Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 03-30-2006, 09:41 AM

the qualification post:

first, what i wrote above was deliberately polemical. i had been wondering from time to time what the assumptions were behind the particular tactics that have started appearing alot lately in threads about guns.
second, i have been tracking the rise of american extreme right groups for a while, in a kin dof informal way that operates outside of my daygig functions but which is shaped by them nonetheless--i am interested in the development of political formations/ideologies, how they operate, how the discourses come to be fashioned, and how the discourse particular to a political formation shapes how folk make use of that formation. so the regularities that interest me would be somewhere between sociology and discourse analysis problems. that is why when i go after political arguments, i see ways to do it that do not involve personal attacks on the individuals who may invest in the discourse.

third: there is a considerable body of analytic work on the extreme right in america--on the milita movement in particular, there is an interesting sociological study by sara diamond that came out a few years ago (can't remember when exactly) that was focussed on the late 80s-mid 90s phase of milita formation. if you want a sense of the work that is out there already, look up her book and chase the footnotes. that is how anyone would gather information---from her book or from any other.

the configuration of political positions within which militias work has since changed, so some features of the main shared political assumptions have changed as well--not so much in substance as in emphasis it seems.

the minutemen website is full of very typical combinations of issues and ways of framing them---they are not explicitly presenting themselves as a militia outfit, but politically they are one.
if this is problematic, i'll lay out one of my an interpretation when i have more time to do it.

but for an example: if you look at the long string of articles that justify the patrol of the borders, notice the way in which "real americans" gets used.
who are "real americans" anyway?
who decides that?
particular groups vary in how they interpret that meme--this range of interpretations is an index of such diversity as there is within this spectrum of rightwing militias--and it exists, this spectrum. i am fully aware of that as i sit here typing this. i was when i wrote the previous post as well.

but i would argue--then, here, in future psts on this if i make any--that the openness of this central category is a problem if you take any account of the wider set of assumptions that combine into militia ideologies.

and that the whole logic of defending "real americans" from immigrants is xenophobic.
and that the minutemen is a xenphobic group.
this does nto account for the complexity of motivations that would bring folk to such a position--it simply describes the position itself.

you can see parallel logic at work in dk and dunedan's posts. that is as far as i would go in characterizing either of these personae as human beings---there is not way to go further and be coherent. the way in which gun ownership is understood--the peculiar way in which the constitution is fetishized (i use this word advisedly)---the
references in one or two posts to problems of jury trials, etc. one of the points seems to be to try to reduce gun ownership to a single political outcome---a move that is both false and disengenuous.

i do not personally like guns--but i have interacted with many folk who think otherwise and find that there is no single, coherent political factor that unifies these various people on why they favor relatively open gun circulation--just as there is no particular unifying politics that enable one to coherently groups folk who favor tighter gun control.

and i am agnostic about gun control myself.
for that i would assume that i would be one of those "hypocrite elitists" or something.
you know, dk, what's good for the goose.....

03-30-2006, 09:41 AM	#53 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the qualification post: first, what i wrote above was deliberately polemical. i had been wondering from time to time what the assumptions were behind the particular tactics that have started appearing alot lately in threads about guns. second, i have been tracking the rise of american extreme right groups for a while, in a kin dof informal way that operates outside of my daygig functions but which is shaped by them nonetheless--i am interested in the development of political formations/ideologies, how they operate, how the discourses come to be fashioned, and how the discourse particular to a political formation shapes how folk make use of that formation. so the regularities that interest me would be somewhere between sociology and discourse analysis problems. that is why when i go after political arguments, i see ways to do it that do not involve personal attacks on the individuals who may invest in the discourse. third: there is a considerable body of analytic work on the extreme right in america--on the milita movement in particular, there is an interesting sociological study by sara diamond that came out a few years ago (can't remember when exactly) that was focussed on the late 80s-mid 90s phase of milita formation. if you want a sense of the work that is out there already, look up her book and chase the footnotes. that is how anyone would gather information---from her book or from any other. the configuration of political positions within which militias work has since changed, so some features of the main shared political assumptions have changed as well--not so much in substance as in emphasis it seems. the minutemen website is full of very typical combinations of issues and ways of framing them---they are not explicitly presenting themselves as a militia outfit, but politically they are one. if this is problematic, i'll lay out one of my an interpretation when i have more time to do it. but for an example: if you look at the long string of articles that justify the patrol of the borders, notice the way in which "real americans" gets used. who are "real americans" anyway? who decides that? particular groups vary in how they interpret that meme--this range of interpretations is an index of such diversity as there is within this spectrum of rightwing militias--and it exists, this spectrum. i am fully aware of that as i sit here typing this. i was when i wrote the previous post as well. but i would argue--then, here, in future psts on this if i make any--that the openness of this central category is a problem if you take any account of the wider set of assumptions that combine into militia ideologies. and that the whole logic of defending "real americans" from immigrants is xenophobic. and that the minutemen is a xenphobic group. this does nto account for the complexity of motivations that would bring folk to such a position--it simply describes the position itself. you can see parallel logic at work in dk and dunedan's posts. that is as far as i would go in characterizing either of these personae as human beings---there is not way to go further and be coherent. the way in which gun ownership is understood--the peculiar way in which the constitution is fetishized (i use this word advisedly)---the references in one or two posts to problems of jury trials, etc. one of the points seems to be to try to reduce gun ownership to a single political outcome---a move that is both false and disengenuous. i do not personally like guns--but i have interacted with many folk who think otherwise and find that there is no single, coherent political factor that unifies these various people on why they favor relatively open gun circulation--just as there is no particular unifying politics that enable one to coherently groups folk who favor tighter gun control. and i am agnostic about gun control myself. for that i would assume that i would be one of those "hypocrite elitists" or something. you know, dk, what's good for the goose..... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-30-2006 at 09:55 AM..