Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    “What if Bundy Ranch Were Owned by a Bunch of Black People?”

    “What if Bundy Ranch Were Owned by a Bunch of Black People?”

    Saturday Night Card Game: What matters to us is what is being fought for, not the skin color of the people doing the fighting.

    http://youtu.be/LhJ6H9vlEDA

    I don’t think we’ve written here yet about the Bundy Ranch standoff, mostly because we didn’t have enough information about the situation to make a judgment about what really was going on. And I didn’t have enough time to figure it all out.

    Was it, as some portrayed, a heroic struggle against an overbearing and overly aggressive federal government (in which case we might have taken the side of the underdog) or, as Harry Reid has portrayed it, a bunch of domestic terrorists looking for a shoot up? Or somewhere in between?

    Which gets me to the title of this post, “What if Bundy Ranch Were Owned by a Bunch of Black People?,” which is the question posed by Jamelle Bouie at Slate.com:

    A few things.

    First, this entire incident speaks to the continued power of right-wing mythology. For many of the protesters, this isn’t about a rogue rancher as much as it’s a stand against “tyranny” personified in Barack Obama and his administration.

    Second, it won’t happen, but right-wing media ought to be condemned for their role in fanning the flames of this standoff. After years of decrying Obama’s “lawlessness” and hyperventilating over faux scandals, it’s galling to watch conservatives applaud actual lawbreaking and violent threats to federal officials.

    Finally, I can’t help but wonder how conservatives would react if these were black farmers—or black anyone—defending “their” land against federal officials. Would Fox News applaud black militiamen aiming their guns at white bureaucrats?

    Somehow, given the degree to which right-wing media traffic in racial paranoia, I think we’d be looking at a different situation if the Bundy Ranch belonged to a bunch of black people.

    Needless to say, I disagree with most if not all of what Bouie says there, but particularly the notion that conservative reaction would be different if “Bundy Ranch belonged to a bunch of black people.”

    That reflects just how deeply liberal and left-wing writers don’t understand, or care, that what matters to us is what is being fought for, not the skin color of the people doing the fighting.

    They are the ones obsessed with race, not us.

    So to the extent the Bundy Ranch people deserve our backing (a decision, again, I have not resolved), such backing would be just as strong — if not stronger — if “Bundy Ranch belonged to a bunch of black people.”

    (Featured Image Source: YouTube)

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    Browndog | April 20, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    This interview was conducted with Wayne Hage at the Pine Creek Ranch in Nevada. One of America’s largest ranches, it stretches over 1100 square miles (approx. 760,00 acres). From the time Hage and his family bought the ranch in June 1978 until 2009, they battled the US Government and various environmental agencies over the grazing and water rights, ultimately prevailing at the US Supreme Court level. It became one of America’s landmark property rights cases and is studied in law schools today.

    http://vimeo.com/8520897#at=0


     
     0 
     
     4
    david7134 | April 20, 2014 at 5:08 pm

    I have noted that many feel that the Bundy’s do not have the law on their side. That is true, but that also points out the fact that our country is broken and that the laws are frequently used for purposes other than that for which they were intended. In this case, it is to allow Reid to have a huge deal with the Chinese at the expense of the Bundy’s. As a physician, I probably break the law at a minimum of five times per day, that is a minimum. I don’t know I am breaking the law and frequently it boils down to the opinion of a low placed bureaucrat. I feel this is the real reason for the hostility in this and coming events. After all, the President states that he will ignore laws that are inconvenient for him. The attorney general encourages others to put aside laws that are on the books. So why can’t the Bundy’s ignore a law or court decision? Unless something changes, this concept of numerous laws, rules, regulations and the Feds using excessive force (local government as well) will result in the coming civil war.


       
       0 
       
       0
      MarlaHughes in reply to david7134. | April 24, 2014 at 1:12 pm

      The Chinese deal was disproven soon after the Bundy issue came up. Most likely, IF it’s a dispute over use of the land involving legislatures’ and special interests (much like the Range Wars in which the federal government was on the right side and Mr. Bundy’s ancestors were on the wrong side if he is correct about his heritage), I would side with the proposal that the Las Vegas area has too many former Californians migrating there, forcing new suburbs to concrete over tortoise habitat, forcing ‘easements’ in other areas to keep Nevada and Clark county in compliance with Endangered Species legislation.
      If that’s the case it’s very similar to my home state of Florida, formerly only second to Texas in cattle production, but victim to it’s own sunny climate and beautiful beaches and thus a destination of tourist and new residents alike. This makes the land worth more to it’s owners/local and state governments as residential and tourism zoning than agricultural. My husband, one of the last Cracker Cowboys (My grandfather was one of the first) now mows lawns for a living. We wouldn’t have DREAMED calling for an armed standoff to retain possession of what was not ours in the first place.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend