What's Wrong With Laughing & Labeling Oregon Militants "Terrorists"
Published on
Tuesday, January 05, 2016
by
Shadowproof
What's Wrong With Laughing & Labeling Oregon Militants "Terrorists"
by
Kevin Gosztola
Ammon Bundy (center), one of the sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, walks
off after speaking with reporters during a news conference at Malheur
National Wildlife Refuge headquarters. (Photo: AP)
Militants have taken over the headquarters for a a national wildlife refuge
in Oregon. The militants took control of the federal building in the
afternoon on January 2 and, thus far, United States law enforcement agencies
have not removed them.
Comedian Hari Kondabolu quips, "These men are armed with guns and white
skin." He also adds, "Apparently, what these armed maniacs are doing was not
discovered in all that surveillance of mosques."
There are others, who have made similar funny remarks. Cliff Schechter, a
Daily Beast columnist, suggests, "Could be much worse. Could be group of 12
year-old African American kids wielding toy guns in Oregon. Then we'd use
napalm." And various others believe they are clever as they compose
variations of, when will leaders in the White community renounce this
violence?
I have a joke of my own. Good thing these militants aren't in North
Waziristan. Otherwise, President Kill List would have an armed drone flying
over their heads faster than one could say white caliphate.
However, there is one issue with all of this humor: it is predicated on
concepts of identity, which are reinforced through disproportionate actions
of the State.
The language is a product of understandable frustration and cynicism toward
a government, which fails to apply a system designed to fight "terrorism"
equally against all people regardless of their skin color or religion. It is
rooted in a powerlessness, a recognition that there is no movement to
meaningfully unravel a system, which fuels the disparity in law enforcement.
But the target appears to be the government for failing to criminalize all
people to the same extent as the government would criminalize brown or black
people, who engaged in similar acts.
Most of the population, especially those who are politically engaged, have
come to expect that in the fight against terrorism security agencies will
engage in hyper-surveillance, crackdowns on dissent through riot patrols, an
expansion of the use of force by police against citizens, violations of due
process rights,disruption of dissident groups through entrapment, etc. There
will be an overall lack of accountability for government personnel and
officials involved in such actions.
When these tools are not wielded in response to violence, it is astonishing
to those who have spoken out against civil liberties violations perpetrated
by the security state. Whether out of fear or out of an urge to appear as if
one is taking a principled stand in support of marginalized groups typically
impacted by disproportionate response, people reflexively agitate against
the lack of response from the government.
One popular tweet from Sikh writer and human rights lawyer Arjun Sethi
encapsulates this reaction:
Similarly, Wajahat Ali argues in a column for The Guardian, "If the Oregon
militiamen were Muslim or black, they'd probably be dead by now."
"If Bundy and his followers were like the 38% of Americans who aren't white,
people across America wouldn't be watching this surreal, dangerous episode
unfold and wondering what they could do to be labeled a 'militia' when
occupying a federal area with guns instead of 'terrorists,' 'thugs,'
'extremists," or 'gangs,'" Ali adds.
Ali makes a case for dealing with violent right-wing extremism, like what
the world is witnessing in Oregon right now. He concludes, "Extremism comes
in different colors, ethnicities, beards and head coverings - which is why
racial profiling cannot protect us from all extremist violence. Maybe it's
time for politicians and law enforcement to acknowledge inconvenient truths
and confront the extremists with 'American' names and grievances as they
would any other."
Especially because of their Muslim and Sikh backgrounds, Ali and Sethi can
make such arguments with great integrity. Muslims, Sikhs-and more generally
American Arabs-have seen upticks in the number of acts of violence directed
at their communities since the September 11th attacks. It recently has
become worse since the attacks in Paris and the San Bernardino shooting. One
of the militants fueling the wildlife refuge occupation is Jon Ritzheimer,
who is a prominent leader of armed protests against Muslims which target
mosques in the U.S.
Ritzheimer and others like him, such as Pamela Geller, spread their fear of
Muslims and brown-skinned people. The hysteria created reinforces the most
abhorrent policies in the U.S. government's War on Terrorism and vice versa.
The government needs people like Ritzheimer to agitate against Muslims and
Arabs so that it can continue to pursue imperial ambitions in Middle Eastern
and North African countries and expand the national security state.
Nevertheless, does someone like Ali really want politicians or law
enforcement "confronting" white militants in the same manner in which people
from the Muslim, Sikh, or American Arab communities are treated? Do they
want FBI agents to be crawling all over establishments in white working
class and poor towns listening for chatter that can be manipulated into
evidence of a predisposition to commit criminal activity? Do they want
extraordinarily harsh sentences and abusive detention in U.S. prisons for
right-wing extremists?
If the use of force against Black Lives Matter protests or Occupy
encampments was outrageous and if the execution of black men by law
enforcement in anti-drug SWAT raids or by patrolling officers is abominable,
what sense does it make to joke about the government's failure to deploy
force? Do people engaged in this expression want the FBI to deploy armed
agents to mount a charge against the wildlife refuge headquarters and kill
the militants in order to regain control?
Finally, it is striking how "terrorism" is the lens, which so many people on
the left wish to process what is unfolding. It is as if this is the only way
people know how to make sense of insurrection or extremism. There are even
amusing hashtags born from the idea that the militants in Oregon are a white
version of the Islamic State. (*Note: This is similar to humor about GOP
presidential candidate Donald Trump and his supporters being white ISIS.)
Vox contributor David Roberts posted a roundup:
The thrust behind these hashtags is the white militants should be labeled
"terrorists," and law enforcement should recognize who they are dealing with
are not "patriots." But this serves the interests of the security state. To
the extent that political support for wielding tools against people who are
like these militants grows, the apparatus that perpetuates the War on
Terrorism can generate new tentacles.
This reflexive urge to view all developments, particularly those involving
violence, through the lens of "terrorism" should be questioned vigorously.
The desire to label acts "terrorism" in order to bring some kind of equality
to the application of force by law enforcement should be shunned as well.
"Terrorism" has no fixed meaning. It is a political term with tremendous
propaganda value to the government when it is wielded. When we debate why
this is not considered "terrorism," this is a discussion that helps sustain
the status quo. It further enables the State to engage in authoritarian
practices against the population. Instead of clamoring for the government to
label white extremists as "terrorists," the whole concept of "terrorism"
should be made obsolete.
Copyright FDL Media Group C, All Rights Reserved.
Kevin Gosztola
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Armed Sedition in Oregon
. Saudi Executions Provoke Region
. Election 2016
. Sanders Sixteen
What's Wrong With Laughing & Labeling Oregon Militants "Terrorists"
Published on
Tuesday, January 05, 2016
by
Shadowproof
What's Wrong With Laughing & Labeling Oregon Militants "Terrorists"
by
Kevin Gosztola
. 59 Comments
.
. Ammon Bundy (center), one of the sons of Nevada rancher Cliven
Bundy, walks off after speaking with reporters during a news conference at
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters. (Photo: AP)
. Militants have taken over the headquarters for a a national wildlife
refuge in Oregon. The militants took control of the federal building in the
afternoon on January 2 and, thus far, United States law enforcement agencies
have not removed them.
. Comedian Hari Kondabolu quips, "These men are armed with guns and
white skin." He also adds, "Apparently, what these armed maniacs are doing
was not discovered in all that surveillance of mosques."
. There are others, who have made similar funny remarks. Cliff
Schechter, a Daily Beast columnist, suggests, "Could be much worse. Could be
group of 12 year-old African American kids wielding toy guns in Oregon. Then
we'd use napalm." And various others believe they are clever as they compose
variations of, when will leaders in the White community renounce this
violence?
. I have a joke of my own. Good thing these militants aren't in North
Waziristan. Otherwise, President Kill List would have an armed drone flying
over their heads faster than one could say white caliphate.
However, there is one issue with all of this humor: it is predicated on
concepts of identity, which are reinforced through disproportionate actions
of the State.
The language is a product of understandable frustration and cynicism toward
a government, which fails to apply a system designed to fight "terrorism"
equally against all people regardless of their skin color or religion. It is
rooted in a powerlessness, a recognition that there is no movement to
meaningfully unravel a system, which fuels the disparity in law enforcement.
But the target appears to be the government for failing to criminalize all
people to the same extent as the government would criminalize brown or black
people, who engaged in similar acts.
Most of the population, especially those who are politically engaged, have
come to expect that in the fight against terrorism security agencies will
engage in hyper-surveillance, crackdowns on dissent through riot patrols, an
expansion of the use of force by police against citizens, violations of due
process rights,disruption of dissident groups through entrapment, etc. There
will be an overall lack of accountability for government personnel and
officials involved in such actions.
When these tools are not wielded in response to violence, it is astonishing
to those who have spoken out against civil liberties violations perpetrated
by the security state. Whether out of fear or out of an urge to appear as if
one is taking a principled stand in support of marginalized groups typically
impacted by disproportionate response, people reflexively agitate against
the lack of response from the government.
One popular tweet from Sikh writer and human rights lawyer Arjun Sethi
encapsulates this reaction:
Similarly, Wajahat Ali argues in a column for The Guardian, "If the Oregon
militiamen were Muslim or black, they'd probably be dead by now."
"If Bundy and his followers were like the 38% of Americans who aren't white,
people across America wouldn't be watching this surreal, dangerous episode
unfold and wondering what they could do to be labeled a 'militia' when
occupying a federal area with guns instead of 'terrorists,' 'thugs,'
'extremists," or 'gangs,'" Ali adds.
Ali makes a case for dealing with violent right-wing extremism, like what
the world is witnessing in Oregon right now. He concludes, "Extremism comes
in different colors, ethnicities, beards and head coverings - which is why
racial profiling cannot protect us from all extremist violence. Maybe it's
time for politicians and law enforcement to acknowledge inconvenient truths
and confront the extremists with 'American' names and grievances as they
would any other."
Especially because of their Muslim and Sikh backgrounds, Ali and Sethi can
make such arguments with great integrity. Muslims, Sikhs-and more generally
American Arabs-have seen upticks in the number of acts of violence directed
at their communities since the September 11th attacks. It recently has
become worse since the attacks in Paris and the San Bernardino shooting. One
of the militants fueling the wildlife refuge occupation is Jon Ritzheimer,
who is a prominent leader of armed protests against Muslims which target
mosques in the U.S.
Ritzheimer and others like him, such as Pamela Geller, spread their fear of
Muslims and brown-skinned people. The hysteria created reinforces the most
abhorrent policies in the U.S. government's War on Terrorism and vice versa.
The government needs people like Ritzheimer to agitate against Muslims and
Arabs so that it can continue to pursue imperial ambitions in Middle Eastern
and North African countries and expand the national security state.
Nevertheless, does someone like Ali really want politicians or law
enforcement "confronting" white militants in the same manner in which people
from the Muslim, Sikh, or American Arab communities are treated? Do they
want FBI agents to be crawling all over establishments in white working
class and poor towns listening for chatter that can be manipulated into
evidence of a predisposition to commit criminal activity? Do they want
extraordinarily harsh sentences and abusive detention in U.S. prisons for
right-wing extremists?
If the use of force against Black Lives Matter protests or Occupy
encampments was outrageous and if the execution of black men by law
enforcement in anti-drug SWAT raids or by patrolling officers is abominable,
what sense does it make to joke about the government's failure to deploy
force? Do people engaged in this expression want the FBI to deploy armed
agents to mount a charge against the wildlife refuge headquarters and kill
the militants in order to regain control?
Finally, it is striking how "terrorism" is the lens, which so many people on
the left wish to process what is unfolding. It is as if this is the only way
people know how to make sense of insurrection or extremism. There are even
amusing hashtags born from the idea that the militants in Oregon are a white
version of the Islamic State. (*Note: This is similar to humor about GOP
presidential candidate Donald Trump and his supporters being white ISIS.)
Vox contributor David Roberts posted a roundup:
The thrust behind these hashtags is the white militants should be labeled
"terrorists," and law enforcement should recognize who they are dealing with
are not "patriots." But this serves the interests of the security state. To
the extent that political support for wielding tools against people who are
like these militants grows, the apparatus that perpetuates the War on
Terrorism can generate new tentacles.
This reflexive urge to view all developments, particularly those involving
violence, through the lens of "terrorism" should be questioned vigorously.
The desire to label acts "terrorism" in order to bring some kind of equality
to the application of force by law enforcement should be shunned as well.
"Terrorism" has no fixed meaning. It is a political term with tremendous
propaganda value to the government when it is wielded. When we debate why
this is not considered "terrorism," this is a discussion that helps sustain
the status quo. It further enables the State to engage in authoritarian
practices against the population. Instead of clamoring for the government to
label white extremists as "terrorists," the whole concept of "terrorism"
should be made obsolete.
Copyright FDL Media Group C, All Rights Reserved.
