So, if you have not read the news in a while, you may be shocked to know a group of white gang members stormed a government building in Oregon to take it as their own. To add to that, they also claim they will shoot anyone who tries to remove them from this land and building. Why, I ask, does the media not call them gang members or maybe terrorists? Some people do not agree it meets the definition of terrorist. At the same time, they are doing their actions with the threat of harm to anyone in the spirit of an ideology for political gains.
Some news organizations call this group different things. One, National Public Radio for instance, refers to them as an “Oregon Occupation.” In the article linked here they claim that Oregon residents are split with some supporting their gang actions, and others vocally against them because they might hurt themselves or police. They also suggest it is an issue that is caused by people’s “frustrations” as if every time someone is upset about something they threaten death and steal. For real? Those are called criminals, extremists, terrorists, gangs, etc. Seriously? If they weren’t white, this would be a totally different story.
Now, if they were not white is one issue brought up by another news organization. One Huffington Post claims it is not terrorists, for instance. They suggest it is more of an issue of white privilege. That I can partially agree because if they were not white they would have been shot like the many other people shot in the United States by police this past year. The name game of sorts is an issue among many issues. The killing of people at a Planned Parenthood in 2015 was not called terrorism. I would call it that as would many, but it was not called that although it clearly met the definition. Why are white guys who murder people “humanized” as in this Oregon case when other non-white people not humanized? For instance, the shootings by Dear and Roof in 2015. Racism, maybe? Hmmm…
Slate has a better option to call them. They call these Oregon folks “extremists” instead of just “occupiers” or “militants” like others have called them. That is a little closer than “terrorist,” but again, the definition of terrorists is about any political or other ideology that is the intent of a campaign to create fear or concern in a group of people. That is what they are doing.
Again, I question what is up with the media and participants in this gang of terrorist “thugs.” They have, for some odd reason, have been granted to be allowed to give news interviews and not be arrested on the spot, and they also have called themselves “peaceful” people. This completely goes against their message that they would kill people if they tried to stop them from stealing this land and building. At least Twitter has stopped one of the people from preaching their hate and spreading the message of anti-American values. His name is Ammon Bundy, and he is at the heart of this “occupation.” One politician has publicly been supportive of them on Twitter. Andy Holt, a lawmaker (GOP of course) has been openly in support of them wanting to know how he can support this organization. Seriously? Wow. Treason much?
Please understand. It is not just words. These mean something. It is important to call it what it is and to define actions, no matter the race or nationality, as what they are if you want to be fair and understanding of any situation. The Young Turks know this to be true, and I recommend if you have a different opinion to check them out. It is shameful country where white guys can take over public property and threaten to kill someone and be ignored by media while a black male can just exist and be killed. WTF. #OregonUnderAttack