Given your basic point of view, this is about as reasonable as you could be. I still dispute the whole analytical hypothesis. The only reason there are not more blacks involved in the "Sagebrush Rebellion" is because of institutional racism created by, imo, socialists of the late nineteenth century.
Mormons, as well as blacks and American natiives, were deliberately excluded, bureaucratically, from homestead opportunities.
We we still have institutional racism, and I look at it as the social construct of socialists trying to manage society to their advantage, essentially balkanizing people into "special" groups based on oh, national origin or physical appearance or anything else that can serve the weak-minded and impressionable boobtubers and 'net cruisers as the intellectual drive-by fast food du jour.
If you have to use the word "race" to describe a common human problem in dealing with unfamiliar folks.... let's call them "strangers".....you're really bastardizing the discussion. Sure we have all kinds of differences. Sure we don't just warm up right away at a lot of unfamiliar ideas, behaviors, cultures, or beliefs.
We can write all the laws we need to eliminate inequities in the government's application of the law without referring to any subgroups except "citizen" or "non-citizen". Sure Hillary, Obama and the revolutionary pseudo-Marxists among us might dream of open borders, but that amounts practically to anarchy, complete lawlessness. People are starving in Brazil, and Venezuelans are dying hiking through the jungles to get there.... We have a whole lot of failied "socialist" countries.
Socialism of every variety fails because it is pure fantasy, wood liquor sold to the masses by the few who hope to be the big weanies of the world. Hillary and Obama and a lot of elected guvmint officials who've been down for the ride with "progress" have made themselves filthy rich doing the business of guvmint. Look at McConnel and Pelosi. Look at Harry Reid and his son Cory in Nevada.
The Bundys were making claims a lot of people are not familiar with, dating their grazing rights clear back to before we had any federal claims on the land. Clark County, NV was part of Arizona territory before 1890, part of California before the Mexican war, and there was a cattle grazing grant from the Spanish. The Bundys argued that it was not the Fed's business to regulate what was never theirs. Clark County was the proper place where the grazing rights were recorded, and that is where the Bundy's wanted to pay whatever grazing assessment.
Harry Reid and son Cory were trying to make a lucrative deal, cutting themselves in on the largess, by running the Bundys off their land and clearing the place for miles and miles of solar panels.
BLM is violating every professed claim to managing the land and resources to conserve natural values like scenery and wildlife to be signing of on that kind of deal. It is corrupt politics because Harry Reid leaned on his buddys in the BLM office to get them to take action against the Bundys rather than resolve the dispute in the courts.
The Bend, Ore. ranchers were similarly targeted by an influential politician who pointed to the area and more or less said... "Clear'em Out. Me and my Chinese business partners have a great deal"
Anyways, Red, I think if you want the archaeological sites preserved and studied, you should take a good hard look at these politicians. All of 'em.
Last edited:
