You will note that while the group gathered in Oregon is almost assuredly all or nearly all white, that has scarcely been mentioned in any story.Maybe because it's damned awkward to write "almost assuredly all or nearly all white." Isn't it a problem to just guess they must be white people?
You will note that nothing even close to similar can be said about coverage of events in Missouri, Maryland, Illinois or any other place where questions about policing have given way to protests or actual riots.Close to similar to what? When reporters were directly seeing activities, they were put in a different position, where they would have had to censor part of the facts they themselves witnessed. But more important, the people engaged in the activities were themselves calling attention to race and specifically wanted to be seen as black and they framed what they were protesting in terms of race. We were told "Black Lives Matter" and criticized if we tried to race-neutralize it with "All Lives Matter." These protesters were regarded by many as "principled and committed" — principled and committed about racial issues. The press presented them in the terms they used, so that was in fact very similar to the coverage of the Oregon occupiers.
And, by the way, it's pretty absurd to say "White Americans, their activities and ideas seem always to stem from a font of principled and committed individuals." I mean, I believe that it seems that way to some people, but it's my observation that white Americans are often portrayed as stupid, ignorant, greedy, and bigoted.
Posts
85 comments:
Perhaps the author can also explain why the press goes to such lengths to avoid reporting race of common criminals, even when providing an otherwise-complete physical description of the suspect(s)?
I don't recall any protesting group, of any race, which occupied a building being called "terrorists." Does anyone have an example to refresh my recollection?
Could it be because the Oregon protesters have not, as yet, committed any act of terror?
If the occupiers in Oregon were real terrorists they would have blown up the fucking building and killed all of the bystanders. Absolutely nothing they do in Oregon is going to terrorize me or anyone else not within a single mile of the incident.
White Americans. Jeez. We have grown a really stupid crop of people.
"their activities and ideas seem always to stem from a font of principled and committed individuals."
That is some terrible writing right there.
" but it's my observation that white American are often portrayed as stupid, ignorant, greedy, and bigoted."
That would be "white Americans."
Apologies for the quibble because you surely have this one right. Our media are plagued by thinkers who can not think.
Janell is a really horrible writer. Borderline incoherent.
"White Americans, their activities and ideas seem always to stem from a font of principled and committed individuals." As opposed to?
"And, by the way, it's pretty absurd to say . . ." Just a hint of faux surprise, right? I mean, has this person, or anyone of her ilk, ever given you reason to expect otherwise?
"it's my observation that white American are often portrayed as stupid, ignorant, greedy, and bigoted . . ." Umm, yeah. So (apologies) it's a little late in the day to take anyone implying otherwise seriously. Good to call Progs on their BS though. Appreciate the return to fisking as a public service.
"Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers 'terrorists?'"
Cuz they're not terrorizing anyone? Just a wild guess.
She's a "race and gender reporter"?
New Year, same garbage. Absolute garbage!
Also, occupying doesn't equal terrorizing.
If this guy is trying to make me care enough about the Bundy dispute to read about it, he's failing miserably.
Or she, whatever.
People sympathetic to the occupiers make a pretty good point that protest has a long respected history of takeovers of government buildings and this is the first time in memory that there was any pressure to use the T word.
What's different is not that they are white, but that...they are white.
Maybe they're all white, but what if they're also gay? For all we know it's Occupy Brokeback Mountain out there.
Or what if one or two were Muslim? Would Janell still be crying "terrorist?"
That would throw a wrench in the narrative pump, wouldn't it?
You know who could go out there and defuse this? Donald Trump.
'Angry gay white Muslim cowboys for Trump.' Now there's a bumper sticker.
it's my observation that white American are often portrayed as stupid, ignorant, greedy, and bigoted
With the singular exception of the white Americans' who are doing the portraying. They are, of course, intelligent, well educated, selfless, and enlightened. Just ask them, they are more than willing to tell you.
I can't find the clip, but the Man Show did a bit where they were asking people to sign a petition ending Womens' Suffrage. At one point an extremely white woman started to explain to a signer that Corolla and Kimmel where "white males" trying to make fun of women and one of them made the pointed observation that it seemed strange for her to emphasize that they were "white." "What, are you from Cameroon," one of them asked her.
It's the Wildlife, stupid. The Bundys unnaturally get in the way of natural wildlife like they are descendants of famukies who walked the Oregon Trail to live in bleak areas only good for a few Nez Percez and some deer.
Has anyone seen Eastern Oregon? It is as populated as adjoining Northern Nevada. When they say last chance for gas on a dirt road that just peters out nowhere, that's exactly what they mean.
"Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists?’"
We aren't. But isn't Janell Ross doing exactly that? The MSM is engaging in a double standard while pretending the opposite double-standard is being used.
It won't fool anyone with common sense, so most low-information media consumers will be fooled.
Professional victim wrote:But one really cannot help but wonder where similar outrage lives when, in the face of clear data indicating that black Americans are far more likely than white ones to face serious charges and jail time rather than misdemeanor penalties for resisting arrest.
Not true when previous convictions are taken into account.
Where has the lock-step adherence to careful and delicate language been in all of 2015 when unarmed black Americans were disproportionately more likely to be killed by police than others?
Because they're "disproportionately" more likely to cause trouble.
From S. Pinker
"Data: Police don't shoot blacks disproportionately. Problem: Not race, but too many police shootings. http://nyti.ms/1VX7R0E via @UpshotNYT" -
"For the entire country, 28.9 percent of arrestees were African-American. This number is not very different from the 31.8 percent of police-shooting victims who were African-Americans. If police discrimination were a big factor in the actual killings, we would have expected a larger gap between the arrest rate and the police-killing rate."
It is hard to imagine that none of the words mentioned above — particularly "insurrection" or "revolt" — would be avoided if, for instance, a group of armed black Americans took possession of a federal or state courthouse to protest the police.
I have never heard the words "insurrection" or "revolt" used by the media to describe any of the recent mob violence committed by mostly Black Americans. Ross is a stupid woman.
Peter said...
Perhaps the author can also explain why the press goes to such lengths to avoid reporting race of common criminals, even when providing an otherwise-complete physical description of the suspect(s)?
Or immigration status, or nationality, or religion (if the ROP)
Ask her the same question about the Wisconsin protesters and the Occupy Wall Street lunatics.
When minorities or other leftwing mascots trespass and occupy public property, they are called "protestors" and are "speaking truth to power" and given moral legitimacy in the press.
When white people or non-leftists do so, they are called "terrorists" by the press. No bias there, nope, nope...
White Americans, their activities and ideas seem always to stem from a font of principled and committed individuals.
Maybe that's because in most cases they are.
occupying doesn't equal terrorizing.
When you occupy by force or arms (or threatening use of arms), you are damn close.
When minorities or other leftwing mascots trespass and occupy public property, they are called "protestors" and are "speaking truth to power" and given moral legitimacy in the press.
Generally these groups aren't armed to the teeth. And if they were as heavily armed as this group is, I bet the police (and you) would be a lot less tolerant of their activities.
That is the bias, and it is hugely in favor of armed white rednecks.
They are not called terrorists because they are not terrorists, any more than bank robbers with guns are terrorists. Terrorists kill randomly in order to instill panic in the population. The Oregon people are threatening only (if at all) to law enforcement personnel attempting to remove them. They may be protesters or even revolutionaries, but they are not terrorists, and labeling them as such is just an attempt to muddy the waters. Words (at least used to) have meanings.
They aren't called terrorists because they aren't killing people. Left wing political reporters are so eager to score political points they can't even grasp the basics of their own discussions.
Freder: "When you occupy by force or arms (or threatening use of arms), you are damn close."
How close? And what is the threshold?
I ask simply because we all know from experience how fond you and your fellow lefties are of keeping those goalposts on wheels moving rapidly.
Freder: "That is the bias, and it is hugely in favor of armed white rednecks"
No bias in that statement.
Not one bit.
Oops! My geography brain cells died. It's Eastern Oregon (but looks "Western" with all the cattle and Resistol hats)
"Generally these groups aren't armed to the teeth. And if they were as heavily armed as this group is, I bet the police (and you) would be a lot less tolerant of their activities."
In the places these protests have taken place, it is generally illegal to openly carry firearms. So yes, the local authorities would not tolerate this.
Vast tracts of western states like Oregon, Idaho, Utah, etc. are federal territory, mostly under control of agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Department of Defense, the EPA, the Department of Energy, etc.
When someone tries to earn a living on property surrounded by land under the control of one or more of these bureaucracies (the dirty secret is much federal land is jointly controlled by multiple agencies that have competing mandates and interests) it's like living as a serf on a feudal manor -- your voice and your interests are ignored, and there's virtually nothing you can do to influence decisions that are literally matters of life and death. The people of eastern Oregon, be they white, black, American Indian, whatever, are easy-going and self-sufficient. Unlike the Oregonian elites in Portland, they are not self-absorbed activists. They don't protest this and that at the drop of a hat. They're long-suffering. If they take direct action, it is only because they've been ignored, strong-armed, and humiliated for years.
(repost with stupid geography error fixed)
"That is the bias, and it is hugely in favor of armed white rednecks."
Please let me know, Frederson, when the WaPo hires a columnist to specifically and explicitly report on the interests of 'armed white rednecks.'
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
occupying doesn't equal terrorizing.
When you occupy by force or arms (or threatening use of arms), you are damn close.
Who did they force at gun point? They are armed as is their right. Who have they threatened? The Federal Government? I think they said that if attacked they would defend themselves.
As one wag stated somewhere. All they have to do is have the local authorities close the roads going into the place and keep them from getting supplies and eventually hunger will drive them out.
"Generally these groups aren't armed to the teeth"
Ever hear of "The Black Panthers"? Now that's a really violent bunch.
Freder Frederson
How much further do people have to go to a liquor store in Ferguson MO than they did a couple of years ago? West Baltimore?
What would be the word to use instead of "rednecks" in those instances?
You will note that while the group gathered in Oregon is almost assuredly all or nearly all white, that has scarcely been mentioned in any story.
Sure, after I note that local crime stories and riot reports ignore the race of the perpetrators also.
When did we stop breaking white Americans down by ancestry. Has there been that much miscegenation in the US between those of German, Irish, English, Italian, Polish, etc. ancestry?
Even Jewish people in the US are Russian Jews or Polish Jews or German Jews, etc.
And Latino is just as dumb of a designation. Are they from Mexico (and even within this are the mestizo or chullo or native).
So is Asian American. Asia is the most populous continent on earth. India is different from China is different from Korea is different from Japan, etc. Has ther been that much miscegenation between Asians in America? A lot of kids who are half Japanese, 1/4 Chinese and 1/4 Korean?
Since many blacks in the US are descended from slaves whose ancestors tribes we didn't track as part of the slave trade, it might be understandable to call them "African American," although "sub-Saharan African American" would be more accurate.
So what knd of whites are we dealing with here in Oregon?
Call me when they burn that bitch down.
The reality is the media is bumfuzzled because they can't call the Bundy's what they really are; rebels.
That would totally destroy the leftist cachet the word has.
One can only assume, given his/her rhetoric, that Freder is ready to move in great force against the Black Panthers as we speak.
I for one do not believe that would necessarily be wise, but who am I or any of us to argue with the wisdom of "teh Freder"?!
Did we ever get to the bottom of the armed occupation of that ROTC building that Attorney General Holder participated in while in college?
Should a "terrorist" like that really be our Attorney General?
I can't wait to hear Freder/Amanda et al (not garage, as it would require more than 4 coherent words strung together) to speak out loudly against this outrage.
Assuming of course that Amanda/Freder et al can find the time to do so in between excusing Bill Clinton sexual assaults and the islamists sexual enslavement of women.
"Where has the lock-step adherence to careful and delicate language been in all of 2015 when unarmed black Americans were disproportionately more likely to be killed by police than others?"
Lock-step adherence by whom? " . . . in all of 2015 when unarmed black Americans were disproportionately more likely to be killed by police than others?" Other what? Unarmed men? unarmed people? Unarmed people are not harmless, for God's sake.
Stupid, stupid woman.
It's a false premise that we aren't calling this terrorism.
The "almost assuredly all or nearly all white" local sheriff is reported saying "in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States."
That's insurrection, a notch or two above terrorism, it seems to me.
So says another black racist.
Freder - how many innocent civilians have the Bundy's killed?
One thing does not equal the other.
"#YallQaeda follows a strict interpretation of Shania law."
What if these men were unarmed? Would they then be given the milder term of "protesters"?
The "almost assuredly all or nearly all white" local sheriff is reported saying "in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States."
If there's a Great Beyond somewhere, some when, Thomas Jefferson is there saying, "I told you so..."
The "almost assuredly all or nearly all white" local sheriff is reported saying "in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States."
Is there some textual evidence that this is the case? I mean, if someone is trying to start an insurrection, then it seems one needs a public call to arms if not a manifesto to go with it. Has the Bundy "gang" produced any such documents?
Now, it may be that the Bundys are just really stupid insurrectionists, & expect the nation to rise up to their cause without any guidance. I think they're not too bright, but I don't think they're that stupid. I think we have local law enforcement taken completely off-guard by this event, and the sheriff is over-dramatizing the situation so that it'll be easier to call in state & federal help when he needs it.
Jane the actuary wrote:
What if these men were unarmed? Would they then be given the milder term of "protesters"?
'Unarmed' does not mean 'non-violent.' The author of the WaPo column does not understand this, or doesn't care.
"in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States."
Asserting a fact not in evidence.
"Every successful revolution starts with takeover of closed visitor center with gift shop."
Diversity schemes and other policies that deny individual dignity are established with construction of classes, not based on commonly held principles, but with congruences, and politically, socially, and economically-motivated prejudice, in the time-honored traditions that degraded intrinsic value of human life.
Machine. I think you've broken some sort of record. I'm nominating you and the website you referenced as the " MIND NUMBINGLY, INBRED, MORONICALLY STUPID COMMENT OF THE YEAR."
Now. Go ahead. Outdo yourself. I know you have it in you.
Terry:
The converse is also true: armed does not imply violent. Also, armed is realized in diverse forms, which may or may not be rationalized by a peculiar faith pulled out of a penumbra.
"You may be a redneck if:
You forcefully takeover an empty federal building and demand freedom."
#YallQaeda
"Freder - how many innocent civilians have the Bundy's killed?"
Well two followers of Bundy killed two police and a civilian (a concealed carry permit holder who was stupid enough to confront them) in Las Vegas back in June.
"That would be "white Americans." Apologies for the quibble because you surely have this one right. Our media are plagued by thinkers who can not think."
I appreciate the spotting of typos. Thanks.
Frederson's 'followers of Bundy':
LAS VEGAS — The married couple who police say killed three people in Las Vegas, including two officers, had been kicked off a ranch where anti-government protesters faced down federal agents earlier this year, rancher Cliven Bundy's son said Monday.
Ammon Bundy told The Associated Press that Jerad and Amanda Miller were asked to leave his father's ranch after being there for a few days this spring.
He said that while details were still sketchy, the Millers' conduct was the problem. He called the couple "very radical" and said they did not "align themselves" with the protest's main issues.
"Not very many people were asked to leave," he said. "I think they may have been the only ones."
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/cliven-bundy-son-las-vegas-shooters-kicked-off-ranch-107624
I think we're all missing the bigger picture: remember a few years ago when the Fed. Gov. closed lots of public parks because the mean ol' Republicans "shut the government down?" And by closed I mean took actions (put up signs, tape, etc) that weren't really necessary (many of the closed areas didn't normally have staff, etc)...remember?
Maybe, just maybe, this whole thing is an act of performance art meant to show how much money we as a nation can save if we just shut down all these offices across the land! I mean, given the logic the Obama admin. used when closing up parks during the "shutdown," this whole thing ought to be saving the Federal Government money, right??!
Lighten up, Janell.
Who woulda thunk. Now there's a CNN piece with the same meme. And this author used to work in the Obama administration.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/03/opinions/kayyem-oregon-building-takeover-terrorism/index.html?eref=edition
Who says the media isn't complicit in left wing politics....
Given how much debt the federal government has and the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid over the next 30 years, why isn't the government selling off a lot of land?
Trump could really make some headway here. If he could personally negotiate the sale of much of this federal land, he might improve the fiscal standing of the U.S.
machine said...
"You may be a redneck if:
You forcefully takeover an empty federal building and demand freedom."
#YallQaeda
I knew you could do it!
HoodlumDoodlum:
So, what you are suggesting, is that this action is a parody of the diverse Democrat actions in recent years that have deprived Americans of rights and privileges.
Also, their demands to restrict people's right to self-defense is covert approval of constructing diversity classes based, not on principle, but on race, gender, literature, etc.; quiet agreement that anyone carry a Quran is a left-wing disciple (i.e. Marxist, communist, socialist, fascist, imperial, dictatorial) and should be denied entry to America; subtle complicity to raise the Rainbow flag advocating for selective exclusion (e.g. LoveLoses); and establishment of a quasi-religion inspired by a faith-based emanation from a penumbra that narrated a fantasy of spontaneous conception (e.g. HateLovesAbortion).
Yeah, principles matter. And the collective left and Humpty Dumpties keep stumbling over the current en vogue trend.
If these people were real terrorists, the media would be asking one question - what did the federal government do wrong to upset these nice, friendly people? Oh, and one more thing - the media would NOT be mocking their beliefs.
Blogger AlbertAnonymous said...
Who woulda thunk. Now there's a CNN piece with the same meme. And this author used to work in the Obama administration.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/03/opinions/kayyem-oregon-building-takeover-terrorism/index.html?eref=edition
"The men, heavily armed, urging others to come support their cause, and claiming somehow that, while peaceful, they will "defend" themselves whatever it takes, are -- by any definition -- domestic terrorists."
Except for the terror part.
Kayyem was a bigwig in Jeh Johnson's DHS, God help us all.
The problem with treating people like the Oregon occupiers as terrorists is that they aren't much of a threat. They aren't sponsored by some national or transnational organization, much less a sovereign state like Iran or Afghanistan.
But Lefties need to keep up the pretense that their domestic political foes are just as bad as al qaida or ISIS or whatever group is out there, planning and carrying murderous attacks on innocent Americans. It's easier when you think of your fellow citizens as 'little Eichmanns.'
Given how much debt the federal government has and the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid over the next 30 years, why isn't the government selling off a lot of land?
Because, despite the whining of all these idiots, nobody actually wants it. Especially these ranchers who would rather lease federal land for a fraction of what it actually costs to maintain the land than buy it and maintain it outright. They are nothing but welfare queens who want to use government land for free while complaining about the "oppressiveness" of the Federal government.
Give me a rational explanation about how anyone could make a living between the Rockies and Sierra (and you can throw in the northern tier of states west of Minnesota) without massive subsidies from the rest of the country.
And don't forget, the only reason white people live in that part of the country is that the Federal government stole it from the Indians, and gave it (practically for free) to the settlers and the railroads.
Because, despite the whining of all these idiots, nobody actually wants it.
And you know this , how?
Especially these ranchers who would rather lease federal land for a fraction of what it actually costs to maintain the land than buy it and maintain it outright.
Got news for you. The ranchers who graze it already maintain it. Thr BLM only manages the land.
They are nothing but welfare queens who want to use government land for free while complaining about the "oppressiveness" of the Federal government.
Fredder the Capitalist. Now that's funny. You don't like subsidiing the BLM? Sell the land. Quit whining like a little bitch.
The native Americans lost it fair and square, Feder. Thery should of had you to fight for them.
"And don't forget, the only reason white people live in that part of the country is that the Federal government stole it from the Indians, and gave it (practically for free) to the settlers and the railroads."
Does this strike anyone else as so fundamentally racist that only Freder would say it?
"And don't forget, the only reason white people live in that part of the country is that the Federal government stole it from the Indians, and gave it (practically for free) to the settlers and the railroads."
If you really believed that, Frederson, you would move to some other country.
When you are on the Left, it's always about making others pay the price for your guilt.
The US is full of humanities professors at land-grant colleges sputtering about the wicked ranchers exploiting the land 'stolen' from the Indians.
So "Freder Frederson" thinks this land would cost a lot to maintain, but for the federal regulations that make it terribly expensive? Or "Freder Frederson" thinks none of us will notice that it is the government itself which costs land to be expensive to maintain.
Because mainly the land just kind of sits there not costing a cent.
Fucking socialists.
As a Native, I fully support "Freder Frederson" and his plan to return my percentage share of all of the land mass of these United States to me and my people.
Because I plan to evict every Leftist shit bird.
If these guys had left their guns at home they wouldn't be terrorists. They brought their guns, with the implication "I can shoot you any time I please." That is a terroristic threat and they are obviously right wing terrorists. Protesters seek to pursuade others of their position. Terrorist threaten loss of life if they don't get their own way.
Life is worth more than property. Property destruction at protests is inexcusable, but starting the conversation with a implicit threat to take life is a hell of a lot worse.
The Symbionese Liberation Army, the Red Army Faction, the Weathermen, the people who kidnaped and killed Italian PM Aldo Moro, they were left wing terrorists.
Occupy and Black Lives Matter are not, even if some people at their events do unsanctioned stupid things. The Tea Partiers were not, even those some of their outliers showed up with guns.
Unarmed protesters, occupiers, whatever = people with the courage of their convictions, no matter how odious.
Gun toting protesters = terrorists, poor strategic thinkers, and unwittingly advertising they don't think they are smart wnough to win an argument without a gun.
The Black Panthers ruined things for the rest of the Civil Rights movement. The Bundy's are undermining their own position by the minute, whether or not any of their gripes are legitimate.
portrayed ?
I wonder if the reporter has considered that the race of this group of protesters, besides not being known for a certainty, might have been omitted because race is completely irrelevant and beside the point here? Does it really matter if Bundy's group is all white, 90% white, 50% white, or if it was completely non-white? It wouldn't change the nature of what they're doing one bit.
The main reason nobody is rushing to call this a terrorist incident is that nothing much has happened yet. Some nuts took over an unoccupied government building and we're still waiting to see what the government does in response. Accuracy is more important than speed, although the media never quite seems to learn that lesson, no matter how many times they rush inaccurate information to the public only for it to blow up as the facts become known.
Perhaps the role of the press and Commanche tribes should be introduced in the discussion of the theft of the land.
Interview the Ponca tribe for added impact statements.
Melissa said...
If these guys had left their guns at home they wouldn't be terrorists. They brought their guns, with the implication "I can shoot you any time I please." That is a terroristic threat and they are obviously right wing terrorists. Protesters seek to pursuade others of their position. Terrorist threaten loss of life if they don't get their own way.
I'm going to give up pointing out you logical fallacies and simply laugh at you instead.
Have you met garage? Fedder? ARM? You all should get along famously. I suggest you seek them out and then post your meeting notes here.
Because mainly the land just kind of sits there not costing a cent.
Until a fire starts and someone (the Federal Government) has to put it out. Also, you think all those roads and water projects built themselves.
Until a fire starts and someone (the Federal Government) has to put it out. Also, you think all those roads and water projects built themselves.
The roads and water projects were built by the federal government, which stole the land from the Indians, Frederson. You said so yourself.
Frederson wakes up in the morning in house built on land stolen from the Indians. He goes to work in a place built on land stolen from the Indians. He gets there on roads that cross land stolen from the Indians. Then, in the evening, he sits down at a computer and curses the ranchers who owe their livelihood to land that was stolen from the Indians.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Because mainly the land just kind of sits there not costing a cent.
Until a fire starts and someone (the Federal Government) has to put it out. Also, you think all those roads and water projects built themselves.
The first roads and reservoirs were built by the people who lived there.
Actually, every story I read had their race in the first sentence or the headline.
Did a lot of people call the Black Lives Matter protesters terrorists?
I mean, they had roving bands breaking windows and attacking cops in my town, and they surrounded me and beat me with a blunt object just for taking pictures. So if you want to call them terrorists, go right ahead.
But in a world where there are actual terrorists murdering and raping people daily, it seems offensive to call any group that hasn't murdered anybody and has no plans to do so in the future by the same name. It's like you're letting yourself off the hook for failing to oppose real evil by pointing to a minor sideshow and insisting it's the same thing.
Post a Comment