Q: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing -- the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity -- the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation's collective reaction to the attacks. That's because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are -- and are not -- collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being. 
  
 This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings -- even though most come at the hands of white dudes. 
  
 Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as "lone wolf" threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats -- the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts. 
  
 "White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation," writes author Tim Wise. "White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her donâ€™t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we wonâ€™t bomb Dublin. And if heâ€™s an Italian-American Catholic we wonâ€™t bomb the Vatican." 
  
 Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail -- it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks. That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues. ||||| Interesting enough. But Sears also included a long exegesis of what it meant that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had the name of the bloody 15th century central Asian-Muslim warlord Tamerlane, which he said was akin "to naming an American child 'Stalin-Mao-Hitler." Which seemed to indicate he considered the Tsarnaevs more Asian, or maybe "Cock-Asian," than good old-fashioned American white. 
  
 We still know comparatively little about the Tsarnaev brothers, but they seem to have more in common with other American mass murderers than with al-Qaida terrorists of any race and ethnicity. No less an expert than former CIA Deputy Director Philip Mudd said on Fox News Sunday that they have more in common with the Columbine killers than with hardened al-Qaida terrorists. Likewise, Columbine expert Dave Cullen compares the “dyad” of apparent mastermind Tamerlan and follower-younger brother Dzhokhar to the Columbine pair of disturbed plot architect Eric Harris and follower Dylan Klebold. |||||
A:
Conservatives jumped all over a Salon columnist who wrote a piece last week headlined, "Let's Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber Is a White American"—and when the suspects were revealed, conservatives gloated that they were not, in fact, white Americans. But the Tsarnaev brothers "are quite literally Caucasian, as in from the Caucuses," writes Joan Walsh on Salon. Plus, the US Census Bureau considers Americans of Chechen or Russian descent to be white, and one of the brothers was a naturalized American citizen. So why don't right-wingers consider them to be white? Walsh considers a few possibilities: America has a history of "sorting white from non-white." Many European immigrants "became" white as time went on, society became more accepting, and decidedly "non-white" people started arriving. "Embracing racism and xenophobia, sadly, could be a shortcut to white status for previously non-white European immigrants." Of course, it could boil down to the simple fact that the Tsarnaevs are Muslim, immigrants, or simply that "they’re 'bad,' and whiteness must be surrendered when white people are bad," Walsh writes. But, Walsh points out, the brothers actually have more in common with other mass murderers than they do with al-Qaeda terrorists. By insisting they're not white, conservatives are simply proving the original Salon columnist's point: White American murderers basically escape scapegoating and racial profiling, but with the Tsarnaevs being viewed as non-white, you can expect "a destructive new wave of ... anti-Muslim agitation [and] generalized xenophobia." Click for Walsh's full column.