But those “militias” were de facto agents of the state, whereas the modern use of the term to describe armed resistance groups like the one in this case is decidedly *anti-*state.
4 Likes
Sure you can!
They’re just called ‘civilian militias’ here in the US because there’s been a lot of redefinition of the term going on for political reasons. The rest of the world still has the same pretty basic approach to it.
Again, I’m just saying let’s not obsess over this whole ‘military/militia’ bit.
That’s why I had the rest of that in the quote you replied to.
I’m just saying this is kind of splitting hairs for no good purpose.
The guys in the building are the paramilitary non-government-supporting kind.
Of course I do. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I’m literally saying that the media would treat it differently if it was Muslim/Black, yes. It would most definitely be a larger shitstorm. Most definitely.
3 Likes
don’t tell this the Swiss, they are very proud of the milita system : )
4 Likes
I was curious to see where this was happening. Go to Google maps and read the reviews, they are already pouring in:
5 stars: May I suggest roadblocks and a precision air strike?
5 stars: I just came for the Red Neck stand off. Beautiful scenery.
6 Likes
Which is a point Cory makes in the original post, beginning with its title. And yet, your first comment here, which I still don’t see you quite taking back in your subsequent ones, was:
Oh good, Cory got right to race-baiting without batting an eye.
Do you see why I’m seeing an “apparent” refusal in your comments in this thread to acknowledge the white privilege evinced by differing/racist media coverage of differently raced protesters? Or have you changed your mind, and now want to join in with what you earlier characterized as “race-baiting”?
12 Likes
And you are the one supporting their claim to the word militia, which enables their flavor of constitutionalist idiocy.
These armed felons use the term in a US Constitutional sense, and you can strip that context away if it matters to you to do so, but please
Me? Really? I think it’s the dudes who took over a federal building who might need to be a bit less obcessed.
And what I would call them isn’t from a latin root, but thanks for the permission to use either term.
Of course, then there’s how ABC News described it…
6 Likes
The headline is pointing out that the way the authorities and media are handling this situation is very different than how they have handled similar situations in the past with non-weapons-toting protesters who happen to have darker skin. It’s not saying that the issue at hand is racism specifically.
13 Likes
I’m really not. I’m saying that this particular word isn’t something that should be obsessed over.
U.S. is not the world and we hear ‘militia’ used to describe rebel groups frequently.
The word is too complicated in actual usage for it to be worthwhile to try to take control over it one way or another.
What they are is ‘terrorists’. They are using intimidation and armed force or the threat thereof for military aims. We should focus on that and stop with this ‘militia’ talk.
3 Likes
Oh come on, calling these yahoos terrorists is an insult to real terrorists.
3 Likes
But if everything that could be vaguely fitted into the definition, even if it has to be stretched, is called “terrorism”, the definition will be more and more elastic. Then it is a matter of time until something we do fits the label, with the corresponding harsh approach from The Man being applied if convenient.
Better not abuse the word on a bunch of clowns.
1 Like
As I said, I agree that the media would treat this differently if they were Muslim, especially given the current, bizarre anti-Muslim furor. But I also think that skewing this entire story to be about their race (“it’s OK, they’re white”) is a cheap shot and lazy race-baiting for clicks. Since we’ve never dealt with a situation in which a black militia has taken over a government building, to the best of my knowledge, the comparison between unarmed black protesters isn’t very valid, in my opinion.
Do you personally feel terrified by their actions? Or know anybody else who does? I am not seeing any actual terror here in this topic.
This is why I am usually quick to denounce “terrorism” as being a lazy rhetorical device of reactionary politics. I know, the gits in this article are reactionary, but it sounds like many of their critics are also. The whole distinction between mere “crime” and “terrorism” has been explained to me here that the instilling of fear, intimidation, terror, etc adds a level of unethical weight to certain acts which excuses de-emphasizing normal evidence and due process. Yet, here we have a whole topic of people chanting “terrorism” who appear to not be in terror. Is anybody actually afraid of these people?
It just seems to me like the usual practice of people trying to characterize actions they don’t like by labelling them with a broad brush rather than nuanced critique because it is both easier and more likely to encourage emotional reactions. Neither of those are good things.
Ack… I said I was bailing from the forum for a while, I go now!
1 Like
But it’s not ever you doing the opposite for the same “exact reason”, right? Fascinating that you are so perfectly objective.
Here is a song about Oregon.
6 Likes
I looked at maps of the old reservation. The reservation was north of the two lakes, while the refuge is south of the lakes. While I’m open to the claim that the Malheur reservation did not include important Paiute lands–(and it seems likely that the Paiutes regarded the Malheur reservation as “foreign”). it’s not the case that this refuge was appropriated from the 1872 grant.
While there’s a lot of debate on the specifics, terrorism boils down to the use of intimidation, violence, or the threat of violence for political benefit (Terrorism is inherently political)
Yokels or not, they are exactly what the term is intended to define and they’re not in the ‘fuzzy’ part of the Venn diagram here. If they were to actually kill somebody or destroy property (rather than state their willingness to do so) then they’d be terrorists under pretty much any definition.
One could argue that they are currently ‘aspiring terrorists’ or ‘0 level terrorists’ or something, but their intent to use force to achieve political aims is clear.
Def (google dictionary)
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Merriam-Webster
the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal
5 Likes
While the first amendment protects the use of nonviolent discourse in politics, the second amendment protects the use of violent discourse in politics.
1 Like
I disagree. As you partially acknowledge (yes if Muslims, no if black), the response by both the corporate media and the authorities would very likely be vastly different if these (armed!) protesters were not white. Saying so is not “skewing the entire story to be about their race”; it’s pointing out a crucial, defining element of the whole episode.
And why not write a blog post pointing out how this episode exemplifies the racist hypocrisy of differential treatment of protesters? I’m sure that many other blog posts, articles and news stories and so on already exist that cover different elements of this protest, and that you wouldn’t characterize them as “skewing the entire story to be about” those elements (let alone doing so as a “cheap shot” that lazily seeks clicks). For someone who says we shouldn’t focus on race here, you sure do have an odd way of nevertheless focusing on race.
I disagree again. Protest is protest – the comparison really is apples to apples, even if the specifics situation isn’t exactly the same. Armed white protesters are going to continue to received gentler treatment than black protesters, even when the latter are not armed (just as white job applicants with felonies are going to continue to receive more call backs than black job applicants without felonies, and so on).
ETA: @AcerPlatanoides put it perfectly above; you’re deploying “the ol’ whomever smelt it dealt it fallacy.” What you’re doing by calling Cory a race-baiter really is that . . . immature.
10 Likes
If they are used differently, the meanings are literally different - meaning is defined by use. History is another story.
10 Likes
