What if the Oregon protesters were black or Muslim? Debate ensues

Social media predicted the authorities would have been more forceful, if they were Muslim or black


Katie Rogers January 05, 2016
PHOTO: REUTERS

The Oregon protest at a federal wildlife refuge has reignited an already intense debate on social media about policing, race and terrorism.


On Saturday, an armed group of anti-government protesters occupied a remote federal wildlife refuge in Oregon and warned that they would not leave without a fight. The authorities have held back from attempting to stop the protest.

On social media, that led quickly to questions about a double standard, particularly from liberals and the left, who asked: What if the armed men were Muslim or black? They predicted the authorities would have been more forceful.

Oregon sheriff demands anti-government miltiamen leave community

Many or all of the protesters appear to be white. It was unclear what religion they are, but at least one has made reference to a prominent Mormon figure. For its part, the Mormon church on Monday condemned the armed building seizure and said it could “in no way be justified on a scriptural basis.”

https://twitter.com/BrienRedmon/status/683976843909672961

Some wondered why the news media and the authorities were not calling the takeover a form of terrorism. People used the hashtags #YallQaeda, #YeeHawd, and #VanillaISIS to challenge a widely held perception that terrorism applies only to crimes carried about by minorities and non-Christians.

https://twitter.com/Code_switcher/status/683851621609160704

The leader of the armed group in Oregon is Ammon Bundy, the son of Cliven Bundy, a rancher in Nevada who in 2014 engaged in an armed standoff with federal officials, gaining the support of leaders in the conservative movement, then losing it after declaring that black Americans would be better off as slaves.


Still, many conservatives on Twitter criticised the debate, and said it was a step too far to call the men terrorists, and pushed back against memes that perpetuated stereotypes about white people.




https://twitter.com/kelseaaamarieee/status/684031240685531136

Others objected to the criticism of the lack of force used by the authorities by drawing comparisons to past deadly standoffs between the federal authorities and armed groups that harbour anti-government sentiments.


“Worth recalling lessons of Waco and Ruby Ridge before suggesting FBI should simply go to war with Oregon militiamen,” an observer wrote on Twitter on Sunday.

In February 1993, a gun battle erupted in Waco, Texas, between federal authorities and members of a religious sect called the Branch Davidians. The fighting resulted in the deaths of four federal agents and half a dozen members of the sect. That was followed by a 51-day standoff and another confrontation that left dozens more people dead. All told, at least 82 Branch Davidians died. A third of those killed were children.


A year earlier, a confrontation in northern Idaho between the authorities and Randall Weaver, a white separatist, led to the fatal shooting of his wife and son. A federal marshal was also killed during the conflict, which came after an 11-day standoff. In 1995, the government awarded $3.1 million to Mr Weaver.

This article originally appeared on The New York Times, a partner of The Express Tribune.

COMMENTS (2)

curious2 | 8 years ago | Reply Issue is complicated and has nothing to do with race or religion. Most of the land in the Western USA is owned by the Federal Govt - those who depend on that land (ranchers) don't think the Federal govt does a good job managing that resource. In this case a rancher family was sent to jail for burning unwanted weeds/shrubs on federal land where their cattle graze. That's against Federal rules (about a zillion of those) and they were sent to jail. Many (probably most) think that the jail sentence was too harsh. All of the protest have been non violent - some of the protesters carried rifles which is common in rural parts of Western USA - no big deal.
GKA | 8 years ago | Reply Dreaming up 'what if' will you no where. Fact of the matter is that playing the victim and chastising the majority no longer works - not after Charlie Hedbo, Paris and Trump. The majority wants it recognition as one, and demands that its own values are respected. If it believes in individual liberties being supreme over religious edicts then it wants it that way. It wants some stability to its laws which is fast becoming moth eaten by the constant accomodation being given to minorities. It wants to learn from the very countries and peoples which are criticising it. And those critics do not like that they learn from it !
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ