civil Rights, Gun COntrol, Internment Camps, Japanese Internment, Justice, Memes, Politics, Second Amendment, The National Rifle Association
I suppose it is too much to ask that folks distinguish the varieties of gun control from an outright ban. The way the gun rights crowd raises the specter of a completely disarmed populace when speaking about any variety lesser measures smacks of dishonesty.
It would hardly give away the farm to distinguish such things from one another. There are plenty of legitimate questions about the efficacy of lesser gun control measures, especially when applied to a population already so well armed as we are here in the U.S. But that is an interesting and well focused discussion some folks don’t seem to want to risk.
But what is really fascinating about memes like this is the slippage between a right to bear arms and a prescription for doing so. The second Amendment was alive and well when the internment of Japanese occurred in the first place. So, that right and that right alone simply is not a cure for the evil that this pic wants us to think about. The meme only works if we are to imagine a population which is not merely in possession of the right to bear arms, but which actively uses that right even to the point of preparing for war against its own government.
And can anyone really imagine Japanese immigrant population of the west coast doing this in the years leading up to World War II? Can anyone imagine the response from their neighbors?
This is not merely a defense of the Second Amendment, it is an argument for the expansion of private gun ownership well beyond anything previously imagined in American history. To make this argument work, we need more than just the right to bear arms, we all need to have the arms, the training to use them, and enough firepower to make them an effective counter to the powers of the United States Government.
Is the author suggesting that gun owners could stop such a thing as internment? Perhaps, but would they?
It’s a pretty common claim from the gun rights crowd, the notion that the Second Amendment puts the teeth in the rest of our civil rights. It is through gun ownership, so the argument goes, that people are protected from abuse by government officials. It is the most important means by which our rights are protected.
Pardon me, …from ‘thuh government.’
But gun owners did not stop the internment of Japanese.
Or of Aleuts during the same war.
Neither did they stop lynching of blacks.
Nor did gun owners secure the right to vote for African Americans.
…or for women.
…or Native Americans.
Gun owners did not stop the Federal Government from kidnapping Native American children to be taken to schools far from their families.
They didn’t stop police harassment of homosexuals.
They didn’t improve treatment of the mentally ill.
They didn’t stop the Zoot Suit Riots.
…or legacy provisions precluding Jews from owning homes in some neighborhoods.
Gun Ownership didn’t stop Jim Crow laws.
It was not gun owners that secured for any number of minorities the right to an education or any other protections by states or the federal government.
In each of these instances, the rights in question were won by protestors, and lawyers, and people who talked a hell of a lot, even if their main opponents didn’t. In many of these instances gun owners were actively involved in the very repression suffered by those in question. Since the founding of the country, Gun violence has played a far greater role in the repression of civil rights than it has in protecting them. There are exceptions to be sure, but this narrative is not built on the exceptions. It is built on a fantasy that skips any active consideration of how these things actually work.
Herein lies the biggest problem with this fantasy scenario; it presents us with the image of a government acting on its own, independent of the public will. That could happen, I suppose, but is far less likely than the countless times in which government policies actually have facilitated repressive measures popular with the American people, or at least a large segment of it. And in such moments, the victims of repression have rarely been sufficiently well armed to make an effective stand against those who wanted a piece of their liberty.
In real world history, those who have suffered the greatest deprivations did not merely face the threat of Federal Authority; they also have had to contend with the prejudice of an American population content to have them suffer.
…one that sometimes even demanded it.
We can imagine the victims of repression better armed, yes, but only if we also imagine the majority better armed as well. This is hardly a story which leads to a successful defense of liberty. I would call the scenario anarchy, but I don’t wish to sully the term ‘anarchy’ with such a vision of violence and destruction.
It’s damned hard to read these self-indulgent fantsies when considering the actual history of people struggling for their rights. It’s hard to give credence to this juvenile narrative, knowing what it took for the people in these camps to survive, what it took the Freedom Riders to earn rights enjoyed by gun-toting whites in the South. And it is especially hard to hear such arguments from those with so little to say about such things as Guantanamo Bay or the countless encroachments on Fourth Amendment Rights we’ve seen over the last few decades.
What pisses me off about this argument isn’t the defense of gun ownership, or even opposition to gun control. Frankly I don’t think this kind of crap even touches either one of those issues. It sheds no light on those issues whatsoever, and leave us with a whole different discussion to have if we can ever get clear of noise like this. What bothers me about this stuff is the scorched-earth tactics; the vision of politics as warfare and questions about rights as an invitation to shoot at one another. It’s a vision of government as a faceless evil empire in opposition to private citizens, and begging for opposition from heroic gun-owners everywhere. Folks telling this yarn have no sense of how such things actually happen. But they are happy to tell stories of gun-toting heroes squaring off against a government turned inexplicably on its own population. How that will work is a Hell we can only hope we will never see.
And it’s a Hell as likely to be brought about by gun-owners defending their own rights (as they define them) as anything done by a corrupt and tyrannical government.
While others have struggled and died for some of the most basic human rights imaginable, so many in the gun crowd openly fantasize about acts of violence over basic policy disagreements and the possibility of restricted access to a commodity. The pretense that this commodity is the key to civil rights plays a big role in these fantasies. The end result is a tantrum born of paranoia and privilege and a gun culture increasingly dangerous to the rest of us.
No. I’m not talking about the weapons. I am talking about the mindset of people who produce memes like the one above. People who make such arguments are not interested in protecting anyone under serious threat of government repression. The gun rights crowd did not protect the Japanese during World War II, and I for one don’t believe they will be there the next time someone decides to create camps like this.
…unless of course it is to close and lock the gates.
Good post! You’ve probably heard or read a point that’s been made by critics of the NRA: that it supported gun control in California during the 1960’s when it was restricting the Black Panthers from bearing arms to protect African-Americans from the police.
Michael Ortloff said:
And stood silent when MOVE was bombed from the air by police. As much as I’m no fan of lunatic-fringe groups like MOVE, I always find it fascinating when right-wing gubmint fearmongers hold up some rancher as an example of resisting gubmint – when they show no such regard for homeless trying to survive under an Federally-funded freeway offramp…
Reblogged this on The Last Of The Millenniums and commented:
Daniel writes : “What bothers me about this stuff is the scorched-earth tactics; the vision of government as a faceless evil empire in opposition to private citizens. Folks telling this yarn have no sense of how such things actually happen. But they are happy to tell stories of gun-toting heroes squaring off against a government turned inexplicably on its own population”.
Pingback: Sharing Another’s Post: Irritation Meditation Number 2: The Second Amendment and Japanesse Internment « The Knitting Nurse
Pingback: Sharing Another’s Post: Irritation Meditation Number 2: The Second Amendment and Japanesse Internment « The Knitting Nurse
Hope you don’t mind I linked to this on my blog. So true, so true.
I’ll be linking soon too. I hadn’t heard the internment argument before (I have heard the Warsaw ghetto invoked as proof of what armed resistance can do) but it’s crap for all the reasons you say.
Interesting counter-example to my own take here: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/122.html
Pingback: Linky boots | Fraser Sherman's Blog
Watching all this turmoil from outside of the States, in my case Canada, really makes America look like a scary crazy place. We have our own issues, which with the present governing Harper government, seems to be taking us down the rabbit hole.
And thanks for dropping by and liking my post.
I like how you conveniently left out the fact that strong gun control measures against African-Americans were part of the Jim Crow laws
And if I include this, does it change the history of the civil rights movement? Does it change the larger pattern? Are the Freedom Rides or the Montgomery Bus Boycotts suddenly an armed struggle? Do Gun Rights suddenly become center-stage in the Southern christian Leadership Conference? Because it looks to me like the use of guns was overwhelmingly one-sided against African-Americans. Your point simply does not change this fact.
Your indulging in tokenism.
As to the convenience, I acknowledged exceptions in the piece, and I even posted a link to one instance of blacks using gun-rights for their own projection just few comments above your own. You may not think that’s enough, but you’d be hard pressed to show a more complete treatment changes the sense of proportion here.
Fantastic blog! Do you have any tips for aspiring writers?
I’m hoping to start my own website soon but I’m a little lost on everything.
Would you suggest starting with a free platform like WordPress or go for a paid
option? There are so many choices out there that
I’m totally confused .. Any recommendations? Many thanks!
The point is that using the argument that our government will never turn on it’s citizens is false. Even this post reaffirms that the US government will turn on its citizens. That citizens have not stood up to the government is also false. Native American’s did. How about the Bundy Ranch? Whether successful or not, it has happened, and those are two without even having to consult resources for more. At least presently, our Government does not have the stomach to outright kill citizens to enforce laws, and that is what it will take with an armed citizenry.
If I were to take it one step further, do those who believe that the current use of eminent domain to take legally owned property, in certain cases, is wrong, believe that the same tactics used at the Bundy Ranch wouldn’t work to preserve your property? While one will never know, can anyone name a non-violent protest the government was unable to break up with minimal force?
Government is the face of an uninformed electorate who is increasingly provided for, and supposedly protected by the same. The situation in cities and states like California, New York, and Illinois clearly show that gun rights will be incrementally taken away if allowed, and gun owners thus far have not forcibly stood ground for the loss of those rights, instead trying legal avenues. And that’s a mixed bag, as it is with other polarizing rulings….gay marriage, abortion, citizens united, etc.
” The second Amendment was alive and well when the internment of Japanese occurred in the first place.”
No it wasn’t. The most useful firearms were banned in 1934 and the existing example grandfathered into a gun registry. In 1939 this was upheld unanimously (by a court that included at least one “Justice” publicly known to be a member of the KKK with a history of ) in a highly illegal sham trial with no defendant or defense attorney for charges originally brought against a man that was denied both his choice of plea and choice of attorney by a judge who helped write the law in question and had a vested interest in it being uphelad. To claim the 2nd wasn’t casually trampled over by 1942 by a fascist president is ridiculous.
“Neither did they stop lynching of blacks.”
Now that is just an outright lie. It didn’t totally stop it, but it did reduce it. There is a reason MLK’s bodyguards were heavily armed.
Interesting claims. Can you please document each of them?
Good point. Where are your own claims in the article documented?
It wasn’t a point. It was a question. If yours is a question, it is certainly a rhetorical question. Tit for tat is a childish game.
Perhaps the meme intended to suggest that the idea that “tyranny can’t happen in America” line that is commonly repeated by anti gun (as well as pro PATRIOT ACT) media outlets is invalid. The Japanese could not blend in with the rest of the population and did not have the numbers or armament to be successful. Thus, the Japanese could not have won a guerrilla war against the United States, but this does not mean it cannot be done by others without these disadvantages. It has been done many times. It is common to assert that rifles are useless against tanks, but the last few decades of history seem to suggest the opposite. Consider also that America’s military is largely made up of liberty-minded persons who would likely refuse an illegal order to violate the rights of their own countrymen. In such a scenario, law enforcement may find themselves facing the rebels alone. This, of course, does not mean that violence should be a desirable course of action, but it should be an available last resort when all else fails. Thankfully, the successful changes such as women’s’ suffrage and rights for homosexuals that you mentioned were achieved peacefully, but this is not always the case. The United States would not be an independent country without armed uprising. Many great social changes have been made peacefully, but many others have only been possible through force of arms. Even so, it is unreasonable to view armed uprising as anything but an absolute last resort and it must be avoided wherever possible. I don’t think anyone within the pro gun side should suggesting that armed uprising is the best solution to our problems.
Pingback: Interracial marriage is bad, 25 percent of Republicans say | Fraser Sherman's Blog