Social Death Part 2

This week's reading was interesting for me, especially because it started with the after-effects of September 11. Having lived in New York this summer, I visited the museum multiple times, as well as the new One World Trade Center and Ground Zero. Interestingly enough, I could see how the descriptors of the terrorists through transcripts and other evidence clearly matched Cacho's descriptors: "gang members ('people who strike and hide'), undocumented immigrants ('people who know no borders'), the disabled or mentally ill ('people who depend upon others'), and their allies ('people who harbor them and finance them and feed them')." Also interesting is the effects of 9/11 particularly on people of the Muslim faith and people who choose to veil. It's strange to see the immediate after-effects of an event that seemed to have happen not long ago. People who do not look like the American were/possibly still are labeled the Other, the non-citizen, constantly weaving their American identity into their story in order to compensate for not looking the part of a white American. "Because terrorism in the United States was associated with Islam and signified by both Arab/Muslim bodies and nations in the Middle East following as well as predating 9/11, being suspected of terrorism because of one's race, ethnicity, and/or religion became a de facto status crime that could be enforced through immigration law and justified through the ascription of illegality." Cacho also points out that in order to mask the clear racism in the War on Terror, the national identity post-9/11 took a form of diverse, multiracial Americans, going as far as the military. Not only did the U.S. go outside its border to recruit, but it also recruited heavily in particular areas — areas with heavy representation of People of Color. While it looked/looks like the U.S. military is attempting to diversify its ranks, in all actuality, the U.S. military recruited certain populations that were considered disposable in the first place, i.e. Latino/a and Black populations. Because the U.S. recruited outside the U.S., many of the soldiers were "undocumented" "non-citizens." Yet, the U.S. did not give them the label "American citizen" until after death.

In using Cachos argument to look at Black Lives Matter, Brown Lives Matter and All Lives Matter, I think Cacho would find all three somewhat problematic. Black/Brown Lives Matter attempt to document citizenship for People of Color, yet who all is included in Black/Brown Lives? Even though Black Lives Matter was actually started by three Black women, the movement is largely represented by Black men. All Lives Matter, however, is not as all-inclusive as it seems. Are women included in All Lives Matter? Are all races and ethnicities included, or is All Lives Matter just a cover up to silence Black Lives Matter and Brown Lives Matter? Most likely closest to Cachos argument would be, do undocumented, non-citizens lives matter? Black and Brown Lives Matter do a better job than All Lives Matter are revealing the inconsistencies in this hegemonic culture. But I still believe Cacho would argue with Black/Brown Lives Matter because it attempts to humanize these American citizens.