Home › Forums › Open Discussion › White Privilege
- This topic has 62 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 11 months ago by JanS.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 4, 2016 at 5:49 pm #829376
JTBParticipantOne good thing about the armed insurrection in Oregon by the wannabe militia types is they have enabled a conclusive response to those in the Forum who previously have disputed the continuing presence of “white privilege” in this society.
The thought experiment is: what would happen to a group of armed black youth in Alabama who occupy one of the licensing offices that are targeted to be closed, thus making voter registration more difficult? Do you think they would receive the same consideration from local and state law enforcement as shown by Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward who said the protesters were no patriots.
“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States,” Ward said in a statement. “We are currently working jointly with several organizations to make sure the citizens of Harney County are safe and this issue is resolved as quickly and peaceful as possible.”
That’s a pretty polite way of saying the spawn of Bundy are inciting a conspiracy to overthrow the government. I believe there are laws against doing that. I wonder if they will be enforced? I doubt it. White privilege rules.
January 4, 2016 at 8:32 pm #829774
thisisagooddealMemberImagine if they’d have been Muslim.
January 4, 2016 at 8:46 pm #829775
CandrewB1ParticipantPretty sure the Feds want to avoid a massacre regardless of the race of the “occupiers.”
January 4, 2016 at 8:47 pm #829776
CandrewB1ParticipantThey really took BLM to the woodshed at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
January 4, 2016 at 11:12 pm #829781
JanSParticipantPretty sure that if the people invoolved there had been black, hispanic, Muslim, you would see a reaction mightier than anything that occurred in Ferguson.. Do not make excuses for these half-wits in Oregon. They will not leave quietly. Many have even started posting “goodbye” videos…
January 4, 2016 at 11:25 pm #829782
SmittyParticipantWhy is race even an issue?
This isn’t a group taking over some administration building to protest racial discrimination – in which case race would be a primary factor. This is a bunch of rancher’s – and race isn’t important – its their status as ranchers supporting other Western ranchers over a land dispute.
Why bring race into it?
January 4, 2016 at 11:44 pm #829783
CandrewB1ParticipantNot making excuses for the self-important slobs, just saying it is silly to say blacks, Hispanics or whoever would be mowed down in a hail of federal bullets. Since 1993, the Feds really do go to extremes to avoid such a thing. Locals have a habit of getting jumpy however, just ask the 200 bikers facing felony charges for going to a restaurant; the ones who weren’t mowed down in a hail of local bullets that is. Wonder why they just don’t claim their privilege?
January 4, 2016 at 11:44 pm #829784
CandrewB1ParticipantJanuary 4, 2016 at 11:45 pm #829785
JKBParticipantWe did see rioting in Ferguson and Baltimore, with looting and arson, and the authorities didn’t break out the machine guns.
CandrewB1 and Smitty have this one right.
January 5, 2016 at 12:05 am #829787
dobroParticipant“This is a bunch of rancher’s – and race isn’t important – its their status as ranchers supporting other Western ranchers over a land dispute.”
That’s an awfully mild way of characterizing an occupation of federal property by an armed gang. Especially since the “land dispute” was tried by jury in a court of law, the ranchers were found guilty, sentenced, served time, and now, because of a legal point, must go back to jail. The fact is that these nut jobs are exploiting a situation for their own publicity ends. From out-of-state, uninvited, disowned and disavowed by the Hammonds themselves, these right-wing armed and dangerous extremists are trying to take advantage of someone else’s legal problems to bring attention to themselves.
I think the reason people bring race into it and talk about white privilege is because they’re wondering why a bunch of white guys with guns can commit this type of act with no seeming consequences other than “c’mon, guys, please go home…pretty please”, while unarmed 12 year old African American kids playing with toy guns are shot to death by police within seconds of their arrival on the scene.
If you’d like to learn something about the subject of white privilege, read this book- Between This World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates
January 5, 2016 at 12:44 am #829789
JTBParticipantSmitty, the basic point is how a group of white protesters is being treated in contrast to how groups of black protesters have been treated of late.
I agree the federal government is less disposed to break out ranks of heavily armed law enforcement than are local and state agencies. But so far, the county sheriff seems to be taking the lead on this, not the feds. A that goes back to how local and state police have responded to protests by unarmed black people. (yes, there have been a few instances of armed individuals getting involved with some of those protests but I don’t think the turn outs by law enforcement was undertaken with an expectation that a significant number of protestors would be armed).
January 5, 2016 at 5:27 am #829796
JKBParticipantSo one observes members of a group engaging in misconduct, even criminal acts, and getting away with it. Perhaps there’s a direct connection with their group identity, or perhaps there’s a statistical link.
Should we therefore generalize throughout that group, saying that the bad conduct is pervasive ?
If so, how does that affect how we treat an individual? Does he share guilt with the known evildoers? Do we assume misconduct in the individual – guilty until proven innocent?
So I believe in principles. In this case, that the above could be asked about many different groups, and ideally the answers don’t change. Do you agree?
January 5, 2016 at 5:51 am #829797
TanDLParticipantWhat dobro said!
January 5, 2016 at 6:44 am #829798
dobroParticipant“So I believe in principles. In this case, that the above could be asked about many different groups, and ideally the answers don’t change. Do you agree?”
Your question is rather non-specific, so a little hard to answer. If you are talking about groups identified by race, per the original subject then, perhaps, in an ideal world those answers don’t change. Trouble is, we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in 21st century America, a country whose wealth and power were built on the backs of African American slaves for over 250 years, de facto slavery via the subjugation of segregation, Jim Crow, mob violence, voter suppression, etc for another 100 years. Only one group shares the impact of this history. So, no, I don’t think there is a single principle that covers your question. The real world is a little more complicated than that. Try reading that book I suggested.
January 5, 2016 at 7:30 am #829799
JKBParticipantDeliberately nonspecific, for the point that the same standards ought to apply everywhere. The immediate motivating example is the ranchers in Burns and the white-privilege argument.
Good question about whether we can live up to that ideal. I suppose not, but aren’t ideals about knowing which direction to try for? And failing to reach them is different from choosing not to.
I would point out the Indians, the Jews in various times and places, the Cubs, the Gypsies… there are a number of peoples who’ve been mistreated. But the specific history was your point, uniqueness more of an aside.
January 5, 2016 at 1:43 pm #829800
CandrewB1ParticipantThe Cubs deserve it; they’ve mistreated me my whole life.
January 5, 2016 at 1:50 pm #829801
CandrewB1ParticipantThe OP was trying to state the reason the government, local or Federal is not going in guns blazing is because they are white. If it were black people this would not be the case. Prevailing wisdom would agree, however recent examples show this is not necessarily the case. In Ferguson a cop took a bullet to the face and the government did not react harshly, nor did they when 2000 mostly black youths rioted and looted an entire shopping mall in Kentucky last week. Also, the Oregon bozos are not looting or setting fires, if they were you could expect a commiserate counteraction.
January 5, 2016 at 1:59 pm #829802
JoBParticipantCandrewB1
the Oregon bozos will have to light fires if they want to stay warm.. they are cutting the power.
January 5, 2016 at 2:40 pm #829804
SmittyParticipantI’m guessing they are on a well system for water otherwise shutting off water would hurt too.
Even if they brought generators they can’t last forever, they will eventually run out of fuel.
As maddening as it is I say just wait them out until they walk out with their tails between their legs.
January 5, 2016 at 3:11 pm #829805
JoBParticipantSmitty..
at what cost to the facility?
this is Burns and it gets really cold there at night. Well water is great.. until the pipes freeze and break…
we the people will be picking up the tab for the damage.
January 5, 2016 at 5:57 pm #829807
SmittyParticipantWell, as long as no one gets hurt I will be happy.
I liken it to high speed car chases. Some municipalities forbid them because they end up causing more damage then they resolve.
I think you can do this without looking like you are catering to these nut-jobs.
January 5, 2016 at 6:42 pm #829810
JoBParticipanti agree that this will be best resolved in a way that no-one gets hurt..
but only if it isn’t resolved in a way that makes it another “victory” for armed insurgents standing up against the government… there is a reason Bundy’s son’s are the ringleaders..
and only if those most responsible are billed for the mess they made.
January 5, 2016 at 7:32 pm #829812
JTBParticipantJKB, I’m afraid you lost me in #12 with the group identity versus statistical link.
What group(s) do you have in mind? White, armed militia engaging in illegal conduct and calling for confrontation with the federal government?
Black unarmed protestors disrupting shoppers or marching in streets?
In this instance, I’m talking about the conduct of the state, of law enforcement at the local, state or federal level when tasked with confronting organized groups of protesters.
It’s not clear to me what principle you are positing.
January 5, 2016 at 8:51 pm #829814
JanSParticipantso these guys are anti-government. One post on the Bundy Ranch site on Facebook had one guy who soooo desperately wanted to be there but couldn’t afford the gas money because his GOVERNMENT CHECK HADN’T ARRIVED. Oh, the irony.
Or the guy who posted a video saying goodbye to his family, like he’s going to die, and being sorry he couldn’t spend Christmas /New Years with his family. He couldn’t make the choice (as an adult) to stay home? And come to find out he’s a scam artist from AZ…a former marine…who had a Gofundme account suspended because he was trying to raise 10 mil to bolster an anti-Islam movement. Or Mr. Ammon (I hate the Feds and their power trip)Bundy, himself, who just a few years ago got an SBA loan to supposedly bolster his small business. I suppose, when it comes to money for self, the Feds are A-OK.
I have no use for thes idiots. Surround them…no food/water/supplies in. I suspect when there are no bathroom facilities, no showers after 2 weeks, no toilet paper , no food,no beer, their “long term” plan will crumble. They will welcome being home in their own beds. Wonder is a jail cell cot will suffice.
Do not make excuses for these people, do not glorify them. That land belonged to others before Americans settled it hundreds of years ago…but I’m willing to bet that they aren’t going to give it back to the original owners…
January 5, 2016 at 9:11 pm #829815
JanSParticipantFrom Robert Reich today…
“Last Saturday, armed men took over the offices of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, in Harney County, Oregon. Ammon Bundy, leader of this group, and his father, the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, style themselves as part of a Western movement to take land back for the people from the federal government. But that’s not what’s really going on. (After all, most of these lands once belonged to Native Americans.) The real fight is over how much the rest of us will continue to subsidize the Bundys and other privateers — private logging contractors who are allowed to cut vast tracts of federal forest at subsidized rates, ranchers who pay grazing fees on some 300 acres of public lands at rates far below the market rate, private mining companies that now extract about a billion dollars a year of minerals from public lands without paying royalties, and farmers who benefit from the federal Bureau of Reclamation’s irrigation systems that make arid land capable of producing crops.
The Bundys and their allies oppose efforts to protect the environment because they want even more of these subsidized benefits. I’d rather protect what’s left of the environment.
What do you think?”
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.