What's the difference between Black Lives Matter and the Oregon militia?

In the simplest similarities between the two are that both groups of protesters are taking a stand against the gov't, the authorities, basically TPTB. The two have different agendas, of course. What is amazing is the perception of both groups and how people react to them. You can see the clear line of the political paradigm but you also see how differently white people and black people are treated in this country.

BLM can be a very aggressive group of people when they protest, most notably when they rushed the platform during a Sanders rally. The media was not kind to them at all and the BLM protesters gave the MSM plenty to work with in demonizing them. They've been called thugs, terrorists, radicals, you name it. The most popular news network, Fox News, even compared them to the KKK.



Here on ATS I would dare say the majority of posts I've read whenever BLM is brought up are negative using all the words I listed about to describe them and more. A big negative association posted about BLM are accusations of inciting violence against the police. BLM was born from police brutality.

Then recently a militia led by son's of a man we've heard of before, Bundy, take over a federal building by force and they're armed. They flat out threaten the lives of any authority trying to remove them. How does the media react to them? They call them armed protesters. At this point in the thread I'd love to show you a video of O'Reilly or Hannity talking about the militia but I'll be damned if I can't find a video of it on YouTube. I can find plenty of videos of them both demonizing BLM though. Now, I'm picking on Fox News because I despise them but more importantly because they are the #1 news outlet so, and I hate to say it, their voice matters in this instance.

I did find a Hannity segment from last year interviewing Cliven and Ammon Bundy. He called them kind for allowing him to interview them.



One armed militia man dead and many unarmed black people dead all at the hands of the authorities and reactions are very different, especially on ATS. Why? Most of us here understand and agree the authorities, TPTB are out of control but the divide is not going to solve that problem, in fact it only makes it worse. And that's exactly what they want. So when can we throw our petty political differences aside, prejudices, and come together to solve this problem?

I think BLM should take a definitive stand against the BLM.

A poignant reminder of the huge amount of divisiveness in this country and throughout the world.

The Us vs Them mentality keeps us all fragmented and suspicious of each other while those with the means to do so divide and conquer, taking advantage at every turn.

a reply to: corvuscorrax

Hard to see it as a we thing when they exclude those they wish...pretty much white people. I'm sure there are some protesting under the BLM name that have their heads out of their ass and can see divisiveness only hinders us all but until the majority of them can see that and stand up to the more ignorant half I guess they will continue to draw negative comments from those around them. Also if it has to do with poilce violence why does it always come down to shouting about whitey...why can't it just be about poilce violence... Wtf have I done?

Guess all those white protestors didnt register in your mind when seeing them get arrested for black mens equality.

a reply to: RickyD

You're right it is hard.

Best to just let it be then.

a reply to: Swills

I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up this painfully obvious double standard or not. My wife and I were just talking about earlier today as we were reading some of the posts on here dealing with the standoff. I won't dwell on the details but like you I find the difference in reaction to be pretty obvious and somewhat shameful in a lot of ways.

Funny how different the reactions are from one event to another and how a particular personal bias for one side or the other blinds those on each side from seeing the other.

I also wonder how many members who typically come back with the, "Well if you don't want to get shot then don't do anything with a cop pointing a gun at you" excuse are now complaining about this militia guy being killed. But so far I've avoided finding out because the only reason to do it is to call them out on it and I'm not sure if it's even worth the trouble.

This is my two cents. I believe black lives matter. I believe the boys who set the fire should have served time. The Oregon ordeal was a bit of a bad excuse for a good reason. That being said bundy and co barricaded themselves in an obscure location and sent a list of demands to the federal government.

The black lives matter movement catches my attention every time they interrupt something else I'm trying to watch like BLM bring the ruckus.

They have a better excuse to the same good cause but it is a tactical difference that is most apparent in my eyes.

a reply to: Swills

Well, there's the fact the Bundy Bunch are "protesting" because they were told they weren't allowed to break the law anymore. Also apparently they're allowed to point rifles at federal marshals with no repercussions. Not even a stern warning. And when illegally occupying more federal land, the feds allow them to come and go as they please.

I'll bet AIM wishes they had that kind of opportunity back in '73.

By contrast, BLM is protesting against a hyper-violent police state that has been caught, more times than can be counted, literally murdering black men and women, beating them, and otherwise giving them truly inhuman treatment.

You really can't say "they're protesting the government so they're practically the same."

One can storm a government building armed with rifles and all kinds of guns and are hailed as heroes

The other stops the flow of traffic on a busy street and are labeled thugs and gangbangers

a reply to: muse7

Busy streets are we the people. Federal buildings are federal property.

Don't agress innocent and uninvolved people. I feel the struggle but it's tactics that are in the media

originally posted by: Sillyosaurus
This is my two cents. I believe black lives matter. I believe the boys who set the fire should have served time. The Oregon ordeal was a bit of a bad excuse for a good reason. That being said bundy and co barricaded themselves in an obscure location and sent a list of demands to the federal government.

The black lives matter movement catches my attention every time they interrupt something else I'm trying to watch like BLM bring the ruckus.

They have a better excuse to the same good cause but it is a tactical difference that is most apparent in my eyes.

Which boys who set the fire? The BLM who destroyed cattle and damaged ranches with their fires, or the Bundies who caused max $200 damages if any? Both of the cases seem obviously civil rather than criminal, so why do you think they are criminal cases?

One group threatens and harasses students, calling them names and slamming them up against walls getting in their faces. Stops traffic and terrifies people, while yelling racial slurs and hatred and anger at anyone and everyone, making a general nuisance and creating a bad image that is counter-productive to get what they want.

Another group has not threatened innocent bystanders on the street, but has taken over a facility OUTSIDE of the city, remotely AWAY from innocent people.

One group is trying to get their way by intimidating everyone around them, acting like animals in some cases.

One group has only threatened a specific group of people, generally, who have bigger "teeth" and "sharper" claws and laws to back them up.

Both have had member(s) killed, tho. And that is the only similarity between the two groups, aside the general distaste for the current administration, and all the people who enforce it.

originally posted by: TheTengriist
a reply to: Swills

Well, there's the fact the Bundy Bunch are "protesting" because they were told they weren't allowed to break the law anymore. Also apparently they're allowed to point rifles at federal marshals with no repercussions. Not even a stern warning. And when illegally occupying more federal land, the feds allow them to come and go as they please.

When is the last time that happened? I know the cops pointed guns at them the other day a number of times, and opened fire a number of times. You may be mistaking cops for the Bundy family.

--removed for lack of reading comprehension on my part--

a reply to: centarix

For the crimes of arson they plead guilty for. Umm a judge suspended their sentence and another said they have to go in. Legal stuff. Last I checked the brothers turned themselves in a long time ago and I'm sure that were bummed about going to jail but technically they broke the law. The rest is in the hands of the judicial system. Ummm. Have you read up on this story or are you trolling


Edit: I consider the fact they did in fact light fires in federal property the reason it was a bad excuse for a protest. They may have saved thier property but they broke the law. That is the point of civil disobedience at that. An act is good but illegal. Therefore if one does that aforementioned good but is caught he goes to jail and serves time to let everyone know he did good and is punished. Maybe laws need to change. But I'm drifting off track.

originally posted by: Sillyosaurus
a reply to: centarix

For the crimes of arson they plead guilty for. Umm a judge suspended their sentence and another said they have to go in. Legal stuff. Last I checked the brothers turned themselves in a long time ago and I'm sure that were bummed about going to jail but technically they broke the law. The rest is in the hands of the judicial system. Ummm. Have you read up on this story or are you trolling


Edit: I consider the fact they did in fact light fires in federal property the reason it was a bad excuse for a protest. They may have saved thier property but they broke the law. That is the point of civil disobedience at that. An act is good but illegal. Therefore if one does that aforementioned good but is caught he goes to jail and serves time to let everyone know he did good and is punished. Maybe laws need to change. But I'm drifting off track.

You do realize they set fire to the federal land to save their home from a fire that was already burning and on its way to their property, correct?

In essence, they were trying to save their home.

Would you do the same thing, or let the fire turn everything you have to a cinder?

a reply to: Cygnis

I would set back fires and hire a good lawyer to plead the case to the judge. Cases are won and lost. Honestly I have not read the transcripts of the trial but the men were found guilty. Do I agree with the fallout of the official story? (Yes there are alternate stories which amount to hearsay). No I do not think the men should spend ten years in jail. But was that whole thing worth a man loosing his life? I don't think so. Our actions have consequences.

originally posted by: Sillyosaurus
a reply to: Cygnis

I would set back fires and hire a good lawyer to plead the case to the judge. Cases are won and lost. Honestly I have not read the transcripts of the trial but the men were found guilty. Do I agree with the fallout of the official story? (Yes there are alternate stories which amount to hearsay). No I do not think the men should spend ten years in jail. But was that whole thing worth a man loosing his life? I don't think so. Our actions have consequences.

The issue that resulted in the men going to Oregon in the first place is that the father and son already served time for the "crime". An orginal 6 month sentence was issues and served.

Someone else came along, and looked at it, and disagreed with the initial sentence, a "Federal prosecuter" or some such nonsense. Had the served sentence changed to 10 years, after they were already released from prison for the original arson sentence.

a reply to: Cygnis

I know. Murder gets double jeopardy... Anyways we are derailing the thread.