June 29, 2009

School needs to regulate hair?

Native American boy fights Texas school over hair cut

By Micha J. StoneSix months ago a federal judge ruled the school district violated the constitutional rights of Adriel, a kindergarten student, for not letting him wear his hair according to his Native American religious beliefs, Needville Independent School District officials have appealed the ruling before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a recently filed appeal brief, Needville ISD’s attorney said the judge’s ruling “hijacked” the district’s authority to “regulate its population.”

To "regulate its population"? Is this a school or a concentration camp? The whole episode is outrageous and screams injustice. Adriel has been punished all year long for his hair, forced to be alone in a room with a teacher, not allowed to attend class or socialize with peers at school. Since the sixth day of the 2008-2009 school year, Needville Elementary School officials began placing Adriel in in-school suspension for coming to school with long hair (hair tied in two braids worn outside his shirt).

“Upon arriving at his classroom every morning, Adriel is escorted away from his classmates and into another room where he sits with his ISS teacher for the rest of the school day,” the suit states.

“Adriel endures this segregation for over seven hours every day with no opportunity to engage in group learning or social play with other children during class or on the playground,” the suit states, adding that the Texas Education Code says ISS can extend for no longer than three days."

The cruel and ugly intolerance is mind boggling. Aside from religious discrimination it is also sexual discrimination, because girls are not expected to keep their hair short. It is an attempt to deny history and cling to a past filled with oppression and discrimination.
Comment:  I thought this case was more or less over. So the school is appealing, and while it does, it's isolating Arocha with his own teacher for the whole day? Amazing.

This is yet another example of white privilege. Who determines whether children can wear long hair, cornrows, mohawks, tattoos, piercings, etc.? The white people who run the school district. The norm is whatever they say it is.

Would an Indian school district rule against long hair also? Probably not, even though Indian schools also need to maintain order. The inevitable conclusion is that regulating hair isn't necessary to maintain order. It's a cultural imposition unrelated to discipline.

For more on the subject, see Long-Haired Boy Goes to School and School District vs. Five-Year-Old.

25 comments:

Johnny Ong said...

in malaysian education up to the high school level, girls with long hair will have to tie up into a 'bun' shape.

all guys must have short hair (cannot touch their shirt collar or having side burns) with different school having different shortness hehe

Stephen said...

"This is yet another example of white privilege."

Not really seeing as it's also white kids who'll have to keep their hair at a certain length. Not to mention the 'white privilege' myth is supposed to be a nation wide issue, unless this policy is in every single school it doesn't count.

"Would an Indian school district rule the same way?"

The issue isn't about skin color but point of view.

Jen said...

I went to a school with a strict uniform code and it was applied equally to everybody. I was pretty regularly suspended or docked house points for not paying them a blind bit of notice; I got the general ‘feel’ right but details like jewellery and hair colour escaped me completely. Having said that, my school made exceptions for things that were associated with religion as well as cultural symbols, which I have always seen as the sensible and accepting thing to do.

What I find deeply worrying is how they are treating this poor boy, he must be so lonely not being about to play with his friends. It seems tantamount to cruelty, and for me, it is definitely religious discrimination. This school should be ashamed of itself.

Simone said...

I wonder at the diversity of this school. Given that we have freedom of religion in this country I wonder if they have students that wear head scarves or yarmulkes? I suspect, given the situation, that they don't have Rasta students who believe that the length of their dreadlocks or hair "is a measure of wisdom, maturity, and knowledge in that it can indicate not only the Rasta's age, but also his/her time as a Rasta".

Fighting for what is right aside the saddest part of this whole situation is what it is doing to the child. In the end his well being should be priority for all.

sandyv said...

OMG, this is just plain wrong. That poor little boy. A fancy lawyer needs to take this case of discrimination to court and sue the pants off this district for just the treatment of this child. What in God's holy name are these idiots thinking. This is a child. This is his heritage and his right. This may be part of native religion (don't know enough about this nation of natives). Natives have long hair and always have. This goes back to those awful schools that forbid long hair and native language. Why is this country going backward? I don't care about school rules when it comes to rights and heritage and the rights of this child to be a child. They used to beat native pride out of these children and this is exactly the same. We set aside rules for immigrants that come to this country and we can't do the same for our own people? Please, if there is a lawyer out there, take up this case for a child that has been exiled and humilitated beyond belief. I am appauled. He is just a little boy and doesn't understand except they "hate" him. How damn wrong can you get when destroying a childs pride and worthiness.

Rob said...

I thought I explained the white privilege issue, Stephen. It's not about applying the rules to Indians only. The school probably would require any boy--whether he's white, Indian, or another ethnicity--to cut his long hair.

No, it's about who gets to decide the rules in the first place. In this case, the school board imposed a restriction without considering Native beliefs. The white officials have the privilege I'm talking about: the privilege to say what's right or wrong.

No wonder you think white privilege is a myth. You don't quite understand what the term means.

Of course, the white students benefit from this privilege too. While the school board is banning Indian hairstyles, white hairstyles get a pass. Students who look and act "normal" (i.e., white) can go to school without being segregated in a "special" class.

Your opinion that a white privilege issue has to be nationwide is also false. Such issues may be national, regional, or local in scope. All that's required is white people pursuing a policy that benefits them at the expense of others.

Besides, this case is in the courts now. The final ruling may well have statewide or nationwide implications. If Arocha wins, school boards everywhere may have to reconsider their prejudice against Indians with long hair.

Rob said...

As the original article stated, Jen, this school district makes exceptions for religious beliefs too. Problem is that it doesn't recognize long hair as a valid expression of Native religion.

The Arocha family has already sued the school district and won, Sandy. But the district is appealing the verdict.

I believe the district is providing the separate class because it lost the first round in court. If it had won, it would've told Adriel to cut his hair or face expulsion.

Anonymous said...

Steve, please read this essay by Tim Wise, White Whine: Reflections on the Brain-Rotting Properties of Privilege. It may help you to better understand what Rob and everyone else on here is trying to explain to you. http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commen
ries/1901


Anonymouse

Stephen said...

"I thought I explained the white privilege issue, Stephen."

I disproved your pathetic arguments and you didn't reply just like how you haven't replied to the email I sent you about that silly Islam post of yours (I'm trying to ignore the irony of someone who's made an anti-Jewish comment and other offensive remarks calling me a bigot).

"It's not about applying the rules to Indians only. The school probably would require any boy--whether he's white, Indian, or another ethnicity--to cut his long hair."

Which is kinda my point, if only Whites were exempt from the policy then you'd have a point.

"The white officials have the privilege I'm talking about: the privilege to say what's right or wrong."

Somehow I doubt all the officials are white and besides it comes down to point of view not skin color.

"No wonder you think white privilege is a myth."

Yeah because it is.

"Of course, the white students benefit from this privilege too. While the school board is banning Indian hairstyles"

Since when is long hair just an 'indian hairstyle'?

"white hairstyles get a pass."

Last time I checked there were whites with long hair also.

"Students who look and act "normal" (i.e., white) can go to school without being segregated in a "special" class."

Quick question are they doing to this other students or just his kid?

"All that's required is white people pursuing a policy that benefits them at the expense of others."

Once again I fail to see how this benefits anyone, this isn't some scheme designed for the benefit of whites this about a school using authoritarian tactcs to 'keep it's herd in line'.

"Steve, please read this essay by Tim Wise, White Whine: Reflections on the Brain-Rotting Properties of Privilege. It may help you to better understand what Rob and everyone else on here is trying to explain to you."

I would read it, except for the fact that this is all I got when I entered the link:

Fatal error: Call to undefined method ZspaceController::commenries() in /znet/domains/znet/znet-www/class/app/zspace/ZspaceController.class.php on line 15

Is it too much to ask that you post functional links?

Anonymous said...

http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/1901


Sorry steve-o misspelled commentaries. The link should work now.


Anonymouse

Stephen said...

Okay for starters zmag looks pretty goram stupid seeing as their slogan is 'the spirit of resistance lives.' Are these people for real? But let's examine the article shall we?

"Likewise, the ongoing backlash against affirmative action, by those who seem to believe that opportunity would truly be equal in the absence of these presumably unjust efforts to ensure access to jobs and higher education for persons of color."

Apparently Wise doesn't see anything wrong with a policy that chooses skin color over merit.

"But when the same school gives out 16 points to kids from the lily-white Upper Peninsula, or four points for children of overwhelmingly white alumni, or ten points for students who went to the state's "top" schools (who will be mostly white to be sure), or 8 points for those who took a full slate of Advanced Placement classes in high schools (which classes are far less available in schools serving students of color), this is seen as perfectly fair, and not at all racially preferential."

Of course it's unfair but that has more to do with class than race, it didn't happen because of their skin color but because of money.

"What's more, the whites who received all those bonus points due to their racial and class position will not be thought of by anyone as having received unearned advantages, in spite of the almost entirely ascriptive nature of the categories into which they fell that qualified them for such bonuses."

What racial position? I doubt their (class) privilege is shared by (for example) a Russian immigrant. Also it's nice to see that Wise knows what every single person on campus thinks. ;)

"This is why Jennifer Gratz, the lead plaintiff in the successful "reverse discrimination" suit against Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action policy, found it a supreme injustice that a few dozen black, Latino and American Indian students were admitted ahead of her, despite having lower SATs and grades; but she thought nothing of the fact that more than 1400 other white students also were admitted ahead of her and her co-plaintiffs, despite having lower scores and grades. "Lesser qualified" whites are acceptable, while "lesser qualified" people of color must be eliminated from their unearned perches of opportunity."

I actually agree with this partly, someone getting into college or a job simply because of class privilege is just as bad as someone getting into college or getting a job because of their skin color.

"This, despite the unmentioned fact that about 93 percent of all college scholarship money goes to whites"

I'd love to see his sources, people have this funny tendency to pull stats out of the air.

"But to place blame where it really belongs, on rich white people, would be illogical."

So according to Wise only white people are rich? Is this guy for real?

"Whites, as it turns out, take most everything for granted in this country"

A baseless generalization that indicates that Wise has self hatred issues. I wonder how Wise came to that statement, I don't recall him doing a nation survey.

Stephen said...

"We take for granted that we won't be racially profiled"

I'm skeptical of the 'help I'm being racally profiled' debacle for a number of reasons but that aside let's say that Blacks (oh I'm sorry I should have typed 'persons of color' I wouldn't want to offend self appointed crusaders like Wise) and Hispanics, however this would not be an example of white privilege since Asians would not be targeted.

"ven when members of our group engage in criminality at a disproportionate rate, whether the crime is corporate fraud, serial killing, child molestation, abortion clinic bombings or drunk driving."

Once again I'd love to see his sources.

"We take it for granted that our terrorism won't result in whites as a group being viewed with generalized suspicion. So Tim McVeigh represents only Tim McVeigh, while Mohammed Atta gets to serve as a proxy for every other person who either has his name or follows a prophet of that name."

What nonsense, in the aftermath of McVeigh's atrocity there was a great deal of paranoia about militias and survival types, at least one radio show was shut down, numerous books were written warning about the supposed threat of militias, at least one movie (arlington road) portrayed militias as vast and capable terrorist organization when in reality they were quite pathetic. So contrary to Wise's spew people all over the contray became paranoid and fearful of White militia types.

"We take it for granted that "classical music" is a perfectly legitimate term for what really amounts to one particular classical form (mostly European orchestral and piano concerto music), ignoring that there are, indeed, classical forms of all musical styles, as well as their more contemporary versions."

I'm afraid this is a very poor semantic argument and it's a rather silly point of him to make.

"We take it for granted that the only controversy regarding Jesus is whether or not he was killed by Jews or Romans"

Huh so the sheer amount of criticism towards christianity out there is all my imagination?

Stephen said...

"all the while ignoring a much larger issue, which is why does Gibson (and for that matter every other white filmmaker or artist in the history of the faith) feel the need to make Jesus white: something he surely could not have been and was not, with all due apology to Michelangelo, Constantine, Pat Robertson, and the producers of "Jesus Christ Superstar."

I fail to see how this is an example of white privilege.

"It is the same problem posed by the anthropological evidence concerning the physical appearance of first century Jews from the so-called Middle East. Namely, Jesus did not look like a long-haired version of my Ashkenazi Jewish, Eastern European great-grandfather in his prime. But to even bring this up is to send most white Christians (and sadly, even many of color) into fits, replete with assurances that "it doesn't matter what Jesus looked like, it only matters what he did."

So in other words it's a misconception people assume that Jesus looked like most Jews do today, hardly an example of white privilege.

"What else, after all, can explain the fact that when a New Jersey theatre company put on a passion play a few years ago with a black actor in the lead role, they received hundreds of hateful phone calls and even death threats for daring to portray Jesus as anyone darker than, say, Shaun Cassidy?"

The key word there is hundreds, in other words a small amount of racist Whites, not exactly an example of 'white privilege'.

"What else but a tenuous (at best) grip on reality can explain the quickness with which white Americans ran around after 9/11 saying things like, "Now we know what it means to be attacked for who we are?"

Once again this is a basless generaliztion and as I pointed at similiar paranoia took place in the aftermath of McVeigh's atrocity.

"Now we know? Hell, some folks always knew what that was like, though their pain and suffering never counted for much in the eyes of the majority."

If that's true then explain the widespread knowledge of such things as lynching and the civil rights movement?

"Only by rebelling against it, and insisting on our own freedom from the mental straightjacket into which we have been placed as whites by this system, can we hope to regain our full humanity, and be of any use as allies to people of color in their struggle against racism"

I think I will be sick after reading that, what kind of moron writes such self righteous crap? Yep Wise is a hero in his own mind, what garbage.

aw said...

Not really seeing as it's also white kids who'll have to keep their hair at a certain length.

Nope, because short hair is standard among white men.

Oops! Stephen's full of crap again.

I disproved your pathetic arguments and you didn't reply

You didn't present any arguments, you just presented a bunch of non-sequiturs and then declared victory. Just like you're doing now.

For example:

"But to place blame where it really belongs, on rich white people, would be illogical." So according to Wise only white people are rich? Is this guy for real?

Wise refers to rich white people.

Stephen reads this as a statement that all rich people are white.

Stephen is the stupidest fucking person on Planet Earth.

Stephen said...

Also here's another very popular article by Wise it's all over the place, too bad it's full of complete crap. Plus I have to wonder, why does Wise only 'champion' blacks? Does he think they're the only group with legit gripes? I detect a lot of oppression olympics nonsense in his garbage. But now onto the article:

http://recruitzero.com/News/?p=117

“White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen…”

This is about privilege not white privilege. A poor white family would be dealt with exactly the same way as is described above. If White privilege does exist why does Wise have to resort to such bogus 'examples'?

The real issue here is not about privilege at all, it’s about hypocrisy. The problem is that the people who normally criticize about this issue (O’Reilly, Hannity, “Values” Republicans) are all on her side. They’ve never had a problem lying for one of their own and they aren’t about to start now.

We need to wake up and realize that these people never cared about these issues. They were issues that they could use to get the people to vote a certain way or watch a certain television program or station.

“White privilege is when you can call yourself a ‘fuckin’ redneck,’…”

A quick Google search of “Levi Johnston thug” gives you 64,000 results. Wise says that were he black, the media would be painting him as a thug. I think that the media has painted him as a clueless idiot, and you can take your pick on which one is better.

However, I think the only ones who tried to say that he is a “responsible, all-American boy” are in the McCain camp. I don’t agree but I don’t fault them too much for a necessary PR spin. We can all see through it. I don’t think you can say that the media or average Americans say he’s responsible. What you hear them saying is that he’s “doing the right thing.” That’s an opinion, an you can’t really argue one way or the other on it.

“White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges…”

This is pretty loose. The problem is that, if you were applying for a real job you would be scrutinized for this record either way. Depending on the job, it might matter, it might not.

What you have to ask yourself is, if John McCain’s VP were black, would people be making this charge? Again, I think your problem is that the people who would make the Affirmative Action charge are on her side. The bottom line is that they know that Sarah Palin is the GOP’s last, best chance to energize the base. As such, they just aren’t going to attack her, and they wouldn’t be attacking her for this regardless of her race.

“White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town…”

The argument is one of executive experience. While you might argue that tiny town mayor and low population state governor isn’t very good or very much executive experience, you can’t argue that it’s NO execute experience. You either have to argue this point on the fact that Obama’s status as a community organizer, campaign leader, etc, IS real executive experience, OR you have to go after Palin’s record of bad executive leadership.

“White privilege is being able to say that you support the words ‘under God’ in the pledge of allegiance”

Again, this is not white vs. black. This is just stupid. She said something stupid. Is it one of many things that helps to show that she is WOEfully under qualified to be VP? Absolutely. But does it clearly point to a race bias? No.

Biden said something the other day about how when the stock market crashed FDR got on the TV to communicate with the people and calm everyone down. There’s two things wrong with that. But, the idea that saying something stupid should disqualify you from holding elected office is… let’s just say quaint.

Stephen said...

By the way, Palin said something about reading terrorists their rights. Again, it was stupid. But the above makes it sound like the Palin doesn’t want to the average Joe Citizen who gets arrested to be read their rights. Misleading arguments only hurt little Timmy's case case.

"White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you’re black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful."

I say again though, this has just gone unreported. I’ve never heard of it before this post. Again, this is a case where the people who would make this accusation are on her side. The liberals just don’t care about this kind of issue.

I also heard no criticism of Michelle Obama for not coming to the 9/11 memorial. This article makes the mistake of confusing what any random idiot might say or post as a comment to a blog with what actually gets reported or what people are actually thinking.

“White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers…”

Community organizers, both white and black, were pissed off in the days after Palin made that remark. This fact was well reported. I can’t see how her making fun of them is an example of white privilege.

“White privilege is being able to convince white women…”

That’s not white privilege, that’s identity politics. That’s learning that many (not all, or even most) Clinton voters were never Democrats to begin with (I call them Clintoncrats). I think what gets missed here is that many of these women were voting for Clinton just because she is a woman. They are just as happy to do the same for Palin.

“White privilege is being able to fire people…”

Actually, she was accused of abuse of power. There was an ongoing investigation and subpoenas have been issued.

Stephen said...

“White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years…”

Interesting I seem to recall quite a stink being made about that, but apparently Wise ignores that.

“White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is…”

This is Democrat vs. Republican, not black vs. white. The arguments around this are stuck in partisanship, not racism.

You have to go pretty far to find people who think that the Bush Doctrine question was a trick. Where I find it, is in comments on web articles about the interview. These are comments by people who are clearly partisan. They don’t even care if she’s right or wrong, let alone if she is black or white. These people would be saying that such a question was a trick (true or not) regardless of the color of Palin’s skin.

The same thing goes for the O’Reilly interview. Even O’Reilly had positive things to say about Obama after that interview. You can find people of all colors arguing all directions about this.

“White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW…”

These two things don’t track together.

How does McCain using his POW experience to show fitness as president relate to Palin’s belief that experiencing racism is a “light” burden?

I guess his argument is that the POW experience was a heavy burden and so, since McCain says it’s relates to fitness as President, that means that, by his logic, heavy burdens relate to fitness as President. Let’s forget that I don’t think McCain makes that claim. So, to attempt to connect these things, I guess you are saying that racism is a heavy burden for Obama and that in downplaying it, Palin is saying that it doesn’t count as much for fitness as president? And that is an example of white privilege that she is able to do so? That’s my best attempt, but I simply can’t see Tim's logical connection between these two items.

"White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you."

Palin got a lot of flack for her hunting and gun habits, so this is a rather silly point to make.

"just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing."

Another baseless generalization that reveals that mister Wise has white guilt issues.

"White privilege is, in short, the problem."

As yes I suppose wee Timmy believes there's nothing racist about blaming an entire race. *Sarcasm off.* Also his spew reminds me of political historian Paul Gottfried's theory of political correctness. PC is Protestantism without the supernatural myths: the individual soul poisoned with impure racist or sexist thought, redemption through becoming sufficiently politically correct while remembering that one is always a sinner, and "transposition takes place as well--for example, the substitution of designated victims for the older adoration of religious martyrs.

aw said...

Stephen, you amaze me.

This is the comments section of a post about a FIVE-YEAR-OLD INDIAN KID being treated like shit because his hair is done the way that Indians usually have it done.

And you turn it into an opportunity to babble for 3000 words about how the white majority have no advantages. And to call an anti-racist campaigner "racist" because he thinks otherwise.

You are one sick, worthless little fuck.

Stephen said...

One more thing about Wise he shows how anti-American he is in this vile article:

Apart from how his essay basically boils down to 'they deserved it' I really had to laugh at this statement:

"And so we were shocked in 1987, when Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall declined to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution, because, as he noted, most of that history had been one of overt racism and injustice, and to his way of thinking, the only history worth celebrating had been that of the past three or four decades."

Apart from the fact that are things beyond those decades to celebrate (one example would be how American charity and efforts saved countless Armenians from genocide) there are few countries without a long history of racism and injustice. Australia? The aborigine genocide.

Britain? The british establishment wrote the book on genocide and oppression. France? Brutal colonialism, I'm guessing we've all seen Hotel Rawanda so we know what that colonialism led to.

Turkey? The Armenian, Greek and Syrian genocides not to mention countless years of oppressing 'dhimmis'. Germany? I'd say we're all pretty familiar with godwin's law. ;)

Saudi Arabia? Slavery up until the 1960s (which dwarfed American slavery), oppression of women and Jews are not allowed to set foot on Saudi soil and those are just a few examples. And of course I doubt I have to go into any detail about other Islamic regimes.

Now does all of that make the Indian genocide any less horrific or the Jim Crows less oppressive? Of course not however to pretend that America somehow has the most sorid history of any nation reveals a bigoted anti-American bias. So clearly Tim Wise has an anti-American and anti-White agenda, not exactly a good source of info.

Stephen said...

"This is the comments section of a post about a FIVE-YEAR-OLD INDIAN KID being treated like shit because his hair is done the way that Indians usually have it done."

Mmmhmmm and the 'white privilege' myth factors into this.

"And you turn it into an opportunity to babble for 3000 words about how the white majority have no advantages."

If that poster hadn't mentioned the article I wouldn't have brought it up, simple as that (the other article demonstrates that Wise doesn't understand that class privilege and non existant 'white privilege are not the same).

"And to call an anti-racist campaigner "racist" because he thinks otherwise."

He's racist because of his numerous anti-White generalizations. Tim Wise is simply a self righteous wind bag who's managed to make a career out of peddling self hatred.

"You are one sick, worthless little fuck."

Wow how witty that's pure Wilde right there, I hope you didn't strain yourself too much coming up with such a devasting retort. ;)

aw said...

Of course not however to pretend that America somehow has the most sorid history of any nation reveals a bigoted anti-American bias.

Which is why Wise never says any such thing.

You have to lie about what he says. Why? Because you're a right-winger. Your beliefs are so ludicrous that you HAVE to lie in order to support your arguments.

Wow how witty that's pure Wilde right there, I hope you didn't strain yourself too much coming up with such a devasting retort.

Oh how cute! the troll is trying to be "PATT-OR-A-NY-ZING"! Hope that wasn't too much of a strain on you, Stevie boy.

Notice how you carefully avoid addressing this proof of your total inability to think:

"But to place blame where it really belongs, on rich white people, would be illogical." So according to Wise only white people are rich? Is this guy for real?

Wise refers to rich white people.

Stephen reads this as a statement that all rich people are white.

Stephen is the stupidest fucking person on Planet Earth.

Stephen said...

"Which is why Wise never says any such thing."

He makes it sound as if America's the only one with a sorid history.

"You have to lie about what he says. Why? Because you're a right-winger. Your beliefs are so ludicrous that you HAVE to lie in order to support your arguments."

I'm not a right winger, cute assumption though, try going a day without all dualistic nonsense.

"Wise refers to rich white people. Stephen reads this as a statement that all rich people are white."

Man oh man your comprehension is god awful that's not what I meant at all, the point is that Wise tries to make to paint America's elite as purely White which simply isn't the case, I didn't think that he was calling white people in general rich.

"Stephen is the stupidest fucking person on Planet Earth."

What wit! I can just picture aw sitting at home in a smoking jacket swirling a glass of brandy and laughing how clever he is.

aw said...

Man oh man your comprehension is god awful that's not what I meant at all,

Too bad, because it's what you actually said.

I'm not going to bother trawling through the whole garbage dump of your comments here, but here's a good one:

What nonsense, in the aftermath of McVeigh's atrocity there was a great deal of paranoia about militias and survival types ... when in reality they were quite pathetic.

Oh? One incident last year, out of dozens:

June 8, 2008

Six people with ties to the militia movement are arrested in rural north-central Pennsylvania after task force officers find stockpiles of assault rifles, improvised explosives and homemade weapons, at least some of them apparently intended for terrorist attacks on U.S. officials. Agents find 16 homemade bombs during a search of the residence of Pennsylvania Citizens Militia recruiter Bradley T. Kahle, who allegedly tells authorities that he intended to shoot black people from a rooftop in Pittsburgh and also predicts civil war if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are elected president. A raid on the property of Morgan Jones, captain of the 91st Warriors Militia, results in the seizure of 73 weapons, including a homemade flame thrower, a machine that supposedly shot bolts of electricity, and an improvised cannon. Also arrested and charged with weapons violations are Marvin E. Hall, his girlfriend Melissa Huet and Perry Landis. Landis allegedly tells undercover agents he wanted to kill local magistrates and, if Clinton were elected president, planned to assassinate her in an attempt to trigger an armed revolution.

Stephen said...

"Too bad, because it's what you actually said."

Nope like I said I was refuting the idea that the American elite are only White.

"Oh? One incident last year, out of dozens"

You'll find one common pattern, the government always stops militia activity, by pathetic I'm not talking about capabilities but attacks. Show me an arlington road style attack committed by a militia org (Timmy McVeigh doesn't count) that caused hundreds or thousands of deaths and then we'll talk. And yes compared to other terrorist groups militias are pretty pathetic, they haven't had funding from Saudi gajillionares like Islamic terrorists and unlike the IRA they haven't had rogue states like Libya to send them tons of weaponry. You also missed the point, contrary to what Wise said people have freaked out over White terrorists, apart from militias all the panic over (mainly white) ecoterrorists is another example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Scare

aw said...

Ha ha ha ha

Show me an arlington road style attack committed by a militia org (Timmy McVeigh doesn't count)

Oh?

Why doesn't Timmy count?

I'll tell you why. Because his existence is... inconvenient.

That's why he doesn't count. Lone wolf, bad apple, all that.

Too bad hundreds of people died because of a militiaman who just isn't important enough to matter.