By Laura Clawson / Daily Kos
Over the weekend, a group of armed militia members led by the son of deadbeat rancher Cliven Bundy took over a federal building in Oregon at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The occupiers had gathered in support of Dwight Hammond and his son Steven, ranchers who are supposed to begin five-year federal prison terms on Monday on arson charges.
Alan Pyke explains the background:
The Hammonds set a fire in 2001 that ultimately burned 139 acres of [Bureau of Land Management] land. The ranchers say they began it on their own land with agency approval, but prosecutors say they were in fact seeking to cover up illegal deer hunting on the BLM acreage near their property. A second, much smaller fire in 2006 burned another acre of BLM land during a “burn ban” imposed to allow agency firefighters to combat a blaze caused by lightning.
The Hammonds served time for the fires in 2013. A district judge sentenced Dwight to three months and Steve to 366 days of prison time. But the federal anti-terrorism law that prosecutors used to punish the fires includes mandatory minimum sentences of 5 years for fires that damage public property but cause no injury or death. After a series of appeals, the Hammonds were re-sentenced in October of 2015 to the full five years required by that 1990s statute.
Hundreds of supporters have gathered to rally behind the Hammonds, but notably, the Hammonds themselves say they’ll report to prison as ordered. Ammon Bundy, meanwhile, is using the situation to grandstand a little more, having escaped serious repercussions from his family’s earlier standoff with federal officials. Bundy and his followers would say this is about freedom; according to the Audobon Society:
The occupation of Malheur by armed, out of state militia groups puts one of America’s most important wildlife refuges at risk. It violates the most basic principles of the Public Trust Doctrine and holds hostage public lands and public resources to serve the very narrow political agenda of the occupiers. The occupiers have used the flimsiest of pretexts to justify their actions—the conviction of two local ranchers in a case involving arson and poaching on public lands. Notably, neither the local community or the individuals convicted have requested or endorsed the occupation or the assistance of militia groups.
There’s significant debate over whether this should be labeled terrorism, with the media and public officials bending over backward to portray the armed building occupation as peaceful and definitely not terrorism. Which gets to the meaning of that word, because certainly the Bundy group can be written into the long American history of protest—but in that case, we have to think about who is written out of that history, not allowed to claim that heritage. The answer, it may not shock you to hear, has a lot to with race.
Tara Culp-Ressler points out that:
It’s a sharp departure from the way that other protests are characterized for the public. For instance, the racial justice activists affiliated with the Black Lives Matter are often labeled as “threat actors” and accused of inciting violence against police officers, even though the movement is largely nonviolent. In some cases, police have used excessive force against Black Lives Matter protesters, deploying riot gear and tear gas to counter the apparent threat posed by the unarmed activists taking to the streets.
But even when white people are suspected of committing violent crimes, there’s evidence they aren’t subject to the same scrutiny or perceived as the same level of threat. Indeed, armed white people are more likely to be taken alive into police custody rather than shot and killed by cops. And although armed white men are arguably the biggest threat to Americans’ safety — right-wing terrorists have killed more people than “homegrown jihadists” since September 11 — the mainstream media typically isn’t comfortable labeling them as domestic terrorists.
White men are allowed to make claims to liberty from and authority over the government that other groups aren’t allowed to make, in the eyes of the media and officials. The “right” answer, insofar as there is one, may be that other groups should be allowed more of the latitude that white men are allowed rather than that white men should, for instance, be shot by police or labeled terrorists more freely. But the many journalists currently being defensive about how “WE’RE NOT CALLING IT TERRORISM BECAUSE IT ISN’T” really need to think about why this isn’t but a similar action by another group would be.
Source
Latest posts by Source (see all)
- And Then They Came for the Vietnamese… - December 13, 2018
- Amazon’s Disturbing Plan to Add Face Surveillance to Your Front Door - December 13, 2018
- 140+ Arrested as Youth-Led Protests Demand Green New Deal on Capitol Hill - December 11, 2018
Great points raised about the Oregon stand off. Keep up the good work reporting!
Here’s something to think about. Historians have no idea how many Americans supported the American Revolution, papering over their ignorance by constantly repeating the conventional wisdom that 1/3 were patriots, 1/3 loyalists & 1/3 neutral. No evidence for these stats have ever been produced, but apparently our Revolution was a minority movement. In most of the 13 colonies, the Revolution was a civil war fought by groups akin to the Hatfield’s & McCoy’s, with some British brass thrown in for good measure. The Continental Army was a roving band of brothers, wisely led to focus on the British Army, not on each other. The Bundy Boys & the other militia mutants in Oregon clearly resemble more some rag-tag irregulars, out for the main chance, than they do Washington’s patriots.
I wonder whether the “open carry” laws only apply to whites. Do blacks have the same privilege of “open carry.” The police justify their killing of black men by the fact that they had a gun. Doesn’t open carry give them a right to have a gun so the police can’t use that justification for killing any more?
The Bundy Boys have much more in common with the white men who founded this government than many would like to admit.
First, Burns, Oregon is Paiute Land. The Malheur Indian Reservation was established after Paiutes and Bannocks said enough white encroachment on their lands was enough and lost a war in 1878. The Paiutes have seen their federal trust land shrink from 1 and a half million acres to 760 acres today. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge used to be part of the Reservation. (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/01/03/bundy-militia-musters-again-over-paiute-land-162939)
When Bundy ignores the true owners of the land he occupies and declares freedom from foreign power, he is acting much like George Washington. Remember that one of the American justifications for the Revolution was Britain would not let them expand (would not let them graze/mine/deforest etc) into First Nations’ territories.
George Washington, of course, didn’t just ignore the Iroquois and others, he actively sought to exterminate them earning the name “Town Destroyer” from the Iroquois for ordering the “total destruction and devastation” of 40 Iroquois villages ).
I point all this out because I think we need to take a very deep, honest look at “what it means to be American.” The Bundy’s aren’t doing all that much different than countless, celebrated Americans have throughout history. These actions are what this nation were founded and sustained upon.
Now, I’m not saying the Bundy’s should be excused by any means. They must be stopped. But, I am saying that this is what America does and “America” as we know it needs to be dismantled.
WORD
Mr. Falk was prescient: today the local Paiute tribe weighed-in with exactly that bit of news. They told the “occupiers” to back-off because they LIKE the BLM management, fancy that.
It’s enough to say this is White Privilege at work. Forget 1/3 this 1/3 that, no need to try and tie Paine, Adams, Washington, and Jefferson and other early geniuses to boodling adventurers and heartless landgrabbers. That’s just two guys peddling their stuff and ignoring the real historical work founding people did.
So, John Lawrence is right; this latest land grab is the work of White boys from Texas and Nevada who are playing with fire. They can aim assault weapons at Federal agents and get away with it while people of color can be killed by police for doing nothing more than being 12-years-old with a pellet gun, or mentally ill with pen in hand. I think America is about to make another civilizing leap forward, a multi-cultural and diverse one.
My only point is this. These & other militia mutants love to wrap themselves in the flag of our founders. A closer look shows their lineage to be Archie Bunker not Bunker Hill.
Philly Joe, I almost always agree with your comments, but I think you’ve created a bad shortcut when you create a mob of backwoods ignoramuses to explain the actions of a more politically savvy group like the Bundy’s and White militia-freaks. We’re looking at a mixture of racists and gun-lovers who wrap their greed in religious and national flags. When they occupy federal lands they get away with it because they belong to a privileged and protected class. They’re not dumb yahoos.
For most Americans, the Bundy Gang has been reduced to “Tarp Man” going viral, a laughing stock. You’re right that we should not take them lightly, but neither are they Minutemen on the village green, freezing soldiers at Valley Forge, John Brown, or black lunch-counter occupiers. They are simply dick-heads masturbating in front of a camera. We should just let them freeze their junk off, while legal authorities prepare charges for later prosecution in a nice warm courtroom.