OPINION | When the revolution comes, I’m gonna be right there
On May 2, 1967, 30 young Black men and women, clad in black leathers and berets and armed to the teeth, marched into the California State Capitol building in Sacramento. Then-Gov. Ronald Reagan happened to be giving an interview on the lawn when they approached, and he ran like a rabbit.
Of course, no one was after him. These men and women belonged to the Black Panther Party, and they were exercising their right to openly bear arms. They brandished rifles, pistols and bandoliers of ammo strapped across their chests.
Summarily rounded up, they were stripped of their weapons and arrested by the police. But they weren't breaking any laws. Gov. Reagan then passed a law banning open carrying of arms in most public places in California. From that one incident, several Black Panthers in the Bay area were harassed, maligned and jailed throughout the rest of their lives.
Fast forward to 2009: We actually have groups of White folks showing up to presidential events and town-hall meetings armed to the teeth. They openly carry assault weapons and wear pistols on their hips. This has never happened under any previous presidential administration.
Why does this new development coincide with the tenure of our first Black president of the United States? I say that it's precisely because of that fact.
Gil Scott-Heron once said that the revolution will not be televised. I agree. It certainly feels like hostilities and tensions are rising to a boiling point when people who happen to be White are allowed to carry weapons openly to political events without repercussion. At the same time they're bringing hate signs, comparing Barack Obama to Hitler, and misquoting Thomas Jefferson to justify a call to arms.
Folks in the "scream media" are talking about taking their country back. Back from whom? They say things such as, "This isn't the country imagined by our Founding Fathers or the Constitution of the United States." The subtext being, this isn't the country where I was a n***er or considered three/fifths of a human being. Most importantly, this isn't the country where the president is supposed to be White.
Yet, I take you back to 1967. The Black Panthers were jailed for exercising their legal right to bear arms. Maybe that's because it was never supposed to be legal for Blacks to ever have arms. After all, what would happen if a subjugated population had the weaponry to overturn their subjugation? Might there be a revolution?
Which brings us to health care. There are 45 million uninsured Americans. They truly have the right to be angry. What happens the day they realize that and decide to exercise their right to bear arms?
The revolution will not be televised.
Right now, many of us have the luxury of working our jobs, coming home, turning on the TV, and observing the latest rantings coming from Idiot America. But what happens when it isn't on TV anymore but instead is right out on your front lawn?
Remember, the revolution will not be televised.
Locally we're grappling with budget cuts in the City of Minneapolis. The mayor says that everyone must feel the pain, so that may include cuts to the Civil Rights Department. I will argue that Blacks and other marginalized and disenfranchised populations have always felt the pain, even when others didn't know that pain existed. As Malcolm X once said, "When America catches a cold, Black America gets pneumonia." The Civil Rights Department is sometimes the only buffer of protection that vulnerable populations have - especially if super-empowered White folks feel that they can intimidate by openly carrying firearms.
The irony here is that all of this happens at a time when we have a very rational and even-tempered president currently presiding after eight tumultuous years under the leadership of a gun-toting cowboy.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for the Second Amendment and so is Barack Obama. After all, he recently signed a bill into law that expanded the right to carry in national parks. I personally believe that every adult should have the right to legally defend themselves with firearms in their own homes.
But when people start openly carrying weapons with hostile attitudes, that's when they have my attention. I'm in it, whether I want to be or not. Come to think about it, there aren't any prohibitions against openly carrying weapons to community meetings.
So if hostilities are amplified, I don't want to be caught sleeping and neither should you. If you don't like the revolution that's brewing, register your discontent. Don't let the lunatics take over the asylum. If you want health care, make your voices heard. If you don't want cuts to the Civil Rights Department, voice your concerns to your council members and the mayor. Otherwise, the loudest voices will tend to rule the day.
Just imagine if groups of people wearing Islamic attire were openly carrying weapons to political events. You already know what would happen. Hell, imams can't even pray in airport terminals. Why do some White populations get a pass?
It's time for all progressive communities to raise our collective voice against idiocy. Otherwise, I fear that it will all come down to armed combat. If some craziness goes down and the right-wing nuts start coming after my friends and family - White, Black, Asian, Latino, Native and LGBT - as a means of self-defense I'm gonna be right there with guns in the air and a beret on my head.
Ralph Remington is the Minneapolis 10th Ward city council member. He welcomes reader responses to Ralph.Remington@ci.minneapolis.mn.us.
| Support people-powered non-profit journalism! Volunteer, contribute news, or become a member to keep the Daily Planet in orbit. |
The Free Speech Zone offers a space for contributions from readers, without editing by the TC Daily Planet. This is an open forum for articles that otherwise might not find a place for publication, including news articles, opinion columns, and announcements. 
Comments
Revolution: Misleading article
Why do you state that only "white" people are legally and openly carrying guns at Obama events? Why no comment about some of these peaceful armed people being black? You are trying to create a false stereotype. Why no comments about CBS reporting on this and cutting out the parts of the image that show some to be black, implying that they all are white?
Why only refer to Obama as black anyway? Isn't he just as white as he is black? And, weren't 90% of the people who got him elected white?
Hmmm. Facts and such. They get so much in the way of your racist article.
(By the way, I disagree with these people protesting in this way at these events. And, with the dissimilar actions of the Black Panthers too.)
Hypocrit!
Apparently, you are of the belief that having a weapon present, automatically guarantees the owner of said weapon will shoot someone, every single time. Based on your position, therefore someone who likes children must always be a pedophile, someone who takes a drink always drives drunk, women who are equipped to be a prostitute are automatically engaged in prostitution.
Where does your studpidity end?
You compare a group who espouse left wing, socialist and communist mantra's, who's radical and sometimes violent history is well documented, to law abiding citizens! Your example though is also to the extreme in that it fails to document the then combined persecution by government and police to harrass, discredit, and pressure the Black Panthers movement as they were described then as the biggest threat to National Security at that time. They werent as history shows, their idea's of equality, no more free hand by police brutality, etc, that is what was dangerous to those in charge, idea's! That is what law abiding gun owners and the Black Panther party have in common, an idea that threatens the power of the government, and it is what scares the bejesus out of the media as well.
This is where the similarity ends though as the Black Panthers were trying to change the way civil rights were applied to the black people of the US. Law abiding gun owners however are applying their affirmed inherent rights, not their civil rights as you sublimely suggest, therefore your example is rather irrelevant. Unless of course you intended to try and intimidate the law abiding gun owners as to what happens to people when their idea's dont match the governments psoition eh?
Your opinion is neither a nice try nor anything resembling reasonable discourse. Your opinion is just another fear mongering article that by perception is all part of the biased media extremist rhetoric of the minority who are the control freaks fearing when they are reminded that the US Constitution GUARANTEES their affirmed right to bear arms!
Then again, nothing happened at those meetings did it? No it didnt, so again, what were you trying to point out in your fear mongering extremist rhetoric that tried to compare a civil right versus a constitutionally affirmed right?
response to "When the Re volution Comes...
Mr. Ralph Remington expresses concern for black people: "if superempowered White Folks feel that they can intimidate by openly carrying firearms" to a presidential address. Further, in what certainly sounds like bigotry to many, he illustrates by saying: "...people who happen to be white are allowed to carry weapons openly to political events without repercussion." Racism, again? Maybe, but one of the most striking examples of gun-totin' protesters (i.e legal in AZ) was a photo (taken from behind) of an Obama protester, wearing a starched white shirt, openly carrying an AR-15 over his shoulder and a holstered handgun at his side only a block away from a presidental address given in Phoenix, AZ by Mr. Obama. Media wonks - and, given the tone of this article, Mr. Remington, as well - assumed the protester was white and jumped on this like a duck on a June bug. File this under: "you can't make up stuff like this". Much to their chagrin it turns out he "happens to be" a black man, pro-2nd Amendment and anti-Obama; but "no repercussion". Get over it, Mr. Remington. This ain't the 60s. It's 2009 and the president's black! Is this a great country, or what?
IF the revolution comes...
Well, in the famously featured (and higly cropped) photo of the demonstator in Phoenix, the man toting the AR-15 happened to be black. The point being that gun control itself isn't about guns, it's about control. All across the old South, and a good part of the rest of the nation, gun control laws were passed after Reconstruction, as a component of Jim Crow. You want to carry a gun 24/7? Good on yer! That is the difference between a citizen and a serf.
I have several political issues that are near and dear to my heart, including Federalism. One of the goals is to produce a gov't roughly equivalent to the U.S circa 1890. It should matter far, FAR more to the average citizen who your county commissioner is than who the POTUS is. The difference today for minorities would be a vast swing in public opinion, and vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
Now come on in- the water's fine. 8)
Contradictory Much?
You say you support the Second Amendment, and that Obama does too, but then your article bashes the protesters for exercising that right. Huh? What kind of sense does that make?
Even if the actions of the Black Panthers were equally legitimate to the actions of the people at Tea Parties and such (I don't know, I haven't done thorough research of the Black Panthers yet, but it's on the list), injustices against them is no excuse for injustice against others.
You claim that all the hatred of Obama stems from racism, but if that were true, these protests would have gotten started up much earlier after his election, even possibly before he got elected.
On the other hand, the protests didn't get off to a good start until AFTER Obama passed the "Stimulus Package," started trying to shove "health-care reform" down our throats, and ran the national deficit into the trillions.
One more thing. You accuse us of misquoting Thomas Jefferson.
"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive."
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Seriously, how do you misunderstand that?
The idiocy
"It's time for all progressive communities to raise our collective voice against idiocy."
I would counter that it's time for all Americans, regardless of political leanings, to raise our voice against the idiocy. You, however, seem more intent on continuing the idiocy... Perhaps you could explain why an armed black man is excercising his rights, but an armed white man is trying to intimidate blacks?
While I'm elated to see that you've recognized victim disarmament as idiocy, it would appear you still have a few more issues to work through.
Right wing crazies
"If some craziness goes down and the right-wing nuts start coming after my friends and family - White, Black, Asian, Latino, Native and LGBT - as a means of self-defense I'm gonna be right there with guns in the air and a beret on my head." I'm glad to hear that you'll be armed if any craziness starts. But the craziness in our country transcends party lines. There are people in DC that are just plain crazy, regardless of political affiliation. You evidently consider the right wing the crazies. Not true. They are all crazy in politics. Oh wait, I see you are in politics, heh. And if you get your way I'm sure we'll all be disarmed. No more left/right paradigm. It's all about Freedom.
ignorance on parade
Mr. Richardson, If the revolution comes it will be from your side.
Our side may instigate a restoration. That's right, a restoration of the constitution as the supreme law of the land and applied to all citizens.
There is nothing progressive about your position. Oppressive would be a much better description of it. Or are you totally ignorant of history, and especially the history of gun control in this country and its ignoble genesis.
That's right, its genesis was ignoble. It was designed to keep freed blacks de facto slaves by denying them the tools of liberty and self defense. If you had any integrity at all, which you certainly haven't displayed, you would have researched the issue well before you posited such utter crap as thought or concern for equality of all of America's citizens. You might have discovered the role The Deacons for Defense played in keeping the black community safe through the willingness and ability to use arms against bigots and marauders who would and had harmed that community. Look it up. One of our brightest public servants, Condaleeza Rice, remembers her father being one of the Deacons that stopped the violence against that particular community. That is progress, not the pap you have so sloppily and thoughtlessly written.
Your policy may achieve equality, but making everyone slaves and helpless livestock to be sheared and butchered at the herdsmen whims and desire for profit is not an equality any sane man would want. Sane people would much rather achieve equality by empowering everybody to be free and able to rely on self for defense. Uh huh, even minority folks. We want them all to be equally free. You want them all to be equally subjugated.
WHEN the revolution comes
Perhaps you weren't aware, but the LBGT community already has a group. www.pinkpistols.org
HAHA
let's be honest, when the revolution comes you are going to be on the wrong side. It's not about you vs us, it's about The People vs The Government. They seek to divide us, and people like you fall for it every time.
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were once our countrymen.” ~ Samuel Adams
Post new comment