What's the Matter with Oregon?

 

I'm feeling conflicted about the takeover of federal land in Oregon. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which I respect, says there are a whole lot more so-called "militia" groups out there ready to cause an insurrection if we let them, so the feds need to crack down.

“We believe these armed extremists have been emboldened by what they saw as a clear victory at the Cliven Bundy ranch and the fact that no one was held accountable for taking up arms against agents of the federal government,” said Heidi Beirich, director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project.

And many people have pointed out the huge difference between the way the forces of law and order have treated these armed rebels--ignored them, even when they are occupying federal land--and the way they treat mainly peaceful protesters in Missouri, or at the Mall of America...or even teens carrying toy guns. I pointed out the difference myself:

Dennis Fischman

January 3 at 7:53am ·

These people have a wholly fictitious idea of what's in the Constitution, and they have been in open rebellion against the U.S. government for years, and they're alive, well, and armed. Because they're white.

(And I would add, they're Christian, not Muslim.)

A Threat, or a Joke?

Without denying the racism, Albert Bumeko over on Deadspin writes that these so-called militias are not a well-organized threat--just a bunch of idiots with guns.

These men are not frightening. They are jamokes. They are exactly jamokes. Their guns, on the other hand, are very frightening—for precisely and entirely the same reason and to absolutely the same degree that those same guns would be frightening in the hands of toddlers.

(And all the people lampooning them as #Y'allQaeda and making fun of them for not planning their occupation well enough to feed themselves would presumably agree.)

The Danger of Action Before Understanding

Chris Faraone, an independent journalist published on DigBoston, has been writing about these groups for a long time, and he says the situation is much more complex. True, the occupiers are the gang that couldn't shoot straight, and even local people who agree with their positions disagree with their tactics.

But that's partly the point. There are people who agree with their positions about federal government arrogance in managing public lands. They could be completely wrong, but here on the East Coast, we'll never know--because nobody is talking to them.

I have a new perspective on occupation of federal land since visiting Alcatraz last month. Apparently while I was busy studying for my bar mitzvah, American Indians occupied Alcatraz for a year and a half before the Nixon Administration finally moved them out. That gives me pause. 

The Nixon Administration left the occupiers in place, for nineteen months, and after three days, my liberal friends are shouting for the use of force? What's wrong with this picture?

Please tell me what you think!

And more important, how you think about the action. How do you separate fact from fiction? What are the issues worth considering and what are the distractions, and why?

P.S. I find it bitterly ironic that this occupation has taken root in a wildlife refuge called Malheur. "Malheur" is French for "unhappy misfortune." Whether this event is a bizarre one-off or a harbinger of things to come, it shows what a terrible situation the United States is in these days. I fear for my old age, and for the next generation.

I Learn Something Old Every Day

I know that Carolyn is a longtime Middle East peace activist. Until this week, I had no idea she had been a journalist, too. The death of reporter James Foley affected her personally, and I would have realized that if I'd known her background.

I learn something old every day.

Sure, there are new social media platforms to try out and techniques to learn. Scientists make new discoveries about what goes on inside the brain and outside the galaxy. New books come out and demand to be read. New pop phenomena spring up and dry out like summer lilies in the fall.

Often, though, it's the old stories we should listen to most urgently, and the old realities we should try to understand. The death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri at the hands of a police officer is this week's news, but it's a very old story.

To understand it, we have to know about the history of Jim Crow, and of slavery. To evaluate the media coverage, we have to remember--or find out--how various white-owned media have covered racially marked stories, from the OJ Simpson trial to the Clarence Thomas hearings.  We need to know black media covered them, too, and how that created a divide between our perceptions of what actually happened. (Just as important, we need to know what stories we haven't heard.)


Yes, that's a lot to find out. Yes, the quest to understand will never end. But if we are going to be able to look our neighbors in the face, let alone live and work together, we must learn something old every day.  (And when I say "we," I start with myself.)