Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brer cat

(24,525 posts)
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 08:48 AM Jan 2016

Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists?’

Good analysis from Janell Ross at WAPO.

As of Sunday afternoon, The Washington Post called them "occupiers." The New York Times opted for "armed activists" and "militia men." And the Associated Press put the situation this way: "A family previously involved in a showdown with the federal government has occupied a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon and is asking militia members to join them."


snip

Deliberate language choices are always a wise and reasonable move. That is especially true when telling stories of conflict with government and political protests. But the incredibly limited and relatively soft range of words in wide use Sunday seems to extend beyond all of that. The descriptions of events in Oregon appear to reflect the usual shape of our collective assumptions about the relationship between race and guilt — or religion and violent extremism — in the United States.

White Americans, their activities and ideas seem always to stem from a font of principled and committed individuals.


snip

The sometimes-coded but increasingly overt ways that some Americans are presumed guilty and violence-prone while others are assumed to be principled and peaceable unless and until provoked — even when actually armed — is remarkable.


emphasis mine.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/03/why-arent-we-calling-the-oregon-militia-terrorists/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_fixoregon-6am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists?’ (Original Post) brer cat Jan 2016 OP
The MSM has a lot to answer for! Dustlawyer Jan 2016 #1
IOKIYAR randys1 Jan 2016 #2
I haven't even read it yet but the title alone has got me Kicking and Rec'ing Number23 Jan 2016 #3

randys1

(16,286 posts)
2. IOKIYAR
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 01:44 PM
Jan 2016

Black man raises his voice to defend his life, he is a scary bad Black man full of anger and is to be shot if he doesn't immediately calm the fuck down.

White man points guns at Federal agents and threatens to kill them, he is a good ole boy who needs to be peacefully waited out.

I am listening to the lead idiot being interviewed and when asked what his demands are, he isnt sure.

What he is sure of is the federal govt is run by a Black man who has a D after his name and therefore he HATES this country and wants to to go war with it.

NO other reason, NONE.
I wish to holy FUCK the media would get that straight and just SAY IT



Number23

(24,544 posts)
3. I haven't even read it yet but the title alone has got me Kicking and Rec'ing
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 04:54 PM
Jan 2016

I am so damned sick and tired of the racist double standards.

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»African American»Why aren’t we calling the...