Can’t, or shouldn’t? There are a few sticky problems here. One is that, if racism is a societal problem, then all in such societies are affected by racism. The society itself is the biggest (but no more significant) victim. Then there’s the personal angle. I have had racism directed towards me specifically, and this is part of how I dealt with it. Since I found it helpful, should I simply bite my tongue and not share what I have learned with others? I try to be tactful, but it still seems more prudent to speak from what I know in my own experience, rather than offer platitudes which I think are harmful with the excuse that they might be more easily digested.
Not only is racism “perpetuating the concept”, but I think that this is true of identifying as any sort of victim in general. I have been subjected to racism, sexual assault, and even genuine attempted murder on numerous occasions. My experiences were real, and the shitty intentions behind them were real. But I was only able to really integrate these experiences and function when I was able to move past feeling like a victim. The more personal the affront seemed to be, the more difficult this was to do. But the worst thing I could possibly do was take such horrific stuff personally, to internalize other people’s greed, tribalism, xenophobia, or hatred as being somehow about me. Even if it damages my finances, my relationships, or my own body. I don’t blame them or myself any more than if I am eaten by a tiger or killed in a tornado.
My experience (take it or leave it!) has been that internalizing the label of “victim” hinders integration of my experiences, it allows my problems to define me to an unacceptable extent, can be a self-sustaining dynamic, and retards healing. In some very real ways, it hindered me from learning and doing things which could actually help remedy the cause of the situation. In many ways, victimization is the enemy of agency. But victimization can be considered as the action (being wronged) and also the identity (who you are to yourself and others). I think that the latter does more harm even than the former.
Anyone here familiar enough with the Constitution to have a go at this statement from one of the Bundy boys?
Bundy concluded by outlining his vision of the structure and powers of government in the US, as laid down in the constitution.
“The federal government’s job is to protect the states from the outside world,” he said. “The states’ job is to protect the counties from the federal government. The counties’ job is to protect the people from the states.
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
If it were true that the local and state powers solely existed to protect ourselves from federal mandates, well, that would seem like an invitation to re-litiage the secession.
However, I’m sufficiently cynical to see this as an electioneeering stunt to get sufficient state-level-representatives into office so as to mount a land-grap for profiteering interests.
Oh, it’s definitely white privilege at work, but there is also the factor of not inspiring new Timothy McVeighs in the handling of the standoff. Ruby Ridge and Waco were a goldmine for conspiracy theorists and separatists, and arguably instances where going in with guns blazing caused a lot of collateral damage and subsequent outrage.
The Feds have much more a need to control the narrative of this standoff and diffuse it to avoid retribution than they do to get back their cabin in the woods, or whatever the heck it is. Otherwise they are martyring these people,
The logic of “This is public property, and I am a member of the public, so I should be allowed here” is sound. However, the inside of a reactor core in a nuclear submarine is also public property, and, if I walked down to a naval base and demanded access to the interior of a reactor core of a specific nuclear submarine, I can see them denying that request for at least a dozen good reasons.
They need to shut down the cell towers, cut the fiber and power lines. They have plenty of water and gasp solar and wind turbines on the facility. It’s a wildlife refuge with a giant lake filled with carp so your not starving them out anytime soon. Just cut off their luxuries and see how country they are when no one knows their story. Let them sit in isolation.
Or send in a drone and let them see how bad ass they are against a drone. Give them war or isolation. Stop talking about idiots because they will just keep doing it.
While it wouldn’t be legal, I’d cut the cell towers/phones/fiber, build a nice tall fence topped with razor wire around the building, and post a sign labeling the place a jail.
