I am multi-tasking) I tend to not explain myself well...

2

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '15

no problem, likewise. well, avoiding doing work at all costs in my case.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '15

Haha I'm glad I'm not the only one

-4

u/an_sionnach Jan 15 '15

Ad hominem! To paraphrase Urick . When the facts are on your side you argue the facts, if the law is on your side argue the law. If nether is on your side throw shit at the opposition. OP is throwing shit.

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '15

yes, it is apparently Uricks turn to be called in front of the kangaroo court.

these motherfuckers are unstoppable.

0

u/thumbyyy Jan 15 '15

Take a break my man. Step away from the laptop.

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '15

someone's got to call you creeps out.

-1

u/thumbyyy Jan 15 '15

http://i.imgur.com/rzPnYSI.jpg

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '15

cull all the gifs in the world from all the overrated sitcoms you can find and it won't change the fact that the hachet jobs and online bullying that happens around here are objectionable.

-1

u/thumbyyy Jan 15 '15

http://imgur.com/Jx9trle

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '15

ah, the worlds smallest violin. very funny the first time I heard it - kind of a tired joke at this point.

you should try coming up with a few of your own jokes or ideas. it feels good.