It does seem like much of the impetus for the "freedom"/"my rights" movement does have an origin in movements that were and are primarily white. This is perhaps because the privileges being challenged were never generally part of non-white communities. The ideology, as I see it, can be found in the posse comitatus movement and the Christian Identity Movement. Today, the ideology is preached from white evangelical pulpits.
The message is clearly anti-American, or should I say anti-American Constitution. A sitting member of congress just said we don't need a government, the American people can do everything at home. A coworker of mine says he never signed a social contract. When they talk about their rights and freedoms, they mean theirs are unlimited and the rest of us have none.
A good comment, Greg. You rightly point out that the privileges being challenged are largely white privileges, however valid or universal the “rights” are in theory. Intersectionality, the fact what many share more than one marginalizing factor, also tend to diminish the effect of reform. “My rights” does seem to mean to many, the rights I enjoy as a white straight male. Privileges that I accept without thought.
That probably doesn’t invalidate the main point, though, of the Blog, that we have to balance values and it is absurd to extend one alone all the way to the finish line. All rights I’m arguing are limited by other rights. None are absolute. But this may have little to do with white identity movements. As you say, in this case (and whether it is the exception or the rule needs to be faced) one has long experienced being white as a right in and of itself. While this is also a matter of selfishness and greed and personal goals—my right to “die with all the toys,” as Malcom Forbes (I think) once said, it has been experienced as the privilege of whiteness, and it is acted on involuntarily.
It does seem to be a bit reductive, I think, to see every privilege as having to do with race. Obviously, there are other influences than race that course people to assert their "freedoms". It seems though, that there are people who perceive themselves to be so consistently on the losing end of privilege, they might have a more difficult time separating the various factors from the consistency of race. That, and race is Constitutionally relevant.
I was watching a Senate hearing and the Republican Senator was asking if an ID law can be racist. The answer from the panel was "it depends". The Senator Made a point to reject this answer because he expressed the belief that it either is or it isn't. He refused to express any idea of context. Like for instance: Is a bridge racist? I bet there could be a number of answers and some of us would reject them out of hand. I remember taking a class in college once and realized that a bridge could indeed be racist. I have seen disputes of Caro's telling but it's still true that the Southern State Parkway had low bridges with 4 of them under 96 inches. That's too low for busses full of minorities and it seems they were designed that way.
It does seem like much of the impetus for the "freedom"/"my rights" movement does have an origin in movements that were and are primarily white. This is perhaps because the privileges being challenged were never generally part of non-white communities. The ideology, as I see it, can be found in the posse comitatus movement and the Christian Identity Movement. Today, the ideology is preached from white evangelical pulpits.
The message is clearly anti-American, or should I say anti-American Constitution. A sitting member of congress just said we don't need a government, the American people can do everything at home. A coworker of mine says he never signed a social contract. When they talk about their rights and freedoms, they mean theirs are unlimited and the rest of us have none.
A good comment, Greg. You rightly point out that the privileges being challenged are largely white privileges, however valid or universal the “rights” are in theory. Intersectionality, the fact what many share more than one marginalizing factor, also tend to diminish the effect of reform. “My rights” does seem to mean to many, the rights I enjoy as a white straight male. Privileges that I accept without thought.
That probably doesn’t invalidate the main point, though, of the Blog, that we have to balance values and it is absurd to extend one alone all the way to the finish line. All rights I’m arguing are limited by other rights. None are absolute. But this may have little to do with white identity movements. As you say, in this case (and whether it is the exception or the rule needs to be faced) one has long experienced being white as a right in and of itself. While this is also a matter of selfishness and greed and personal goals—my right to “die with all the toys,” as Malcom Forbes (I think) once said, it has been experienced as the privilege of whiteness, and it is acted on involuntarily.
It does seem to be a bit reductive, I think, to see every privilege as having to do with race. Obviously, there are other influences than race that course people to assert their "freedoms". It seems though, that there are people who perceive themselves to be so consistently on the losing end of privilege, they might have a more difficult time separating the various factors from the consistency of race. That, and race is Constitutionally relevant.
I was watching a Senate hearing and the Republican Senator was asking if an ID law can be racist. The answer from the panel was "it depends". The Senator Made a point to reject this answer because he expressed the belief that it either is or it isn't. He refused to express any idea of context. Like for instance: Is a bridge racist? I bet there could be a number of answers and some of us would reject them out of hand. I remember taking a class in college once and realized that a bridge could indeed be racist. I have seen disputes of Caro's telling but it's still true that the Southern State Parkway had low bridges with 4 of them under 96 inches. That's too low for busses full of minorities and it seems they were designed that way.
I think I remember that class. It was Robert Caro's book about Robert Moses, The Power Broker, I believe. I had forgotten that example.
Yes, indeed it was. I remember it from time to time.