Tolerance of white militias exemplifies racial double standard

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062204792.html

By Courtland Milloy

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Imagine that the inauguration of President George W. Bush had sparked an explosive rise in African American militia groups. Suppose thousands of heavily armed black men began gathering at training camps in wooded areas throughout the country, devising military tactics for "taking back their country" after what they believed was an electoral coup.

Do you think Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would have reacted to a black militaristic buildup as coolly as President Obama has to the phenomenal growth of white militias?

Since Obama took office last year, the number of white militias has shot up from about 170 to more than 500, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors extremist groups in the United States. Armed with enough firepower to take on a police department, some of these groups are honing their sniper skills using photographs of Obama for target practice.

They cling to the delusion that the nation's first black president is somehow a subversive working for Muslim extremists, and they aim to bring him down.

"If the people we saw running around armed to the teeth were black, I think their organizations would be destroyed in a matter of hours," Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, told me. "If people saw on their TV screens photos of black militia members shooting at images of a white president, I don't think they would last."

...men trying to take back their country in the 19th century, despite the fact that they really were trying to take back their country. Some things change little.

I always thought a reasonable response to these armed protesters out side Obama rallies or those of other D. politicians would be a line of mixed-race men in Obama T-shirts (because he's everybody's president) there to protect the safety of the president or whoever was there that day.

100% accurate

if this has something to do with the big rise of militia groups in the 80's. Maybe by now we're so comfortable with the concept of "those crazy people" that we stop even noticing them as a real, tangible threat.

White racial supremacy groups or purity groups have always been given a bit of a pass in the United States. The 80's and 90's militias are just new twists on the KKK of the 1800's through the present. They break off from one another because of style and certain elements, but they are all one group of like minded organizations. These groups are almost always ignored because they prey on minority groups. It isn't until something horribly wrong and very public is done that people start to take notice. Like the scandals in Indiana that brought down the Klan in the 1920's or the Tax evasion of the 40's and 50's, the bombing of the churches and killing of the CORE workers in the 60's and some of the murders and attacks in the 90's. They slide back into the shadows and people keep on keeping on thinking or hoping that they were a thing of an earlier, darker age. That age is still here and will not go away until the populace repudiates the attitudes and the practitioners completely.

The Black Panthers of the 1960's were militant about empowering the Black community and taking back their equality and dignity. They got shut down by the FBI and other agencies because they were seen as a threat. I agree that any similarly militant movement made up of ethnic minorities today would be seen as somehow more dangerous than white supremacist militias. This is why, even though I would love to believe that racial relations are improving, I remain skeptical.

restrictive gun laws in the 60s because of the Black Panthers?

Guns never seemed to be much of an issue until Black and Brown people started to own them. Granted, the Panthers did themselves no favors by entering the Capitol building and striking military poses, but not much different than what has gone on today in defense of the "freedom and country" for the white people engaged in the militia and patriot movements.

timing doesn't equate to cause.

However, if the legal authorities go against one of these white organizations, anglo-American would be in revolt. The question is, how far do they have to push minorities before they begin to protest in the streets?

My suggestion: Put this double standard out there on the mainstream, because something one day will happen, something that will remind everyone of WACO, and it would be best if people knew beforehand that these imbalances are playing on everyone's nerves.

Unfortunately the media, at least much of it, is interested in maintaining the status quo. They fan the flames for ratings, but then call for pulling back to maintain the functioning of the machine. The double standards are very visible for anyone willing to see it. I agree with you that more aggressive and objective efforts need to be made to educate people about it.

I imagine a spark for some communities will be when the Messerli verdict comes in. The case is being made for a lesser charge, and it seems persuasive. The stage has been set in the minds of some people that the trial is already unfair due to the lack of Black jurors. The prosecution has made some mistakes and the defense seems to be doing a decent job of deflecting the more serious murder charge. I think that less than a murder charge and a perceived "light sentence" will kick off protests akin to the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.

I'm not familiar with this Messerli thing, but I remember the OJ thing. People are so use to the lopsided justice that every body's opinion is based on color. Of all the people to benefit from the support of the black community, why OJ?

The point is, that we need people to trust the system or these divisions are going to get worse.

It is not a rational process. I think that a good majority of people knew that OJ was guilty. The problem is that the LAPD so botched that investigation that it was not possible to get a clean conviction. The racial tension came into question in the OJ case when the LAPD was strutting its stuff thinking that they would get him. Stacey Coons and other officers fanned the tensions with racial comments and histories of misconduct.

The Messerli trial is real big in California right now. A Transit Cop shot and killed a Black Man Oscar Grant, I believe on New Year's Day. The allegation is that the men on the transit platform had been rowdy and were subdued by several officers. Video from a cellphone shows Officer Messerli firing his pistol at a prone and handcuffed Grant. The prosecution is seeking murder charges, the defense claims that Messerli was trying to draw his taser because Grant was becoming resistant and belligerent and mistakenly took out his service weapon instead.

I was hoping that with the election of President Obama, that race would be openly dealt with, but most people, including the president are trying to keep it low key. Some do not want to deal with it and others fear that discussing it will spark divisions. Doing nothing is the worst thing because White Supremacists will ALWAYS push their views. People who want a truly equal society need to push back.

I would think holding a taser feels much different than holding a gun. But you're right about public opinion. It matters in these cases. It shouldn't, but when it comes to minority issues if we don't speak up, we automatically get thrown under a bus.

Former BART cop Johannes Mehserle on trail for killing Oscar Grant. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/topics/?topic=Johannes+Mehserle

I seem to recall first hearing about the Michigan (Militiagan) Militia during Bush I. And then there are the (new) Black Panthers who were most publicly visible in recent years marching around Duke with scary-looking weapons demanding the heads of a few factually-innocent lacrosse players. During the Bush II administration. I'm not saying you're wrong about a rise in "white" militia activity, but I am saying that you're wrong to imply that similarly-armed-and-threatening groups of black folks "would be destroyed in a matter of hours."

Gun grabbers like to forget that: that gun control has racist origins in the US.

I don't think however, the the term "gun grabber" is necessary or helpful in this situation. I agree that proponents of strict gun control have failed to see the origins and the flaws of gun control. I think many are well intentioned, as were the proponents of alcohol prohibition. The problem is there are entities who make their living off of pushing gun control (and similarly on the pro-ownership side) who would prefer that the battle keep raging on. They are typically people who see the violence and then react to it in a superficial way. They see the object as driving the violence rather than the factors that have been present for a very long time that contribute to the likelihood of the violence. Alcohol does not cause drunk driving, the person choosing to or being unable to stop from drinking before driving does. There are a great many factors that lead people to disregard the consequences and drink before driving. Just like there are factors the lead one person to use a firearm to shoot others as opposed to those who have similar access to firearms who do not use them for that purpose.

Racial tensions have been a major factor in much of the legislation in the US. Firearms laws, blue laws, and drug policy have all been shaped by a underlying fear of minorities who have often been portrayed as savages even thought the violence visited on minorities by the settlers has historically outweighed violence by minority groups.

All it needed was a thin excuse to boil over. Yes its a double standard, and in my humble opinion, Obama is being to lax about reacting to it.

It has never gone away. Racial discrimination has been legislated away, but the attitudes of bigotry and racism have never gone away and they are more rampant now because of the changing power in the White House and the changing demographics of the country. White fear that their special place in the pecking order is being eroded is at the core of the problem for these groups.

I agree and I am disappointed that the Obama administration hasn't met this head on, but I understand some of the reasoning. Jon Stewart and Larry Willmore did a funny take on it yesterday regarding the appearance of Obama as an "angry Black Man" The President of the United States is still held to a standard of behavior that other presidents have not been subject to. I think that the subject should be addressed, but how it is addressed is paramount.

The open defiance of the Panthers and the "Black is Beautiful" movement in the 60's and 70's failed because there was a backlash by people who do not want to address not only racism, but its shy younger brother White Privilege.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

There is institutional discrimination that is tolerated. Look no further than many police departments.

"Good Ole Boys" are never looked at as a threat. On the other hand, the Maryland State Police were infiltrating the quakers. :wtf:

The PTB use fear of violent inner-city crime as an excuse, a fear that itself plays on racism.

were marching down the streets. Suddenly them white folks were not so sure about the 2nd amendment....

Imagine these people were Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Union members, or liberals.
The very news corps that constantly cheer the Teabaggers and militias on would completely lose their shit.

Being white isn't enough. You have to be the right race, religion, and political ideology. Failing on any of the three means you get the tear gas and riot batons at best, shot dead where you stand and vilified as a terrorist at worst.

and, yes, it is entirely racist.

This is crazy.

If the exact situations were reversed, with a 70% black population etc., I don't see how it would be different. I think it is a reflection of the different circumstances and movements. It doesn't make much sense to try to make a direct comparison in responses to black and white militia movements, which are vastly different in many ways from each other.

I don't think Obama is tolerant of white militias. He's just dealing with them as many coutries have to deal with movements that don't just have one or two militia groups, but 500. The response will be different in that sense.

I think we all wish that all the white militia movements could just be broken up right away, but we all know that would just drive them more underground and could make the problem worse. So the strategy will be different from just a forceful response, except in the cases like the Hutaree obviously. It's funny, because many of these same white militia movements actually distanced themselves from Hutaree after what happened and denounced them. These militia movements are not really unified in much of any way and have a lot of divisions. Some of them are much more extreme than others. So I think they'll have to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

not so much on the left. and rw pretty much equals white in this country

Just read the history of the Black Panthers.

I didn't recognize the group that came up, so I copied it into Google. Look what came up... I shit you not.