It's not easy to make a point nowadays, at least not in a way that'll get you noticed beyond your own borders. Sure, blow up a few people here, there and everywhere, and you might make a few paragraphs in the "Wog news" section of a broadsheet perhaps, if you're lucky, and if someone from the BBC hasn't been phoning up someone else who used to be on the BBC and that. But how to make that breakthrough from simple domestic sociopath to world-renowned figure of shitscariness and bogeymanness?
Simple. Just point your gun at a few whites. I mean, rack up the numbers by annihilating a few poor brown fellas waiting for a train, by all means, but unfortunately, if you stop there, then you're just destined for the slot after the business news and just before the county cricket scores. No, you need to scare some whites in order to get the klaxxons going. Demand they show their passports! Ask them whether they're British or not! That'll guarantee dozens of photographs of elderly whites being led to safety, while thousands of pictures of injured and splattered brown folk get utterly ignored.
The way my newspapers have been reporting it, the crimes against humanity* which have recently taken place in India were a deliberate attempt to target westerners and tourists. Yet the numbers don't quite bear that out - from the 120 or so dead, fewer than 10 were not Indian. Now that doesn't really add up, does it?
So what's going on? Was there an attempt to kidnap westerners rather than kill them, hoping for maximum publicity? That's certainly a possibility, to try and give the story as much prominence as possible in the global media. And it worked, by god it worked. The bombings in Jaipur barely registered in the papers over here, despite the city being on the tourist trail, yet the Bem Bahir bombings have really hit the headlines. It's not just the scale of the incident, either.
I don't know if it's just me - maybe it is just me, but do you know what, I couldn't give a thruppeny if it is just me - but there seems something tiresome in 2008 of having to relate these news stories from The Abroad in terms of how many Brits were among the piles of bodies. How does it really make a difference? So we know one Briton was unfortunate enough to have been slaughtered by the pitiless murderers... does that make a difference? Are we supposed to empathise with him more than the others? Is the one Briton's life somehow worth more than the Indians gunned down at the train station? Why all the focus on the hotel atrocities when the epicentre of carnage took place there instead? Can't we break away from this kind of coverage, and say that dead people are dead people are dead people? Isn't there any way of doing that?
I don't know, but I really have grown tired of it. I've grown tired of the fact that I wouldn't have read much about this incident, unless it had apparently targeted westerners, because apparently that's what I want to read about. Apparently I wouldn't care if it were just some foreigners being gunned down - unless they're white foreigners in an American or Finnish school, for example, and then it's of vital importance to me. Oh, I just don't know. But to me it just seems that the attitude of our media, concentrating on 'people like us' first and everyone else as some kind of mass of humanity in a distant second place, is what may have led to 'westerners' being targeted in this incident. Can't get your terrorist attack noticed? Want a bigger audience? Then go for some whites! And see the viewing figures go through the roof.
* My new best friend, William/William Gazy, has already decided for me that I don't regard the perpetrators of these crimes as being bad people, because they're not white, and for some reason my PC NuLab brain can't process the idea that non-white people are bad. And while I do appreciate being told what I already think by a trolling turd, I'm afraid he's wrong. I tend to think that people who shoot other people are quite bad men, and that the shooting of other people is quite wrong.