Good Neighbors in the Wild West
According to Lee W. Minikus after he made a routine stop of a drunk driver the perpetrator’s mother went berserk and sparked the flame that fueled the 1956 Watts Riots. In an article in today’s L.A. Times he also remembers that during the riot three militant organizations put a bounty on his head, but the good neighbors of his multicultural neighborhood protected him by standing guard with rifles on their front porches. I wonder if that would happen today.
it would in my neighborhood. maybe. i think.
ma ma j
11 Aug 05 at 8:23 pm
In my neighborhood, Carol stands guard anyway. The postal carrier and the Sparkletts deliverer always tries to get to me or Randy but NOOOOOO! Our good ol landlord stops them straight, with her 10 cats as backup.
Kristi
12 Aug 05 at 7:52 am
I heard a radio show a while ago about the history of the old LA gangs (crips, etc) and they had similar beginnings (except for the offending sides were reveresed). They were established to defend against oppression by whites, both the violence of KKK-type groups as well as just the general population, which at the time had legally backed (and enforced by the police) discrimination policies and laws to prevent blacks from owning property or moving into neighborhoods. They did eventually turn to fighting each other, except for a notable period (after the Watts riots) in which many of the members became much more politically minded (and united) in opposition to the oppressive practices of the LAPD. After the civil rights era of the late 60’s and early 70’s the unity began to break down again, and fighting between the groups resumed.
Later of course, these groups devolved into less noble operations, some would say inevitably, based on the foundations of violence that they were established upon. So, I guess the question of whether these kinds of formations are a good thing or not is debateable.
Then you also have groups that take this concept to sickening extremes, standing guard on the borders with rifles, threatening to actually shoot people who aren’t even physically threatening them.
So, I guess the answer is yes, it probably would happen today, in all sorts of twisted and less respectable forms. As for the seemingly more “pure” example you gave above, it’s difficulat to imagine people these days being involved with their neighbors; it doesn’t seem to happen that much anymore.
JaredB
12 Aug 05 at 10:19 am
the constitution guarantees our rights to form a militia, but local police see gangs as a threat and prevent them from playing legitimate, important rolls within their communities. they view any congregation of ghetto youth as dangerous and show up in their riot gear, shooting tear gas. as a result, gangs go underground and perform functions which end up being harmful to the communities they are originally intended to serve. it all starts with drug sales (let’s not even get into where the drugs come from) as a way to bring money into the community, but soon the dealer become the junky, buyers become limited, and rivalries evolve. instead of fostering a positive militia, we label gangs as destructive and write off ghetto communities as lost causes. fighting gangs is unconstitutional.
nstryker
13 Aug 05 at 12:04 am
I love that Minikus’s neighbors were willing to put their lives on the line to protect him. I can totally see that happening in Prescott, especially since so many people are packing heat. It defiantly has a wild west feel to it.
As for border patrol by civilians, I don’t really think that its comparable to the Watts situation. I also don’t think it is sickening operation. I guess what I’ve seen and read about them is different than what Jared has heard. The patrols, especially in Arizona, save lives. So many immigrants die out in the dessert. At least if they are spotted and reported to immigration they have a second chance to improve there lives. I recently read an article about a search for a Mexican national who went missing in the dessert below Tucson and in the process of looking for her, 40 other bodies were found. It breaks my heart and only emphasizes how much I have to be thankful for!
Sorry Nate I know I’m off topic but I couldn’t help it.
Kristen
13 Aug 05 at 1:32 am
I agree more with an opinion article, printed on the same day as above article, which claims that violent street gangs got to be where they are not because of their origins of violence, nor because they were pushed underground unconstitutionally but because of the communities’s over-reliance on welfare.
Nate
13 Aug 05 at 6:43 am
Now we’ve heard the progressive, anarchist, and conservative opinion on the origins of the modern street gang. Yeah!
Nate
13 Aug 05 at 6:51 am
it seems like as long as we can put people into groups (gangs, communities, militia, ghettos, whites, blacks, cops, youth, neighborhoods, etc.) it is easy to evaluate the problems, sum it all up and make a reaonable assessment of the problem. of course we don’t see many good solutions coming for the problems discussed here: drugs, gangs, peole dying in the desert, riots, oppression, and violence. i’ve got an idea… it’s called PERSONAL responsibility.
how about teaching a message to every individual that says, “The way YOU would like others to treat YOU, that’s how YOU should treat others.” Stop blaming this group and that group and start being personally responsible, honorable and integrous. yeah, i know. way to simplistic. that’s true. but, tell that to Jesus. and besides that, history lessons ( tainted by the opinions of the person giving the lesson) and social programs aren’t working. not here or in other countires.
ma ma j
13 Aug 05 at 7:25 am
Regarding the border patrol groups, from interviews I’ve heard (both from them in their own words and others), they aren’t out there to save lives, their out there to prevent people from coming into the country, under threat of violence if necessary (otherwise why would they have guns?).
This is the part that is sickening to me - the willingness to KILL someone who is not endangering you in any way. Also, I’ve also heard interviews with groups who *DO* actually try to save lives out there, by trying to bring water to the people in the desert, and these groups have often run into opposition from the gun-toting border watchers, who have intimidated them and tried to prevent them from bringing the water. I think it’s wrong to claim that the gun toting border watch groups are out there to save lives; if anything it’s the opposite.
As for personal responsibility, I’m all for that, but that’s not a complete solution for cases like this (or at least it depends on the definition of “personal responsibility”). If certain groups (or just individuals) are engaging in activities that are hurting other people, people must speak out against them, and there should be laws in place to address the situations in which some people do not care to abide by personal responibility standards. I also think that personal responsibility not only means treating others as you would like to be treated, but also being proactive in doing good things (even for people who don’t deserve them), and opposing / speaking out against other people who are doing bad things.
What do you mean by history lessons and social programs not working? I’m not saying this is what you’re saying, but I often hear arguments against helping the poor which focus on “personal responsibility” and the fact that their problems are their own to deal with. For my opinion on that flawed thinking, see my comments in this post. If that’s not what you meant, then nevermind.
JaredB
13 Aug 05 at 11:47 am
Maybe I was’t clear in my presentation but I would agree that the civilian border patrol groups are not there to save lives. My point is that they are there to report illegal immigration to official border patrol and in the process save lives. I personally would rather get deported than die of thirst and starvation out in the desert. I have more to say but I will leave it for tomorrow. I know you just can’t wait!
Kristen
13 Aug 05 at 10:30 pm
First, I want to say to Nate, how cool it is that you can post a blog and then the conversation can take these wonderful twists and turns and before you know it, we’re way off the subject you started. Isn’t that what America is all about! Hee hee!
I believe in helping the poor (both by contributing money and by our own personal actions) and I believe in stopping bad people from doing bad things. However, in a world of differing philosphies, the word “bad” takes on different meaning. For example, I think killing unborn children is bad. But there are others who think that dictating what a female does with “her own body” is bad. So now we are both bad and both need to have laws to stop us. But I’m sure you can see by now, that societies don’t seem to be elevating themselves to higher and loftier value systems. (as you can see in America. There are laws to CONTROL the abortion protesters, and laws to PROTECT the ones who want to kill the babies. And as you can see from the Judge Roberts debate, to be anti-abortion puts a black mark on your record these days.) Societies seem to degenerate. Get harder to manage. I think this is because our social problems don’t have anything to do with money, or food, or shelter. They have to do with our hearts and our relationship with God. And as hearts who are turned against God gather together with other hearts who are turned against God, trouble starts to brew.) I’m sure you agree that if we ALL lived the golden rule, then we ALL would be co habitating happily dispite locusts, tidal waves, earthquakes and fires. Unfortunately it’s not just one of us who chooses not to live by that rule. It’s the majority. Actually, all of us at one time or another.
It may sound like overspiritualizing or too idealistic, but I do not think that the ills of any society or group will be healed until there is a spiritual awakening that turns individual hearts to God. Is that too much to ask? That every person on the whole face of the earth (and all the aliens too) all bend their knee in submeission to God and his ways?
But I’m all for helping those in physical need. I personally believe in helping the poor, the fatherless, the widows. The Bible mandates it. I’m not so confident that government social programs have helped much. Check out the inner cities . (and lets not get into race here). Lot’s of welfare, unemployment, housing assistance, disability funding, free education, free health care, free rehab programs, foster care is flowing into those areas. Yet, still lots of violence and crime of every sort. Why? (please don’t tell me it’s the white man’s fault) And look at the people groups around the world who recieve care and aid over and over and over. If it ws going to bring lasting change, you’d think something would be different by now, don’t you think? I believe the problem is, we can’t mandate spiritual revival, and that’s the only thing that will help.
I guess we just have to do our part to love and care for every individual that God bring into our lives. I’m feeling convicted now. Gotta go repent.
ma ma j
14 Aug 05 at 7:36 am
Honestly, not that cool, but I won’t stop anyone.
Nate
14 Aug 05 at 7:57 am
I think it stayed pretty on track; Nate’s the one that brought up welfare, though.
While I agree that ultimiately such a turn towards God is the only thing that will make a true difference in someone’s life, I also acknowledge the fact that as a society it’s unrealistic to expect that to be the solution to these kinds of problems. Not that it shouldn’t be a goal, but Jesus said pretty clearly that the road is narrow and few will find it, and that the world we live in will always have problems (until this period of time is over).
I think you are right in a way, in that the answer does lie in God, but I would say that there has to be an adjustment of the goal; it’s not to produce a perfect society (since scripture tells us that will not happen), but it’s for those who know him to live in a way that gives hope to those that don’t have it, and leads them closer to Him. So, you are right when you say that in the end we just have to do our part in loving, caring, etc.
As for helping the poor and what role government should play in that, I’d agree with some points, but not in others. Sure, it would be ideal if the government didn’t need to help the poor because the church was being generous like we should, but the fact is that isn’t happening, so…
Also, just because there are innefficiencies in the government processes doesn’t mean they should be scrappped altogether, they can be reformed. But the last thing that annoys me about people saying (not saying this is you guys) that its not the government’s job is that they also usually talk a lot about how the people who receive the help are just screwed up more because of it, etc, etc, so they aren’t really for the church doing it instead, they’re kind of arguing that the help shouldn’t be given.
It’s kind of like the position that you shouldn’t give money to homeless guys because they’ll just buy boose with it. I’m glad God doesn’t think like that when he hands out mercy and grace to us over and over, even after we’ve proven that we will only waste it.
JaredB
14 Aug 05 at 1:43 pm
Nate, I promise not to talk about this anymore after this.
Jared,
true. true. true.
But, i don’t think you realize how much money “the church” does use for humanitarian projects. Although i think ALOT (I’m talkin’ ALOT!) of the so-called tithe goes into buildings, decorations, salaries, retirements, retreats, etc., I think there is an awful lot of money flowing out of the church into things like orphanages, starvation relief, missionaries, education, etc. But probably, like everything else, there is only about 10% of all Christians doing the giving. But like you already said, Jesus said that we will always have these things, so maybe no matter how much we give, it’s never going to go away.
I would never think that this absolves us of giving or doing. I think that if God says give the homeless guy $$, then it is not my business to know what he’s going to use it for. That’s God’s business. My responsibility is to give the guy the money.
ma ma j
14 Aug 05 at 2:33 pm
I don’t agree that the minute men are toting guns around to intimidate migrants with violence and I question even more their willingness to kill just because someone is coming into the U.S. illegally. The guns are to protect themselves from drug traffickers and immigrant traffickers (coyotes). I know for a fact that the coyotes often take everything the immigrants have and then leave them out in the desert to die which indicates to me that they probably would have no problem taking the life of a boarder patrol officer, civilian or otherwise. I am guessing the drug traffickers are of the same character. I have also heard of groups that patrol unarmed but that was a while ago and don’t know if they are around anymore.
Civilian boarder patrol has been going on ever since i lived in Tucson seven years ago and probably before that. The minute men have just brought a lot of attention to the situation lately and from what I understand that was the whole point. Their activities are temporary and are trying to shed light on the fact that a better way of managing migration along the U.S. southern border is needed. I have not seen or heard anything that indicates anti-immigration or racism on their part motivating them to act violently. As for them hindering the implementation of water stations and stuff I would be interested in reading any articles or broadcast you know of. I’m too lazy to look for myself.
I will say that I don’t necessarily agree that they should be out there due to messing up the real boarder patrols normal activities, but what do I know?
Kristen
14 Aug 05 at 4:04 pm