They’re Really Going to Tell Us the Atlanta Shootings Aren’t About Racism, Huh?

One can be cautious about what caused a man to kill while still acknowledging that watching people who look like you die for no reason looks exactly like what it is.

Alyssa Pointer/Atlanta Journal-Constitution/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Tuesday night, a 21-year-old white man walked into an Atlanta-area massage parlor where he opened fire and killed four people. From there, the white man entered two similar businesses and killed four more people, prompting a massive police manhunt that eventually led to his arrest. The death toll from the rampage included six Asian women, a critical fact that raised fears of a racially motivated hate crime.

But, not long after most of the country awoke to learn of the horrific details, law enforcement officials on Wednesday appeared intent on focusing on a different narrative. After the arrest, the suspect had “made indicators that he has some issues,” Cherokee Police Sheriff Frank Reynolds told reporters in a press conference, potentially a “sexual addiction.” Reynolds said that officials believed the suspect had “frequented these places in the past and may have been lashing out” in order to get rid of a “temptation.”

Though officials acknowledged that the murders had occurred during a surge in anti-Asian violence across the country, that felt mostly like a footnote attached to the emphasis that it was still too early to make the determination that a hate crime had taken place. The logic appeared largely, if not solely, rooted in the suspect’s claims to police that his decision to kill six Asian women had not been motivated by race. Soon after the presser ended, the Cherokee police department issued the following statement:

To an Asian American woman watching from a distance, the admonishment not to rush to assume racist elements strikes me as perplexing. The alacrity with which the police have released information heavily intimating that this has more to do with sex, specifically the sexual frustrations of a white man, feels obscene. One can be cautious about what caused a man to kill people while still acknowledging that watching people who look like you die for no reason looks exactly like what it is. But law enforcement officials made a specific choice in ignoring that and echoing the words of a killer. And their stress for caution before labeling Tuesday’s murders as racially motivated—while foregrounding the potential sexual nature of the investigation—runs the risk of falsely treating misogyny and racism as if they’re mutually exclusive, when in fact, overwhelming evidence has shown that the two toxic forces are often interwoven. The fact that Asian women make up 70 percent of the recent rise in anti-Asian attacks is further proof of the parallel traumas. In the case of Asian sex workers, there’s really no separating the inherent racism rooted in a white man’s assertion that “sexual addiction” prompted him to commit violence.

Time and again, that dangerous instinct on ignoring the full picture has proven effective at minimizing how acute violence lays bare the rot of racism and sexism generally. You see it exposed, excruciatingly so, right there in the language Georgia police officials used to describe Tuesday’s murderous rampage, or as they called it, an act of “lashing out” to eliminate sexual urges. (A familiar predicament for all men, right?) Law enforcement officials even went as far as to reduce the murders as a “really bad day” for their suspect.

As for the women who were murdered, they’ve already been tarnished by a flood of abhorrent jokes on social media about Asian sex workers. They did not get the full humanity of having a “really bad day.” By pressing the potential sexual undertones of Tuesday’s rampage, it’s not a stretch to imagine that the strange performance by Georgia police officials will further fuel the grotesque instinct to crack such jokes amid a tragedy. 

“We are not about to get it into victim blaming, victim shaming here,” Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms responded after a reporter asked if sex work took place at the targeted businesses. “We don’t know additional information about what his motives were, but we certainly do not begin to blame victims.”

Well, some of us aren’t.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate