A good article in The Atlantic about the protesters in Oregon:
Many progressives have become fluent in the arguments for police restraint, restraint about labeling terrorism, and reforming sentencing laws. The challenge now is for them to translate those arguments into a case where the subjects are not so sympathetic and don’t agree with them.
People are sticking up for their comrades, protesting the excessive criminalization of an old agricultural practice, standing together in solidarity against a formidable source of power, trying hopelessly to resist the rootlessness, atomization and the broken connection between people and land that characterize late capitalist societies.
Yes, they wear off-putting hats and many of them are fat and ugly. They are uncouth and say stupid things. They also tend to sound like major assholes. Is that why they get no support from progressives? Because of what they say? Even though they haven’t harmed anybody? Are words again more important than deeds? Or are spurious identity categories more important than anything else?
In the meanwhile, a bunch of rapists in Cologne gets endless “let’s not jump to conclusions”, “let’s not generalize.” Actual rapists who did horrible things to human beings.
Don’t get me wrong, I feel no compassion for the Oregon cowboys. I’m not a compassionate person by nature, and I prefer to be judgmental rather than empathetic. To me, if the cowboys are incapable of engaging with figures of authority in a more productive way, I say, screw them.
It’s the lack of logic and clear organizing principles that gets to me, not the plight of the unattractive cowboys. And here I see no logic.
Clarissa's Blog 
Well for me it’s difficult to see any comparison between the German rapists and the Oregon gun toters. I suppose they are all breaking the law? And in general, I think having no sense of law and order is dangerous. So as long as the laws are just and no authority figure is indiscriminately taking the law into his own hands, (as happened with Michael Brown), I think laws generally ought to be followed. And if the law isn’t followed, I favor a transparent and non-violent criminal justice system.
But ultimately I have no ability to vote in Germany. Their domestic policies to some extent don’t concern me. But I am concerned if a bunch of people occupy federal land with guns. I live very near my state’s capital. What happens next? A bunch of anti government gun nuts take over my state’s capital and barricade themselves with an arsenal? That frankly sounds a bit terrifying. So I want all criminals brought to justice but I am more concerned about criminals in my own country. I feel that is a pretty consistent stance.
What’s the comparison you see between the situation in Cologne and the situation in Oregon?
LikeLike
The connection is illegal activity.
And I’ve got to say, I find the approach of “I don’t care about rape victims who don’t have the same passport as I do” to be quite shocking. Normally, feminists tend to care about victimization of women irrespective of whether the victimized women reside “in their own country”. Such issues as FGM in Africa, a high incidence of death from illegal abortion in Latin America, trafficking of sex slaves in Eastern Europe tend to matter to feminists irrespective of their citizenship.
Has feminist solidarity been sacrificed to the cause of nationalism? And why now when nationalism is pretty much dead?
LikeLike
“The connection is illegal activity.”
Right. So I favor a system in which both the rapists at Cologne and the gun nuts in Oregon are brought to justice. I feel that’s consistent.
“Has feminist solidarity been sacrificed to the cause of nationalism? And why now when nationalism is pretty much dead?”
I am not an ardent nationalist. But I do care most about policies that affect me personally. So for me, I am much more interested in American domestic policies than I am about policies in other countries. Further, I know and understand American domestic policy and feel much more qualified to opine about it. Finally, as a voter in this country, I have the power to change, alter, or protect American policy. So that’s what I choose to focus on. And I am strenuously against using “concern for women” as an excuse to invade foreign countries.
To put it another way…….I understand that there are greater international issues than wage inequality. For instance, I find it shocking that Saudi women can’t drive, leave their homes without a male escort, have to eat in their own sections of a restaurant etc. etc. I sincerely wish Saudi feminists well as they work to fight gender injustice in their own country. But for me personally, I am very concerned about wage inequality. And I am more concerned about the wage gap in this country and in my profession than I am about what happens in Saudi Arabia–even if I think that the life of an American woman is preferable to that of a Saudi woman.
So as long as I live in this country, domestic gender issues are what’s important to me personally. If I were to move or migrate,, then I would be concerned about gender issues in whatever country I move to. But since I don’t foresee that happening any time soon, I am most concerned about domestic gender issues.
LikeLike
They get no support from progressives because they’re white, they’re male, they’re rural hicks (toward whom the smugly superior, urban progressives always feel contemptuous), and they’re “gun nuts” with presumably conservative (thus racist and sexist) beliefs.
Yes, they’re total idiots who don’t know the Constitution they claim to hold sacred, and they don’t hesitate to use the U.S. courts in their legal battles, but then don’t think they have to obey the law when it rules against them.
But then, the hysterical cry-baby protesters at the University of Missouri were total idiots, too, and that didn’t stop progressive apologists from falling in love with them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But the “cry-baby protesters” in Missouri weren’t heavily armed. To me, that’s a big difference. I just don’t support armed insurrection against the federal government. To me, that sets a dangerous and uncomfortable precedent.
LikeLike
It’s a precedent that wasn’t tolerated in this country until Obama was commander-in-chief. (The successful precedent was in 2014, when rancher Cliven Bundy, father of the leader of the current “insurrectionists,” surrounded himself with heavily armed men deliberately hiding behind a group of women and children, and faced down government agents — and to date has gotten away with it completely.)
Relatively recent shootouts between the U.S. government and heavily-armed civilian lunatics (Ruby Ridge 1992, Waco, Texas 1993) ended in one-sided massacres of the lunatics — and whether one thinks that the government response could have been better handled or not, the responsibility for the deaths lay entirely
with the lunatics who thought they could match the firepower of the U.S. government.
Given the government’s total failure to stand up to Cliven Bundy in 2014 (or even attempt to bring him to justice since then) , the current situation in Oregon needs to be ended quickly in a total defeat of the insurrectionists, so that other nutty “militia” groups don’t get similar ideas.
Trying to wait them out for a peaceful solution is a valid approach for a very short period, but prolonged waiting periods only encourage the insurrectionists’ megalomaniacal delusions. The government vainly waited many months for a peaceful surrender at Ruby Ridge, and 51 days at Waco before acting — much too long in both cases.
LikeLike
You support the government action at Waco and Ruby Ridge? ? What kind of a conservative are you? Are you a crypto Liberal of some sort?
LikeLike
One who believes in vigorous enforcement of law and order! It’s the progressives — crypto and otherwise — who support anarchy when they sympathize with the anarchists’ political views.
The biggest mistake the government made at Ruby Ridge and Waco was waiting much to long to move in, after it was obvious to EVERYONE that the lunatics they were dealing with had no intention of ever voluntarily swapping their megalomaniac empires for a prison cell.
LikeLike
You’ve never heard me say that the government is the enemy — just that it’s too big, too stupid, and takes too much of my money.
LikeLike
Like an obnoxious but still beloved relative. 🙂
LikeLike
Well, I’m the only uncle left in my family, so I have to do my part.
LikeLike
In response to Dreidel. As I mentioned above, I favor non violent means of apprehending criminals. A government should only commit violence against its own citizens under dire circumstances. So far, the Oregon situation isn’t dire.
On a more practical level, Obama has to be very careful not to turn these men in to martyrs. If these Oregon dissidents die in a hail of federal gunfire, it will absolutely fuel the insurrectionist fantasies of the far right.
LikeLike
If it comes to that, dead martyrs are preferable to victorious criminals who set a very bad example.
LikeLike