4 ms·

They took far right terrorism seriously in the 1870s. They more or less stamped out the (original) KKK while simultaneously giving the south the requisite auto

They took far right terrorism seriously in the 1870s. They more or less stamped out the (original) KKK while simultaneously giving the south the requisite autonomy to enact Jim Crow. Obviously Jim Crow doesn't square with our modern view but at the time the lack of some systemic way to keep the black people down was a serious grievance that a lot of people had. The government cracked down on the extremists who were starting to get off the porch while simultaneously extending an olive branch to the people who sympathized with them (and throwing black people under the bus in the process). The same thing happened in the civil rights era. When it looked like things might get serious the .gov caved to the MLK types to prevent the Malcom X types from gaining further sympathy from the masses. Fast forward to the 1990s and you get the ATF trilogy. Of course the magnitude of the problem was smaller than the KKK so the reaction and adjustments were smaller. On one hand the FBI cracked down on all the extremist groups (cue jokes about how the modern KKK is just a recreation club for FBI agents) but at the same time you'll notice that when the Bundy Ranch rolled around the feds didn't just shoot everyone and botch the thing as they would had they let historical precedent be their guide. Same pattern. Crackdown on the extremists while avoiding pissing off the moderate sympathizers. Likewise hundreds of cities are reconsidering how they allocate law enforcement and social services resources after the events of this summer while also (recently, like past month) starting to crack down on protests to prevent them from getting fiery. Same pattern. The overarching theme is pretty clear. The government never takes people's grievances seriously until there's a "real" threat of extremists getting off the porch and causing serious problems with a large body of sympathizers to back them up. In light of that it'll be interesting to see what if any long term changes come out of the whole capitol thing.

DenisM 6y ago
> he government never takes people's grievances seriously until there's a "real" threat of extremists getting off the porch I haven't noticed any gay-marriage terrorists on their porches, and yet here we are. Women-for-equal-pay have not been observed cleaning and oiling their rifles menacingly, and yet the law was mended in their favor. And I don't think Irish or Jewish terrorism was a problem in the US, but their persecution has ended all the same. You're only looking at things that became explosive, so quite naturally you will not find things that were resolved peacefully and/or timely. They still exist though, in fact they may be dominant. It's a great comment otherwise, I enjoyed the trip down the memory lane. Looking forward to seeing you again.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I don’t think Irish or Jewish terrorism was a problem in the US Both international terrorism (directed at the UK, but sometimes involving direct conflict with the US military) and organized crime-linked terrorism were very big things associated with the Irish in America in the 19th C. And, on the Jewish side, more recently, Meir Kahane’s Jewish Defense League was a real thing.
- monadic3 6y ago
  > I haven't noticed any gay-marriage terrorists on their porches Ahh yes, democracy—the process where you beg 9 people to respect your rights.
- snoshy 6y ago
  All of the examples you gave are of non-terroristic means of attempting to achieve the goals of a cause, where the groups involved generally lack violent extremists. GP's point was about how they believe federal law enforcement has reacted to groups that necessarily included violent extremists, as those were the pawns for bargain to offer the opposition while reducing harm to the moderate sympathizers. Yours appears to be a strawman argument.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bsanr2 6y ago
Part of the problem is that institutions are always highly resistant to the notion of right-wing, white violence being a serious threat, rooted specifically in its right-wing whiteness. See the Columbine shootings and the frantic finger pointing at video games, Satanism, and bullying, all to avoid facing the fact that what happened could be most easily slotted into the legacy of white dude rage in America. The dynamic both aggravates the people involved, who correctly hold that their true ideologies and aims are being obfuscated, and provides them cover. It keeps happening because these institutions, often headed by white men themselves, are terrified of confronting their family, neighbors, or even their own feelings in a meaningful way. Anything that happens must be done quietly and carefully enough not to indict their personal identity. https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/turning-20/columbine-mass-shootings-whiteness https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/turning-20/columbine-mass...
- neartheplain 6y ago
  * See the Columbine shootings and the frantic finger pointing at video games, Satanism, and bullying, all to avoid facing the fact that what happened could be most easily slotted into the legacy of white dude rage in America.* There was no racial element to the Columbine shooting, at all. Racializing it as “white dude rage” is inflammatory and disgusting.
  - bsanr2 6y ago
    What happened at Columbine was the logical conclusion to the upholding of an American ethos that affirms a privilege to arms and violence as a valid response to grievance, which is itself rooted in our history of (race-based) slavery. More directly, the Columbine shooters were influenced by Timothy McVeigh and the militia movement, who was and which were explicitly white supremacist. What's disgusting is that this keeps happening, and that white Americans are so married to this ethos that they'll sacrifice their children to maintain it, and that people like you would rather flag and dismiss a post pointing out this dynamic than introspect. What's inflammatory is this purposeful and obstinate denial, while all the world watches in pity.
    - deleted 6y ago
jcadam 6y ago
Allowing the riots to continue unabated over the summer was a serious mistake. It fed a perception that political violence and intimidation was a viable means to get what you want.
- bsanr2 6y ago
  A take like this represents a woeful ignorance of American history.

DenisM 6y ago

> he government never takes people's grievances seriously until there's a "real" threat of extremists getting off the porch I haven't noticed any gay-marriage terrorists on their porches, and yet here we are. Women-for-equal-pay have not been observed cleaning and oiling their rifles menacingly, and yet the law was mended in their favor. And I don't think Irish or Jewish terrorism was a problem in the US, but their persecution has ended all the same. You're only looking at things that became explosive, so quite naturally you will not find things that were resolved peacefully and/or timely. They still exist though, in fact they may be dominant. It's a great comment otherwise, I enjoyed the trip down the memory lane. Looking forward to seeing you again.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> I don’t think Irish or Jewish terrorism was a problem in the US Both international terrorism (directed at the UK, but sometimes involving direct conflict with the US military) and organized crime-linked terrorism were very big things associated with the Irish in America in the 19th C. And, on the Jewish side, more recently, Meir Kahane’s Jewish Defense League was a real thing.
monadic3 6y ago
> I haven't noticed any gay-marriage terrorists on their porches Ahh yes, democracy—the process where you beg 9 people to respect your rights.
snoshy 6y ago
All of the examples you gave are of non-terroristic means of attempting to achieve the goals of a cause, where the groups involved generally lack violent extremists. GP's point was about how they believe federal law enforcement has reacted to groups that necessarily included violent extremists, as those were the pawns for bargain to offer the opposition while reducing harm to the moderate sympathizers. Yours appears to be a strawman argument.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

bsanr2 6y ago

Part of the problem is that institutions are always highly resistant to the notion of right-wing, white violence being a serious threat, rooted specifically in its right-wing whiteness. See the Columbine shootings and the frantic finger pointing at video games, Satanism, and bullying, all to avoid facing the fact that what happened could be most easily slotted into the legacy of white dude rage in America. The dynamic both aggravates the people involved, who correctly hold that their true ideologies and aims are being obfuscated, and provides them cover. It keeps happening because these institutions, often headed by white men themselves, are terrified of confronting their family, neighbors, or even their own feelings in a meaningful way. Anything that happens must be done quietly and carefully enough not to indict their personal identity. https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/turning-20/columbine-mass-shootings-whiteness https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/turning-20/columbine-mass...

neartheplain 6y ago
* See the Columbine shootings and the frantic finger pointing at video games, Satanism, and bullying, all to avoid facing the fact that what happened could be most easily slotted into the legacy of white dude rage in America.* There was no racial element to the Columbine shooting, at all. Racializing it as “white dude rage” is inflammatory and disgusting.
- bsanr2 6y ago
  What happened at Columbine was the logical conclusion to the upholding of an American ethos that affirms a privilege to arms and violence as a valid response to grievance, which is itself rooted in our history of (race-based) slavery. More directly, the Columbine shooters were influenced by Timothy McVeigh and the militia movement, who was and which were explicitly white supremacist. What's disgusting is that this keeps happening, and that white Americans are so married to this ethos that they'll sacrifice their children to maintain it, and that people like you would rather flag and dismiss a post pointing out this dynamic than introspect. What's inflammatory is this purposeful and obstinate denial, while all the world watches in pity.
  - deleted 6y ago

jcadam 6y ago

Allowing the riots to continue unabated over the summer was a serious mistake. It fed a perception that political violence and intimidation was a viable means to get what you want.

bsanr2 6y ago
A take like this represents a woeful ignorance of American history.