Tubman replaces Jackson on $20

The news that the US would place Harriet Tubman on the front of the $20 bill and move Andrew Jackson to the back triggered a variety of responses.

Predictably, racist conservatives cried over the loss of one of their white male icons:

“We need Trump to stop all the PC crap”: Right-wing reaction to the Harriet Tubman $20 bill is (another) new low

Trump on Tubman: "pure political correctness." Trump on Jackson: "tremendous success."

The Best Conservative Reactions To Tubman Bumping Jackson From $20 Bill

Ann Coulter needs to stop: She and the rest of the clueless conservatives need to quit moaning about replacing Jackson with Tubman on $20 bill

Non-racists weigh in

Meanwhile, anyone with a cursory knowledge of history explained why Jackson should be banished:

Andrew Jackson was a slaver, ethnic cleanser, and tyrant. He deserves no place on our money.

Why Andrew Jackson never should have been on the $20 to begin with

Harriet Tubman to Share $20 Bill with President Who Called for Some Abolitionists to 'Atone ... With Their Lives'

Tubman’s In. Jackson’s Out. What’s It Mean?

Stop clinging to the Founding Fathers: The Andrew Jackson/Hamilton/Tubman debate is really about honest history

While others challenged the conservatives' blatant racism:

They only want to honor white men: The pathetic conservative meltdown over the Harriet Tubman $20 bill exposes the right’s petty identity politics

5 Questions for People Who Are Outraged Over Harriet Tubman on our $20 Bill

Natives approve

Natives overwhelming applauded the downgrading of the infamous Indian killer:

Native Americans applaud removing Jackson from $20 bill
4/21

But some wondered why Jackson wasn't paired with a famous Indian chief--since he's perhaps best-known for instigating the Trail of Tears:

A Native American Chief Should Have Replaced Andrew Jackson on the $20

For more on the subject, see Stanford Cancels Bloody Jackson Play and Indians on US Bank Notes.

Trump and his supporters are racists

Donald Trump has dropped the GOP’s mask: Conservatism and racism now officially the same thing

Post-civil rights GOP is our largest white identity group. Maybe we should thank Trump for making it so obvious

By Chauncey DeVegaPolitical parties are a type of “brand name” that voters associate with a specific set of policies, ideas, personalities and moral values. Consequently, the types of voters who are attracted to a given political party also tells us a great deal about how it is perceived by the public. And in a democracy, the relationship between voters, elected officials and a given political party should ideally be reflected by the types of policies the latter advances in order to both win and stay in power.

By these criteria, the post-civil rights era Republican Party is the United States’ largest white identity organization, one in which conservatism and racism are now one and the same thing.The GOP’s gross Adam Sandler primary: Donald Trump, penis jokes and the pathetic state of conservatism

Trump's hands. Mitt on his knees. Cuckservatives. What the party's junk obsession says about 2016 Republican Party

By Chauncey DeVegaDonald Trump threatens the Republican Party’s elites because he has unmasked the racism, white supremacy, nativism and xenophobia of the modern GOP. Trump will not be silenced because he and his public have little if any use for racist “dog whistles” in their full-on assault against “political correctness” and “the establishment.”

Trump’s proto fascist right-wing producerism is also a threat to Republican Party orthodoxy. Like the type of “socialism” practiced by the Nazis, Donald Trump wants to ensure that the in-group has access to resources from the State (healthcare, jobs, improved infrastructure) that are denied to the Other. The Republican Party’s elites want to destroy the social safety and government support for most Americans (the white middle and working classes will be given some resources only as a means of leveraging their anxieties against people of color and the poor). Trump offers a different vision: He will maintain the submerged state and other benefits for whites, and those others he identifies as “real Americans” and “deserving,” while unapologetically denying them to those individuals and groups whom the “Trumpeteers” want to dominate and abuse with impunity.The payback candidate: Trump’s campaign is for conservatives seeking revenge on everyone they think disrespects them

Trump's running to get revenge on everyone who laughed at him, and that's why his supporters identify with him

By Amanda MarcotteA lot of his support comes from people who see themselves in him: People who believe they—white conservative Christians who shun city life—deserve to be at the center of American life and culture, but look out and see a world where the president is a black man from Chicago, the charts are ruled by Rihanna and Beyoncé, and Lena Dunham is a celebrity.

The modern conservative movement is filled with people who believe they are due deference from the rest of us but are getting mockery instead. The conservative media has stoked this narrative of cultural resentment for decades, too. “Liberal elite” is a common catchphrase on the right. Some might think that term is an economic one, but in reality, it’s a cultural one. The “liberal elite” is mostly composed of people who belong to the middle class: Journalists, college professors, artists, even lawyers, most of whom are not millionaires. Meanwhile, the right absolutely hero worships conservative billionaires like the Waltons, the Kochs, and yes, Donald Trump.

No, the “liberal elite” is a term of cultural resentment, rooted in a thwarted sense of conservative entitlement. It’s backed by this narrative that there once was a time when America was “great” because the culture was controlled by white Christians, but at some point, usually the 1960s, the undesirables—hippies, artists, people of color, secularists, feminists, gay people—started taking over. This sense that something has been stolen and needs to be taken back is the organizing narrative of conservative populism.

Trump is tapping into the same narrative that propelled Richard Nixon into the White House, fueled the “Disco Demolition” night of straight white men burning records associated with said “others,” helped start the Moral Majority and the Christian right, and is the engine that drives right wing talk radio and the relentless rage machine of Fox News to this day. And while it’s trendy, especially amongst those who believe the white working class is one pamphlet on democratic socialism away from leaving the Republicans, to say that it’s based on economics, the fact is these flare-ups aren’t quite as pegged to economic trends as one might think but can quite easily be linked to white conservative anger over cultural moments that remind them they are not the actual owners of American culture. With Obama to leave office soon in triumph, his legitimacy as not just the first black president but one of the greater American presidents secured, the anger is boiling over.Fear of labeling racists

Hideous, disgusting racists: Let’s call Donald Trump and his supporters exactly what they are

Media wants to call them "economically anxious working-class whites." There's a clearer, more honest name to use

By Chauncey DeVegaDonald Trump’s voters are racists; Donald Trump is a racist. The rise of a dangerous proto-fascist movement has been aided by how too many members of the political chattering class have for too long avoided stating such facts.

Moreover, Conor Friedersdorf’s claim is an example of a very perverse and twisted phenomenon in post-civil rights era America, where to call a white person a “racist” is somehow worse than the harm that racism, white supremacy, and white privilege does to the psychological, material, and physical well-being of black and brown people.

This dynamic has also prevented many in the commentariat from directly describing today’s Republican Party as the United States’ largest white identity organization, one that reflects an ideology where conservatism and racism is one and the same thing.

As I have written about here at Salon and elsewhere, “Trumpism” is not an aberration or outlier, something that is alien to, something outside of, or distant from the Republican Party. The popularity of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential primaries, with his unapologetic racism, bigotry, and nativism, are the uncensored id of the Republican Party#Notalltrumpvoters: The media’s new big lie lets racist Donald Trump backers off the hook

Trump's fueled by white resentment, racism and nativism. Why does the media mistake that for working-class anxiety?

By Chauncey DeVegaAs I explored in an earlier essay here at Salon, Milbank’s caveat is part of a larger pattern among the American commentariat where too many of its members are afraid to publicly (and correctly) label Donald Trump and his supporters as racists.

Why this anxiety? Why are so many members of the chattering class dancing around the clear and obvious truth that Donald Trump’s political movement is largely driven by white racial resentment, overt racism, bigotry and nativism?

Part of this answer lies in how telling the truth about white racism in the post-civil rights era is considered worse than the harm it does to people of color. Moreover, to suggest that a given white person is a racist—or alternatively, that white people as a group either benefit from institutional racism or are active racists—is an indictment of both their personal character and the various myths (meritocracy; American Exceptionalism; individualism; equality, etc.) that the country’s political culture rests upon. Together, these answers form a type of electrified third rail in American political discourse that few members of the chattering classes are willing to stand on. This is a profound failure of moral leadership.

The unwillingness by Milbank, Friedersdorf and others to plainly and directly state that Donald Trump and his supporters are part of a racist political movement is an example of what sociologist Robin DiAngelo has described as “white racial fragility” on a massive scale.Poll confirms racism

Racists love Trump: This is what they mean by “taking the country back”—yet another poll confirms racial and cultural resentment is driving Donald Trump’s rise

72 percent of Trump supporters said government has gone too far in assisting minority groups

By Sean IllingA new Quinnipiac poll is the latest in a string of polls to clarify what’s really animating Trump’s campaign. American voters were asked if they believed “America has lost its identity?” The answers from Republicans and Democrats in general are revealing: 79 percent of Republicans agree that America has lost its identity, while only 36 percent of Democrats agree. If nothing else, this is a reminder that the GOP has a race problem, the roots of which are traceable to its adoption of the “Southern Strategy” over forty years ago.

The “highest level of agreement” with this notion that America has lost its identity is expressed by Trump supporters–a staggering 85 percent. 91 percent of Trump voters also say their “beliefs and values are under attack,” again the highest of any candidate. There is a kind of persecution mania operating here. “Many American voters, especially Republicans, are dissatisfied with their own status and the status of the country,” said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, “but by far the most dissatisfied are Donald Trump’s supporters, who strongly feel that they themselves are under attack.”

Lest you think this isn’t about race, note that the Quinnipiac poll asked respondents if they believe the “government has gone too far in assisting minority groups.” Predictably, 72 percent of Republicans agreed compared to 18 percent of Democrats. Among Trump voters, however, the number was 80 percent. These numbers align with a recent American National Election Study (ANES) and Washington Post/ABC News poll, both of which show that support for Trump is positively correlated with racial animus.

“America has lost its identity” is an ambiguous phrase, but let’s not pretend we don’t know what it means. The people who think America has lost its “identity” are the same people who believe we have to take the country back. Yes, many Trump supporters are suffering from an economy in which they have no place. And there are legitimate concerns about free trade and a corrupt establishment. But what distinguishes the typical Trump is his or her propensity to project their frustration on brown or black people.And a few weeks later, a Native perspective:'The Good Old Days' Were Only Good for Whites

By Harlan McKosatoThe unspoken mantra among many white people is they long for the days when they, and only they, ruled the roost. Civil rights, Native rights, Gay rights, Women’s rights – dammit, what about White rights? That’s when America was great and we can make America great again, by God. Black lives matter, well white lives matter more. It says so right there in the Holy Scriptures.

The problem with white privilege is that when that’s all you know and you’re comfortable with it; then you’re confronted with an equality movement that you didn’t necessarily see coming, you probably do feel like you are being discriminated against. Trump has tapped into that emotion, although we all know white privilege is not going away anytime soon.Comment:  For more on Donald Trump, see Conservatives Enraged at Losing Power and Trump's Death Wish Fantasies.

Malheur occupation shows toxic masculinity

As CNN reported on January 27:The weeks-long armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge headquarters in Oregon suffered two major blows when protest leader Ammon Bundy was arrested and another key figure was killed.What's interesting is what this affair tells us about white male attitudes in America:

What The Malheur Occupation Teaches Us About Masculinity

By Susan M. ShawTo feel powerless is to fail at masculinity. To be regulated, constrained, fined and jailed is to face challenges to masculinity. And often when men don't feel like "real men," they have to dominate something or someone to reassert their masculinity. In other words, "real men" are not dominated; they dominate. And so, to re-establish their masculinity, these men took up weapons, threatened federal agents, and destroyed federal property. Apparently, running around with guns and keeping the feds at bay made them feel tough; they felt like real men.

Of course, their sense of masculinity was also propped up by their intersecting white privilege and its attendant sense of entitlement. As white men they expect that ownership, power and success are their birthright. They expect to be heard. They believe that they have the right to demand what they want, even if it is over the law and over the wishes of the people of the region.

They demanded that federal lands be returned to "the people." But by "the people" they meant themselves and other white people like them. They certainly didn't mean the Burns Paiute whose land the refuge originally was and who asked them to leave. They didn't mean the people who live in Burns; they also asked the occupiers to leave. They didn't even mean the vast diverse majority of Americans who are free to enjoy the opportunities afforded by the refuge. Somehow, all of these other Americans are not "the people."

These occupiers also counted on their white privilege to protect them from federal assault. After all, we've witnessed the willingness of law enforcement to break up, often by force, the protests of Black and Native peoples. Yet, day after day passed, and the water and electricity stayed on, supplies still came in, and the occupiers continued to destroy the refuge and threaten Burns Paiute artifacts while the federal government tried to wait them out, despite pleas from the Oregon Governor and local officials to end the occupation.Comment:  For more on Cliven Bundy, see Bundys Hold Paiute Artifacts Hostage and Bundy: Paiutes Lost Their Claim.

Bundys hold Paiute artifacts hostage

The 'hostages' of Oregon standoff: 4,000 Paiute artifacts? (+video)

The Burns Paiute tribe, whose ancestral lands are occupied by protesters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, have asked officials to prosecute the armed activists for potential damage to sacred sites and historical artifacts.

By Molly JacksonAs the armed occupation of an Oregon wildlife refuge enters its third week, with little public response from the government, many Americans' initial fascination with Ammon Bundy's eclectic group of protesters demands to return the land "to the people" has faded to weary frustration.

For the nearby Burns Paiute tribe, however, much more is at stake: 4,000 tribal artifacts, maps, and hundreds of sacred sites that they fear may be damaged or carted off for profit while their ancestral lands remain under the control of armed activists who see loggers and ranchers, not Native Americans or the federal government, as the land's rightful owners.

"As far as I'm concerned, our history is just another hostage," Paiute Tribal Council Chairwoman Charlotte Rodrique told the Associated Press.

After weeks of speaking out against the occupation, the tribe has written a letter to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which manages the refuge, asking that the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, as the occupiers are now calling themselves, be prosecuted for any damage to federally protected artifacts. A copy was also sent to the US Attorney for the state of Oregon, Billy Williams, according to the AP.Burns Paiute Tribe: Oregon Occupiers Might Sell Sacred Artifacts on eBay

By Justin StreightCharlotte Roderique (pictured above), chair of the Burns Paiute Tribal Council, released a statement on the occupation Friday.

“Armed protestors don’t belong here. They continue to desecrate one of our most important sacred sites. They should be held accountable.”

Tribal council member Jarvis Kennedy highlighted one particular fear—that the artifacts could end up for sale.

“They could be on eBay right now—we don’t know. With militia members coming and going freely from the refuge, who knows what’s leaving there?”Interior and exterior threats

Oregon Wildlife Refuge Occupiers Rifle Through Native American Artifacts

By Brendan O'ConnorA video uploaded to Facebook on Wednesday appears to show the armed militants occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge rummaging through a storage area, accusing the Bureau of Land Management of improperly storing artifacts belonging to the local, native Paiute tribe. “SHARE!” the video is captioned. “BREAKING UPDATE BURNS OREGON BLM LEFT NATIVE ARTIFACTS TO ROT IN MICE DROPPINGS!”

Earlier this week, Burns Paiute tribal chairperson Charlotte Roderique expressed concern over how the militia was handling the tribe’s history. “We are really worried about the status of the artifacts down there,” Roderique told the Indian Country Today Media Network. (Gawker could not reach Roderique for comment.)

“I understand they took a bulldozer and built a line around the refuge headquarters,” Roderique told Indian Country Today. “You can’t go and bulldoze things. I don’t know what these people are doing if they are doing things to just get a rise or to be martyr—all they are doing is making enemies out of the people they professed to support.”

Last week, the tribe delivered a letter to the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service demanding the militants’ prosecution “if the occupiers disturb, damage, remove, alter, or deface any archaeological resource on the refuge property.”Militants claim they want to return Paiute artifacts from Oregon reserve in new video

By Arturo GarciaMembers of Ammon Bundy’s militant group released a video on Wednesday claiming they want to “open a dialogue” with members of the Burns Paiute Tribe regarding artifacts stored inside the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

The video, posted on YouTube by multiple-time felon Stanley Blaine Hicks under his “Blaine Cooper” alias, shows LaVoy Finnicum walking through a storage room at the facility, saying it contains artifacts shoved into boxes.

“You can see there’s some rat’s nests in here,” Finnicum says, motioning toward one group of boxes. However, no rats are visible at any moment during the three-minute video.

“My question is, why do they just keep them down here?” Finnicum asks.

Militants Plow New Roads At Refuge, Possibly Damaging Artifacts

By Amanda PeacherKevin Foerster, the agency’s Pacific region chief, also denounced the construction.

“There’s a reason why there’s not a road there,” said Foerster. “If there was a need for a road in that particular location, we would have over the past 108 years put a road in that location.”

The agency said the action is likely a violation of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, also known as the ARPA.

“Even disturbing 3 to 4 inches on the surface is an ARPA violation,” said Holm. “Investigators will have to excavate to determine depth of disturbance in several areas to understand the extent of the damage.”Summing it up

Bundy Militia Compared To ISIS For Pawing Through Native American Artifacts, Destroying Sites

By Kristina KillgroveOn the face of it, this doesn’t seem like a bad sentiment. For an organization obsessed with individual rights, it makes sense in a way: Finicum and others may actually be convinced that the Paiute objects need rescuing. But their paternalistic concern for people they perceive as downtrodden by the US government is misplaced. The Paiute agree that the objects need to be rescued—but rescued from Finicum and the other militia members. Rodrique is further quoted in Daily Kos as saying that “we feel strongly because we have had a good working relationship with the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge” prior to the occupation. “We view them as a protector of our cultural rights in that area.” The Paiute helped archive the artifacts at the refuge in the first place.

The Daily Kos quotes tribal council member Jarvis Kennedy as saying, “They just need to get the hell out of there. They didn’t ask anybody, we don’t want them here.” And the archaeologist for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Carla Burnside, told ICTMN that militants released photos of themselves in her office rifling through sensitive archaeological files. Fish and Wildlife Service assistant director of external affairs, Jason Holm, further told Oregon Public Broadcasting that the road the occupiers recently bulldozed is “an archaeological site important to the Burns Paiute Tribe.” They also removed a fence that Holm said was “a deterrent to keep fire crews from driving across the archaeological site.”

The actions of the Bundy-led militia almost certainly go against ARPA, in spite of what Finicum and friends seem to think. Legal protections have been put into place over decades in the US to protect Native sites, artifacts, and burials and to help right the wrongs done to Native archaeological remains since Europeans first landed. Finicum may think he is doing the right thing in his misguided attempt to repatriate artifacts that are being stored at the refuge by choice and by design, but the Paiute vehemently disagree. And as it’s their heritage, it’s their right to rebuff Finicum and to bring federal action against the occupants who have no idea how to handle the artifacts or how to safeguard their sacred sites.

Rodrique’s quote in ICTMN sums it up for me, and for many of the people in my Twitter feed outraged by this brash disregard for the opinions of Natives: “I don’t know what these people are doing… if they are doing things to just get a rise or to be a martyr—all they are doing is making enemies out of the people they professed to support.”Comment:  For more on Cliven Bundy, see Bundy: Paiutes Lost Their Claim and Paiutes Tell Bundys to Leave.

Bundy: Paiutes lost their claim

‘We Don’t Want Bloodshed’: Armed White Militants in Oregon v. Paiute Tribe

By Jacqueline KeelerThe tribe enjoys a strong working relationship with the Malheur Wildlife Refuge and participated extensively in creating a Comprehensive Conservation Plan in 2013.

“We utilize the refuge almost constantly,” Roderique explains, “We’ve had excursions where our elders sit down and practice traditional crafts and tell stories about how we once existed. There are petroglyphs down there—it’s a real valuable site for us. The youth program takes kids down and they make tule boats and swamp. Being Native people we think it is necessary to continue the practice of oral history. When you are down there these stories come naturally. When you take children out today and show them how we survived here so long it is an important tool to bringing the elders and the youth together so the youth are able to identify themselves as Paiute people.”

However, tribal council members expressed concerns about feeling unsafe with the arrival of more men with guns in their community. Tribal council secretary Wanda Johnson told ICTMN, “These people who have been intimidating our Indian men but they are unchallenged and they walk about town and our concern is if they could escalate things…we don’t want to see bloodshed or see anyone thrown in jail. We feel frustrated that these people can come and go in town and resupply. People are taking things out there and feeding them. Like they are out there in on an outing. It’s so frustrating.”

Some animosity towards Native people can be seen in the Harney County Committee of Safety, a local group Bundy started which refers to Natives as “savages" in their statement of purpose.Ryan Bundy: Native Americans have lost their claim to the Land.

By xxdr zombiexx This is the kicker though, buried all the way at the end of the piece.

"We also recognize that the Native Americans had the claim to the land, but they lost that claim," Bundy said. "There are things to learn from cultures of the past, but the current culture is the most important."

This is no different than the Taliban blowing up the Buddhas, or ISIS trying to find antiquities to destroy. No different whatsoever.

While these faux-militia assholes are technically entitled to their opinions, however fucking stupid those opinions are, they are using these “opinions” (delusions) to make real-world decisions that affect all sorts of people who have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to these public spaces. And they are set to damage irreplaceable artifacts because they are so delusional about their white supremacy.Comment:  For more on Cliven Bundy, see Paiutes Tell Bundys to Leave and Bundy Bunch vs. Dann Sisters.

Paiutes tell Bundys to leave

Burns Paiute Tribe tells armed group to leave ancestral territoryLeaders of the Burns Paiute Tribe told an armed group to leave their ancestral territory as they educated the public about the true history of land ownership in Oregon.

The tribe was promised the land in and around the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge by treaty that was negotiated in 1868. But the Senate never ratified the agreement and the federal government ended up taking all 1.78 million acres.

"We as a tribe view that this is still our land no matter who's living on it," Chairwoman Charlotte Rodrique said at a press conference on Wednesday, The Oregonian reported.

Tribal leaders are worried that the armed group is damaging sacred, cultural and other sites at the refuge. About 20 people have been occupying the land since Saturday.Don’t Change the Status Quo—Unless It’s to Return Land to Tribal Control

By Charlotte RodriqueThere’s no real reason to change the status quo of land ownership out West. But if anyone should assume a greater caretaking role for the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which a group of armed protesters are occupying, it's not the state, or private owners, but the Burns Paiute Tribe.

We were forcefully removed from this land (and much more) over the course of numerous bloody disputes. Negotiated ownership terms that came later—first agreed upon, but not ratified, in a peace treaty with the government in 1868—were mostly ignored and unenforced, as ranchers and mining operators pushed further into Paiute territory over the following decades.

Our access to traditional lands has steadily eroded ever since, but the Malheur sanctuary, which is about 30 miles from our reservation, is of great cultural value to us still. Today, the Burns Paiute has a good relationship with the federal employees who work there: They have been a protector of our artifacts and history, which include petroglyphs and many natural resources that are culturally relevant to our needs. We can’t hunt on the parkland, of course, but tribal people still have a right to go in and gather certain plants, such as willow and tule.And:I am not sympathetic when I hear that a group of armed individuals want territory we have lived on for thousands of years to be “returned” to the “people of Oregon.” I’ve certainly had the urge to yell and demand for respect of our ancestral land, but these individuals certainly aren't speaking for us, let alone the ranchers, who have rejected their support.Paiute tribal chair: 'Don’t tell me any of these ranchers came across the Bering Strait'



Again, who owns the land?

Q&A: For Native Community, Irony and Shaky Claims in Oregon Standoff

By Anna ChalletWhat do you make of the Bundy militia’s demand that the federal government return the land to the people of Harney County?

It shows a lot of ignorance that most Americans have about the shaky nature, legally speaking, of the authority that the U.S. government has over the land it purports to own. It goes back to the Doctrine of Discovery, which was formulated by the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court … when a discovering Christian nation sets foot on land in the Americas, the title to that land immediately reverts to that discovering nation, and for the Native people, the indigenous people, their title disappears.

The indigenous people in the Americas are the only people in the world who do not possess fee simple title to their land. The Supreme Court has cited the Discovery doctrine as recently as 2005 as still being the law of the land, in a case between the city of Sherrill, New York and the Oneida Nation.Oregon's Land Dispute: Who Are the Original Owners?

By Jacqueline KeelerWhen Ammon Bundy, son of Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who led an armed standoff against the US Bureau of Land Management in 2014, charged into the Malheur Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon, he said he was going to return the land from an overreaching federal government to its "original owners" he was not thinking of the Burns Paiute Tribe.

And he has since admitted he knows very little about them.

When he charged into town proclaiming he was "getting ranchers back to ranching, getting the loggers back to logging, getting the miners back to mining" the "original owners" he was thinking about? Without a doubt they were European Americans like himself.

But in fact, it is the Burns Paiute Tribe and other Northern Paiute tribes who are the "original owners" and possess the strongest legal claim to the land, particularly to the wildlife refuge which was once part of their former Malheur Indian Reservation. A 1.78 million acre reservation that was later opened to white settlement after the Paiute and another tribe, the Bannock, facing starvation rose up against settler depredations.Comment:  For more on Cliven Bundy, see Bundy Bunch vs. Dann Sisters and Bundy Bunch Occupies Paiute Land.

Bundy bunch vs. Dann sisters

Here’s What Happened When These Unarmed Native American Sisters Defended Their Land from the Feds

By Amanda GirardIn September of 2001, the government sent in the cavalry to show it was serious about its claim to the Shoshone tract:

The government considers it public land, and to drive the point home, 40 agents from the Bureau of Land Management descended on the Danns’ ranch in September, heavily armed and fortified with helicopters, and confiscated 232 cattle, which were later sold.

The sisters and their supporters argue that their tribe never legally ceded these range lands. Though the federal government controls 85 percent of Nevada, they contend that it has no legitimate title to the land—or the gold, water, oil and geothermal energy beneath it.

Because the Dann sisters refused to leave their land, the government once again began seizing large numbers of their livestock in 2003, claiming the horses and cattle were grazing at the public’s expense. BLM officials even deputized local cowboys to assist with the livestock seizure. At which point, the sisters were forced to remove over 400 remaining horses from the disputed range, many of them pregnant mares, but they lost track of many in the forced move.

And a comment to go with this photo:This is how the BLM and Dept of Interior handled elderly unarmed Shoshones refusing to cede their treaty rights to ancestral lands. The Dann sisters were attacked and detained numerous times over several decades sometimes with police and sometimes by mob and constantly monitored. Their horses and cattle were driven off to die of starvation. The Danns were not millionaires like the Bundys.No crackdown on whites

Other postings confirm that white conservatives like the Bundys get special treatment:

Yes, the armed Oregon occupiers would be raided if they weren’t white—same goes if they were leftists

The U.S. gov't is fundamentally right wing, and supports many of the things the Bundys & militants are calling for

By Ben NortonIn response, social media and Op-Ed pages of newspapers were inundated with condemnations of white privilege and arguments that the far-right militants would have been violently removed if they were people of color.

There is a crucial point missing from many of the liberal hot takes on the Oregon paramilitary occupation, however. In their hyper-emphasis on white privilege, many are depoliticizing the situation.

To be clear, these articles are absolutely correct. If the extremists occupying the federal building were not white, they would be attacked.

But if they were leftists, even if they were still white, countless historical examples show they would be attacked, too.Unarmed black protesters were ‘forcibly removed’ and jailed after they tried to occupy a wildlife refuge in 1979

By Travis GettysBut that’s not what happened nearly 37 years ago in Georgia.

Federal authorities secured a court order to remove the “squatters” one day after they set up camp at Harris Neck—but four of the unarmed protesters refused to leave.

They were “forcibly removed” May 2, 1979—just three days after they arrived on the land where their parents and grandparents had farmed, hunted and fished.

The four men were each sentenced to a month in jail for trespassing, and courts have ruled that the land belongs to the U.S. government—and not to the slaves’ descendants.

If you wondered if the Danns' treatment was based on racism, wonder no longer. Now we have evidence. White people get treated differently in similar circumstances. That's privilege and prejudice in action.

Final word

A couple of days later, another comment on the disparate treatment of whites and Natives:

With Militants Occupying Ancestral Land, Native Tribe Is 'Very Offended'Rodrique says she's frustrated that the federal government hasn't forced the occupiers out, and compares how law enforcement treats the anti-federalists with how the U.S. historically treated native tribes. She says the occupiers are allowed to go into town to buy groceries and gas, then return to their armed occupation.

"They did disconnect their utilities and things like that, but it's not really forcing them out," Rodrique says. "You know, in our history, that was how the military got us. They basically starved us into submission. And you could do the same thing with these occupiers."

Rodrique would like the FBI to remove the armed men, and she thinks the FBI's inaction is a double standard.

"If I, as a native person, a person of color, were to go down there and do the same thing, they would have hit me on the forehead with a baton" and dragged her out, she says. But "because they're white people, I feel that they're being treated differently."For more on Cliven Bundy, see Bundy Bunch Occupies Paiute Land and Gun Nuts' Hypocrisy on Government Power.

Bundy bunch occupies Paiute land

The Bundy bunch--the offspring of Cliven Bundy and their followers--are back with another protest based on racist conservative beliefs. They think the government owes them a handout--free grazing on public land--because they're white.

At first their protest was notable because of how the government was treating them with kid gloves. Unlike, say, every protest by people of color. But then the Native connection came to the fore.

Oregon “Militia” Says Feds Stole Their Land–Turns Out It Was Stolen from Paiute Tribe

By John Paul BrammerAccording to Steve Russell at Indian Country Today Media Network, President Grant established the Malheur Indian Reservation in 1872, and it wasn’t until the Bannock War of 1878 that the Bannocks and the Paiute were removed from the reservation. Since then, the wildlife refuge has existed as an alternative use of federal land.

In other words, the only reason the militiamen feel they have a leg to stand on when it comes sovereignty over this land is because of the federal government they are attacking.

When you consider the plight of the Paiute, it makes Ammon Bundy’s Facebook post on December 30th—in which he complained about the federal government stealing land—look deeply ironic:

“Simply put, the federal government has adversely stolen the lands and resources from the people, destroyed thousands of jobs, and the economy of an entire county. Now anyone who has enough guts to stand against them, they annihilate through their own court systems…”These Aren't the First Armed Whites to Take Over That Oregon Land: Just Ask the Native Paiute PeopleJACQUELINE KEELER: Yes. Well, I’d like to start off saying that today, in January, this is the 137th anniversary of when 500 Paiutes were loaded onto wagons and walked, under heavy armed guard, from their—from the lands where the Bundys are right now holding it and to the Yakama Reservation in Washington state, some 300 miles, knee-deep in snow. And they were forced to march, shackled two by two. And so, that’s some of the background there.

AMY GOODMAN: And then, continue. Take us through to today. What happened to this land? How did it change hands?

JACQUELINE KEELER: Well, the area called the—now called the Malheur, it was called the Malheur Reservation, and it actually constituted nearly 1.7 million acres of land. But with incursions from white settlers, they basically pressured the federal government to open it up to settlement. And so, in 1876, President Grant did that. And then, after there was an uprising with the Bannock Indian War in 1878, due to issues of starvation and deprivation in the middle of winter again, the Bannock and the Paiute rose up, and then that’s when they were force-marched out of the area and lost most of the land.Bundy Militia Claims Indigenous Paiute Land as Oregon Land



Whose land is it?

Oregon native tribe bewildered by gun-toting ‘glory hounds’: That land belongs to the Paiute

By ReutersThe reservation is not far from the wildlife reserve and the tribe has been living off the arid western Oregon mountains since long before Europeans arrived in North America.

“There was never an agreement that we were giving up this land. We were dragged out of here,” Rodrique said.

The tribe’s approach has typically been less provocative than the protesters who picked up guns to further their anti-government cause.

“I’m, like, hold on a minute, if you want to get technical about it … the land belongs to the Paiute here,” said Selena Sam, a member of the tribe’s council who waitresses at a local diner.Native American Tribe Has Witty Quip for Oregon Protesters

Educating the Oregon Militia on The Northern Paiute’s ‘Trail of Tears’

By Jacqueline KeelerBurns Tribal chairperson Charlotte Roderique at a press conference yesterday, had a stern rebuke of Bundy’s occupation of her homeland, “Yesterday, the Burns Paiute Tribe joined other community leaders calling for an end to armed protestors at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. Armed protestors do not belong to here. They are endangering our sacred sites and our children. Malheur Wildlife Refuge was a wintering gathering ground before the settlers come here.”

And tribal councilman Jarvis Kennedy had even stronger words, “What would happen to Indians who did this? We, as Harney County residents don’t need some clown to stand up for us, we are hard-working people…we survived without them. We need them to get the hell out of here. They are jeopardizing and scaring our people.”

Despite this, Bundy’s actions have brought national media coverage of the January of 1879 forced march of 500 Paiutes from the Malheur Indian Reservation some 350 miles in knee-deep snow, many shackled two by two, to the Yakama Indian Reservation in Washington State—the Northern Paiutes’ “Trail of Tears.” One group that was force-marched by the U.S. army simply disappeared. No one knows what happened to them. Still more died and when a few Paiute returned to Burns, Oregon, they were considered outlaws, many were landless as their reservation had been opened completely to settlers and large California ranching corporations.

“The one thing I’m really proud of is the tenacity of our people.” Roderique noted, “420 people are descendants of people who were able to get back here from Yakama. I wouldn’t drop my children off from Yakama and tell my children to walk back. They wouldn’t know what to eat, what river to follow.”Comment:  For more on Cliven Bundy, see Gun Nuts' Hypocrisy on Government Power and ATV Rally Threatens Native Sites.

Conservatives enraged at losing power

The gun mania noted in the previous two postings comes from the white man's perceived loss of power. I've posted about this subject before, but it can't be stated often enough. Here's another take on it:

Rush Limbaugh and conservatives revolt! Their hatred for House budget deal could hand Donald Trump nomination

Right-wing media is lashing out against GOP congressmen after the budget deal, which only helps Trump's chances

By Amanda MarcotteOn this much, Limbaugh and I agree: Trump’s popularity is not due to the man having a unique charisma or some kind of major leadership skills. He’s just a cipher for this inchoate right wing rage. It’s hard to express the magnitude of rage that conservatives feel right now, after 7 years of the Obama presidency.

In their minds, this country belongs to them and any Democratic leadership is therefore, by definition, illegitimate. (Obama’s race isn’t helping things, but it’s important to remember they felt this way about Bill Clinton, too, which led to impeaching him under some flimsy pretense.) They keep sending more Republicans—and more and more conservative Republicans—to Congress with the sole mission to destroy Obama and restore the “natural” order of things, where conservatives, predominantly white male conservatives, rule and everyone else is, at best, given token representation.

Republicans don’t actually have the power to do this, but that hardly matters to the conservative base. When you believe in your heart of hearts that the natural order is people like you on top and everyone else under the boot, it feels like it should be relatively easy to get things back to the way you think they should be. So if it’s not getting done, it must be because of a lack of will. And if you have any doubts that it’s lack of will, here’s Rush Limbaugh, who seems like a smart guy who follows D.C. politics closely, telling you that’s exactly what it is. So they believe him.And:In a sense, Trump didn’t have to do much to exploit this situation. His chest-puffing claims that all he needs to do to get his way is to say what he wants very loudly may make liberals laugh, but it fits right into the fantasy that Limbaugh and his fellow right-wing pundits are spinning out for the conservative base, who is ready to believe it.

Trump’s main talent is saying whatever his audience wants to hear, which he did, by telling Breitbart News that “elected Republicans in Congress threw in the towel.” He probably didn’t even need to know the specifics of what he was talking about, so long as he could imply that all you need is heavier balls and getting your way is a breeze.

There’s no easy way out of this dilemma for the Republicans. The conservative base is completely out of step with the general public on all these major issues. But it’s a minority who believes that their views should be triumphant over the majority’s, and that God agrees with them on this, to boot. Compromise and you lose your base. Give the base what they want and lose everyone else.Comment:  For more on Donald Trump, see Trump Promises White Male Rule and "Restoring America's Greatness" = Disneyesque Dream.

White fundamentalism breeds violence

The all-American terror of Donald Trump: Inside the nightmare ideology that’s made him a hero to white fundamentalists

Trump abandoned the GOP's traditional dog whistle for a megaphone—a successful strategy, and even more destructive

By Brittney CooperUsing the extreme acts of a few to condemn the peaceful lives of the many is a hallmark of the American script of racism. White Americans do this to Black people when they suggest that Black intraracial violence justifies the overpolicing of all Black people. Americans do this to Muslims when we demand that key Islamic religious leaders step forward to quickly condemn the violence, so that we will not mistake lack of censure for allegiance.

Yet, we did not require or expect conservative white male politicians and religious leaders to issue statements after the Planned Parenthood shooting affirming that Christian social values are anti-violent and condemning the actions of the shooter as an egregious mischaracterization of Christian values and principles. We did not ask all white men to feel shame over the actions of the shooter. The myth of white individualism absolves white people of a collective reckoning with the ways that white fundamentalism breeds violence against people of all colors and social backgrounds.

This is why we must begin to understand whiteness as a kind of violent fundamentalism, one at the heart of the American project. Fundamentalism is always a struggle over values and an attempt by those who feel marginalized to order the universe through a set of moral absolutes that not-so-coincidentally also concede power to their particular worldview. Donald Trump is not particularly religious, despite his meeting with Black pastors. But he deploys whiteness as ideology with the fundamentalist zeal of the worst kinds of religious zealots and proselytizers. His rhetoric about protecting the U.S.-Mexico border—rhetoric that has been unfortunately taken up by two misguided Black female Trump enthusiasts—is just one more example of the kind of power laden demands for purity that adhere to fundamentalist ideologies. Whiteness as a fundamentalist ideology frames all others as enemies of the project of white supremacy. It authorizes violence against all who divest from the project of whiteness. It uses a narrative of marginalization and the need to regain power (to take America back) to justify aggressive and violent acts towards non-white groups. And it values and seeks to perpetuate whiteness as a way of life.

Until we dismantle white fundamentalism, no people of color will be safe. All fundamentalist belief systems view other belief systems in zero-sum terms. Evangelical Christianity believes that the truer it is, the less true every other belief system is. White/American fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism also engage each other in zero-sum geopolitical terms. They will be locked into an endlessly violent battle of wills. To make it more plain, on the homefront, white Americans respond so strongly to acts of Islamic terror and with such fear, because they recognize this same capacity for fundamentalist rage in themselves. In a zero-sum battle of fundamentalism, either we are invading their shores or they are invading ours. Game recognize game.Comment:  For more on conservative Christians, see Planned Parenthood Shooter = Radical Christian and Conservative Christians Aren't Good Samaritans.

Conservatives let mass shootings happen

After the San Bernardino shootings, people are talking about how conservatives have nothing to offer but empty words and gestures. The Daily News conveyed this idea with its provocative cover:


A good cartoon made a similar point:



"Who cares? Let 'em die," said every Republican to himself. "That's fourteen fewer votes for Democrat candidates, and $14,000 more in NRA donations for us."

"Prayer shaming"

Conservatives started crying about "prayer shaming," their latest attempt to silence people pointing out their lies and hypocrisies. The following posting puts that argument to rest:

It’s Not “Prayer Shaming.” It’s Hypocrite Shaming

By Rebecca WatsonI don’t think that the New York Daily News is “prayer-shaming.” To think that is to miss the point entirely: these politicians aren’t just praying for the victims, if they’re even actually praying at all. No, they’re Tweeting about praying for the victims of a circumstance that they themselves could prevent but choose not to. That’s not being a good Christian—that’s just being a huge hypocrite. That’s like praying for your aunt to recover from skin cancer while stuffing her in a tanning bed. “Stop struggling, Agnes, this is going to give you a healthy glow!”

And to really make the analogy work, in this case the tanning salon would be paying you to bring your aunt in. Because that’s the big problem, here: the National Rifle Association’s ridiculously wealthy and powerful lobby that has the GOP on the payroll. Gun control is the fastest way to fix this problem—it’s what Australia did in 1996 just days after a gunman murdered dozens of people. They cut gun homicides by nearly 60% and gun suicides by 65%, with no increase in other kinds of homicides and no increase in robberies and home invasions.

Of course, if we want to know more about the science of what works and what doesn’t work with regards to gun violence, we’ll have to lift the current ban on the CDC studying it. Oh that’s right, 20 years ago Republicans passed restrictions on gun violence research to make sure that no money accidentally went toward gun control advocacy.

So please remember all that the next time you hear a politician whine about prayer-shaming after citizens beg them to do something about the unbelievable rash of mass shootings happening in the US. It’s not prayer-shaming—it’s hypocrite-shaming.For more on gun control, see Republicans Allow Guns for Terrorists and The Magical Power of Guns.

Planned Parenthood shooter = radical Christian

There's been a lot of talk about "radical Islam" recently. Meanwhile, radical Christians are shooting up America like it's the Wild West.

Here's a portrait of a typical radical Christian:

Accused Planned Parenthood shooter charged with rape in North Charleston in 1992

By Glenn Smith and Melissa BoughtonyDear has a history of arrests in South Carolina out of Colleton and Beaufort counties, records show. A background search completed by The Post and Courier found that Dear was arrested in 2003 on a cruelty to animals charge but was found not guilty in 2004. He was charged under the state’s Peeping Tom law in 2002 but that charge, too, was later dismissed, according to a background search.

In 1997, Dear’s then-wife reported that her husband assaulted her, according to incident reports released Saturday by the Colleton County Sheriff’s Office. She declined at the time to file charges against Dear.

Beaufort County sheriff’s deputies charged Dear with operating an uninsured motor vehicle in 2004 and he was later convicted and ordered to pay a fine, State Law Enforcement Division records show.

Dear, described as a loner by neighbors in Colorado and North Carolina, has been married at least three times and has four children.

His second wife, Mescher, described Dear in divorce papers filed in 1993 as a controlling, abusive, womanizing man who liked to gamble but was tight with his cash when it came to supporting his family. She stated that he threw her around the room by her hair during one argument and beat her head on the floor. She also said in a sworn affidavit that Dear “erupts into fury in a matter of seconds,” and she “lived in fear and dread of his emotional and physical abuse.”

“He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but does not follow the Bible in his actions,” Mescher stated in the affidavit. “He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases. He is obsessed with the world coming to an end.”Comment:  Multiple wives, arrests, assaults, rage, abuse, cruelty to animals...and he's a Christian. He terrorizes women, children, and animals and kills them if he gets angry enough. If he was a millionaire, he could run as a Republican for president and get 25% or 50% of the vote.

For more on Christian terrorism, see Conservative Christians Aren't Good Samaritans and Let's Deport White Men.

Conservatives project fears onto "others"

This is the entire GOP plan: Credibility destroyed after Bush debacle, their only strategy is to scare us

The party of security tanked the economy and unleashed Middle East disaster. Now they have nothing but fear itself

By Paul RosenbergConservatives had always been comfortable with blacks as other, as containers for their most unwanted projections. But before blacks were demonized, the pattern was initiated with Native Americans. Another Kleinian theorist, Robert Young, has written about racism and projective identification (here and here, for example), noting that “the price of admission into a culture is the acquiring of its projective identifications.” Young cites the example of a 1503 decree by Queen Isabella citing Native Americans’ purported “hard habits of idolatry and cannibalism” as justification for authorizing slavery:

The European charge of cannibalism was unfounded. Harmless and helpful natives were bad-mouthed as wild and bestial, thus legitimating the activities of a master race. The savagery of the conquistadors was projected onto their victims, who could then be seen as subhuman and could be treated in subhuman ways—which they extravagantly were.

A similar dynamic applied to enslaved blacks, regardless of the colonizing power involved. The savagery of conquest was projected into the conquered. However, when situations allowed, there was often a place for a few “respectable” tokens who served a variety of different functions for white slaveholders, and later white leaders who followed them—to endorse their views, make them seem more reasonable, provide pacifying “leadership” for the masses, etc.

Obama was threatening for a number of reasons, not least that he adopted a form of respectability politics, while remaining relatively loyal to the black base, and running as a Democrat, whose policies were anathema to movement conservatives. Hence, at the overt level, he disarmed the demonizing projective processes, particularly in courting conservatives outright—praising Ronald Reagan, inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration, reaching out to conservative opinion writers, dining with them within weeks of taking office, etc.—but he would not validate the projection of otherness onto other blacks as a whole, which is a core purpose of the “respectable black” figure. And thus the need to otherize him (and project white evil acts, impulses, phantasies, etc. into him), as blacks had always been otherized, needed to find a new form, a new rationale. Which is precisely what the birther phantasy did. It said that everything about him was a lie, so nothing he did could make any difference. It invalidated any action he might take, leaving it to be reinterpreted by those who most despised him, without any regard to the facts.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Conservative Freakout Over Denali = Racism and What the Crusades Controversy Is About.

Conservative Christians aren't Good Samaritans

More on the conservative hypocrisy re refugees:Retweeted Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte):

The way that so many Christians fall over themselves denying refuge to Syrians shows that their concept of Christian compassion is lacking.

Retweeted Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte):

To every self-identified Christian who denies Syrian refuge, I simply would ask them to read this:

Luke 10:25-37 New International Version (NIV)
The Parable of the Good Samaritan

Retweeted Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte):

And don’t tell me you’re afraid for your safety. Your own God told you to be afraid for your *soul* if you do not offer compassion.Be a Good Samaritan unless it's inconvenient or risky? Don't think that's what Jesus said.



Above: All the Christian hypocrites who aren't Good Samaritans.

The Republican Crisis Recycling Center: Syrian Refugee Edition

What's the difference between the Ebola virus and a Syrian refugee? Nothing, according to conservatives.

The Republican governors who are rejecting refugees are the same ones who allow our military veterans to be homeless and sleep on the streets and are willing to let poor people starve. They don't care about refugees because they don't care about humanity. They're cowards. Pitiful and despicable cowards.

Yep.



GOP Warns Refugees Likely To Be Driven To Terrorism By Way America Would Treat Them

For more on terrorism, see Let's Deport White Men and Republicans Allow Guns for Terrorists.

Republicans allow guns for terrorists

Republicans bow down to ISIS, hint at shutdown over refugee funding

Republicans are running out of things to shut the government down over. The next shutdown may be over parking privileges or trash pickup.

Ted Cruz, ISIS propagandist: It’s almost like the GOP wants another massive Middle East war

Republicans—who clearly see terrorism as an opportunity to score political points—are pandering as hard as they can.

Thanks to the NRA Over 2000 Suspected Terrorists Were Able to Buy Guns in the U.S.

We need a ban on terrorist guns to go along with a ban on terrorist refugees, said no Republican ever. ‪#‎hypocrites‬

Texas GOP lawmaker: Keep Syrian refugees out of our state because it’s too easy to get a gun here

Syrians are too risky! They could get guns and start shooting up schools and churches like Americans!Paul Ryan ‏@SpeakerRyan
We should not bring Syrian refugees into this country unless we can be 100 percent confident that they are not here to do us harm.Fine, then we shouldn't let people buy guns unless we can be 100% confident they won't harm us.

Can we deport Republicans if we're not 100% sure they won't harm us?

For more on terrorism, see Syrian Refugees = Jewish Refugees and Republicans Afraid of Syrian Refugees.

Syrian refugees = Jewish refugees

Comparing this refugee crisis with a previous refugee crisis, we see little has changed:Retweeted Avraham Bronstein (@AvBronstein):

In the 1930s and 1940s enough Americans thought Jewish refugees may have included Soviet or German agents. ‪#‎NeverAgain‬ ‪#‎SyrianRefugees‬

Retweeted Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani):

I tweet this every day now, but 169,000 Bosnian Muslim refugees came to the US in the 1990s, from a radicalized warzone. Not one terrorist.

Retweeted Terrell Lewis (@SgBz):

Thank goodness the innkeeper wasn't a Republican Governor ‪#‎p2‬ ‪#‎tcot‬ ‪#‎Christian‬ https://t.co/IZJiiPzfy1Retweeted Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani):

America is literally formed as a country by people who ran away from persecution...

Retweeted Historical Opinion (@HistOpinion):

US Jan 20 ’39: Should the US government permit 10,000 mostly Jewish refugee children to come in from Germany? https://t.co/5cFs5RabQn

"If they're not white Christians," said America, "we don't care. Let 'em die in the Holocaust. They're not our responsibility."Retweeted southpaw (@nycsouthpaw):

What benefits has the US ever gained from admitting displaced persons? https://t.co/EpgS1CkjFnDr. Quimby on Twitter:

America...founded by cowardly Europeans who couldn't take the heat.

Retweeted Pete Fraser (@petefrasermusic):

One of these was in today's Daily Mail and one is nazi propaganda. Take your time. https://t.co/VjPYrwYKvS


If you're a Syrian refugee, you can move next door to me. I won't mind.

For more on terrorism, see Republicans Afraid of Syrian Refugees and First Thoughts After Paris Attacks.

Republicans afraid of Syrian refugees

Congressmen Pressure GOP Leaders To Strip Funding For Syrian Refugees

The US is so paranoid about Syrian refugees that it’s letting barely any in

Refugees aren't just slipping into the US. Screening takes two years, and it's nearly impossible for people to pass.

They want a clash of civilizations: After Paris, we need grown-ups, not apocalyptic warriorsRepublicans are gleeful at getting to play war, except with real people's lives instead of toy soldiers. ‪#‎bomb‬ ‪#‎kill‬Fearing Fear Itself

"An organized attempt to destroy Western civilization"? No, an organized attempt to sow panic, which is different.

Do conservatives seriously think ISIS is going to bomb a million buildings or kill a billion Westerners? You have to be a blithering idiot to think they endanger our "civilization."

Ann Coulter’s odious anti-Muslim rants: Of course she’s exploiting the Paris terror attacks to entertain racist, xenophobic fansShe happily conflates "Muslim," "refugee" and "ISIS," untroubled about maligning 1.5 billion practitioners of Islam.Chris Christie is winning the a**hole primary with his callous refugee stance: Not even “3 year old orphans” welcome

Why exactly are conservatives afraid of a handful of terrorists? Because conservatives are cowards? Wimps? Children? They're literally cowering from 3-year-olds (Muslim) babies!

Of course the conservatives cowards are mainly in red states. I thought that's why you had guns, you yellow bellies. So you could shoot the brown-skinned terrorists.

Are you shivering and quivering too much to shoot straight? Afraid of shooting yourself in the foot or penis instead? Or what, exactly?

Heartbreaking Photo Of A 4-Year-Old Syrian Girl ‘Surrendering’ To A Photojournalist

Chris Christie wet his pants at the sight of this "terrorist"!

Obama torches GOP on Syrian refugees: 'Now they are scared of three-year-old orphans'

Republicans: Afraid of everything but white male Christians with guns!

For more on terrorism, see First Thoughts After Paris Attacks and America the Biggest Loser.

First thoughts after Paris attacks

Initial thoughts after the terrorist attacks on Paris:

So many people suddenly enraged after not caring at all the day before. In other words, the sheer idiocy of changing your views after the ‪#‎ParisAttacks‬. So you admit you were ignorant about Islam, terrorism, immigration, surveillance, etc. until last week? Okay, geniuses, thanks for letting us know.

So we hate ISIS. We hate Assad, who's fighting ISIS. And we hate the refugees fleeing ISIS and Assad. "Brown = evil," the Euro-American credo since 1492.

WATCH: CNN Host Insists French Muslim Accept ‘Responsibility’ For Paris Attacks

Yep, conservatives are racist hypocrites. You'll never hear them say this after a conservative Christian shoots a congregation or torches a church.

For more on terrorism, see America the Biggest Loser and White People Aren't Called Terrorists.

Captain America is a liberal

Fox News Goes Ballistic Over The New Black, Anti-Racist Captain America (Video)

By Tasha DavisYou know Fox News has stooped pretty low when they start going off on superheroes.

Captain America has really pissed conservatives off, but the reason why is f*cking hilarious.

A recent plot-line of the comic book has Captain America on a new mission, a mission against a group of White Supremacists called, Sons of the Serpent.

Only a Republican would get upset over a superhero fighting white racism, because duh, we all know white supremacy is code-word for Republican.And:Childers also, very ignorantly, said:

“Keep politics out of comic books.”

That Childers person should start doing some research on the subject on which they are about to speak, before words come out of that mouth. Because duh, Captain AMERICA is a political hero and always has been.

More on Captain America's politics:

Sorry, Fox News: Captain America has long been a liberal, anti-nationalist character

Conservatives are throwing a fit because Captain America opposes nationalism. Which is what he's always done.

By Amanda MarcotteThere’s no surer evidence that conservative media coasts on exploiting the ignorance of its audience (and in many cases, the willful ignorance of its pundits) than the hissyfit being thrown over the first issue of a new run of Captain America comics.

In the issue, Sam Wilson, a character who used to be called Falcon and who took over the mantle of Captain America after Steve Rogers became too old to handle the duty any longer, has been on the outs from various intelligence agencies, which he believes have grown corrupt from what is essentially a comic version of the “war on terror.” He also helps out undocumented immigrants that are being plagued by white supremacists. Oh yeah, and he’s black, something white conservatives know better than to be openly angry about but Allen West will go ahead and get angry over for them.

Breitbart, Daily Caller, and Fox News all threw utterly fact-free temper tantrums over this new development, whining that Captain America’s progressivism is somehow new and different and that his stance against racist conservatives is somehow a new development for the character. “Instead of going against Hydra and the typical Captain America villains,” supposed comics expert Clayton Morris said (after incorrectly claiming comic sales are down when, in fact, they are rising), “he’s going up against conservatives! That’s his new enemy!”

What is bizarre about this rant is that it depends on an audience who not only hasn’t ever read the Captain America comic, but has never seen either of the blockbuster pictures starring Chris Evans. If you had, you would remember that Hydra, the fictional enemy of the Captain, was started by Nazis to spread the joys of fascism around the world. In other words, Captain America’s enemies have always been nationalists intent on stomping out anyone they see as untermensch.And:[I]t’s just exploiting audience ignorance to argue that Captain America’s progressivism is “new” or a “change.” Again, if you’ve seen the movies, you can see the flaw in that. The first movie is an allegory about how strength is useless without the liberal value of protecting the vulnerable behind it. The second movie is overtly political, a story that openly suggests that the “war on terror” is becoming indistinguishable from fascism.

The Steve Rogers from the movies is unmistakably liberal: Anti-racist, a lover of independent women, and a man who believes that the best patriot is one who questions his government instead of blindly follows orders. This characterization is consistent with the canonical Steve Rogers of the comic books, who has long been an icon of progressive patriotism, a believer that fighting for America should only be done if America defends its own liberal values.

"White genocide" in The Force Awakens?

Now white people are trying to ruin “Star Wars”: Racist reaction to new trailer is part Gamergate, part Donald Trump

The anti-"Star Wars" lunacy seems laughable, but it's related to the toxic male entitlement corroding our politics

By Chauncey DeVegaWhite racists are none too pleased with JJ Abrams’ new “Star Wars” film trilogy. In protest of last evening’s release of the much-anticipated final trailer for this December’s “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” disgruntled members of the White Right began a Twitter hashtag “BoycottStarWarsVII.” It was a pathetic effort at getting attention; the hashtag was subsequently made popular by those who saw fit to mock it.

It is likely that the white supremacists who are upset by the supposed “anti-white propaganda” and themes of “white genocide” in the new Star Wars films will only have their ire further stoked by Monday night’s trailer that opens with an image of a young woman scavenging a crashed Star Destroyer, a voice over by an alien played by African actress Lupita Nyong’o, then proceeds to focus in on a “black” Stormtrooper turned Resistance leader and hero, and then eventually features a “Latino” X-Wing fighter pilot who valiantly fights against The New Order’s (the next iteration of the evil Empire from the earlier films) improved Tie Fighters.

Of course when viewed on the surface, this faux upset by the White Right about “diversity” and lack of “white” “male” “straight” characters in the new “Star Wars” film is laughable.

The previous “Star Wars” films, with one exception, featured an exclusively white cast. The new movie also has an all-white male cast except for John Boyega as the character “Finn,” Daisy Ridley as the presumed main character Rey; and Oscar Isaac, a Latino, as Poe Dameron. With the exception of Carrie Fisher, the remaining human characters as revealed so far are either depicting, or played by white male actors.

The writers, directors, and most of the senior creative staff for “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” are also white men. This is a reflection of Hollywood’s broader demographics where by some estimates are at least 85 percent of the producers, directors, show runners, executives, writers, and other leading creative positions are held by white men.

But when viewed in a broader context, the White Right’s childish and petty protests about “Star Wars” are a reminder of how cultural politics reflect deeper social anxieties, worries, and concerns about power in a given society.When conservatives cry about something, some people say we should ignore them like the whiny babies they are. But one writer disagrees:

Please feed the Star Wars trolls: White supremacists need to be noticed to keep their ideas on the fringe

Yes, trolls want attention. But when you ignore hate, whether on Fox News or Twitter, it does not go away

By Amanda MarcotteDoes ignoring racism make it go away? That’s the underlying premise of Genevieve Koski’s new piece at Vox tut-tutting liberals for giving the #BoycottStarWarsVII hashtag on Twitter attention. The hashtag appears to have been started by two white supremacists who are latching onto whatever news item is trending that day—in this case, the new Star Wars trailer—and using it to push their ludicrous notion that white people are being subject to a “genocide” because the movie has people of color as stars in it. The hashtag immediately become overwhelmed by outraged liberals enjoying their moral superiority over these douchebags and Koski is disgusted by the whole thing, arguing that by giving it this attention, liberals “amplify a niche message and create controversy out of whole cloth.”

She argues that since attention is what the trolls want, the No. 1 priority of liberals should be depriving them of that attention. “Twitter trends are just another source of sustenance for trolls and hate groups,” she argues. “All #BoycottStarWarsVII has truly accomplished is giving them a nice, hearty meal.”

It’s a tempting argument. Many of us feel powerless and angry in the face of hate, and so telling people that we can, almost by magic, make it go away by simply pretending it doesn’t exist is an enticing idea. In this case, the argument is juiced by the fact that the people who started this are a couple of clowns who are afraid to show their own faces in public and who do clearly get off on the attention.

Still, what Koski’s argument fails to take into account is how fringe reactionary ideas like this, if they aren’t checked by liberals, have a tendency to start leaking into mainstream conservative circles. Indeed, a lot of what places like Fox News exist to do is clean up fringe ideas, repackage them in more palatable forms, and feed them to an audience that is most definitely not on the fringe. The only way liberals can interrupt that process is by aggressively tying these kinds of ideas to the fringe racist circles where they began, or otherwise they run a very strong risk of being subjected to this mainstreaming process.Comment:  For more on Star Wars, see Why Are Most Aliens White? and Lucas's Prejudices in Star Wars.