Tag Archives: oregon

The Day I Knew I Was White

Leave a reply

“My dad says in a few years they’ll outnumber us white folks.”

Another 5th grade boy jerked his head towards the Asian kid walking near our small circle at recess, quickly lowering his voice. The others nodded gravely, pulling closer. I scanned from face to face and a queasy knot twisted my stomach. These other boys were not friends, yet suddenly I’d been included in a special club simply by sharing their same skin color. It was clearly shameful, why else did everyone look so nervous? Even silently participating left me feeling nauseous as the other youths switched topics, laughing awkwardly, then moving on without me.

Seattle, much like the wider Pacific Northwest in the mid 1980s, hardly felt like a place where whiteness was threatened. Only a small handful of Black students attended our large school. Classes were scattered with Asian children and a few Native ones too. White kids formed the vast majority and many retained proud cultural affiliation with European nationalities. Our neighborhood of Ballard was a historic Scandinavian enclave… people joked that it was the last place left where Swedes and Norwegians still hated each other.

Grade school allowed limited political conclusions. We learned European colonists were brave pioneers, simply bringing civilization to new lands. For Thanksgiving, our classes dressed up in construction paper Indian costumes and acted out pageants welcoming white settlers. Yet, as a voracious reader, I knew better… about chattel slavery, civil rights struggles, and Native American genocide. Martin Luther King Day was only first observed nationally in 1986, perhaps not coincidentally the same year my schoolmates felt their whiteness under peril.

Over subsequent decades, progress crawled forward. Despite qualms from conservatives that social equality would destroy America, capitalism grudgingly found diversity acceptable. I remember some leftists predicting that future anti-war movements would contend with inclusive flavored imperialism that showcased transgender pilots bombing hospitals while femme combat soldiers waved rainbow flags.

October 12, 2025: children playing in the smoking ruins of war torn Portland (according to President Trump)

But that didn’t happen. Instead, fascism under Trump Pt. II now features state power unleashed against immigrants and citizens of color, while offering preferential treatment to white asylum seekers. Transgender soldiers forced out of the military with no retirement benefits, even after lengthy years of service. National Parks removing historical markers commemorating resistance against slavery. Federal troops ordered into American cities to combat imagined insurrections while lists of dangerous words are sent out for removal by agencies and nonprofits. One banned in my workplace providing mental health services for youth, including victims of child sex trafficking? EQUITY.

Another banned word: GENDER

In 5th grade I didn’t speak up against racism but adults have no excuses. Excluding others because of who they are is wrong. Erasing uncomfortable history to avoid reality is weakness. Persecuting immigrants of color while welcoming white ones is hypocrisy. Turning the US military against Americans is a crime. Perhaps someday I will live in the minority, but as a white man who doesn’t need government troops propping up my place in the world. No social status is worth the shame of state power forcing others down below me.

O2A Opposes Oregon Measure 114

Leave a reply

My brief article below will appear in the official Oregon voter pamphlet opposing Measure 114 during the upcoming elections this November. I currently have a GOFUNDME to help offset that considerable expense.

Rising Fascism Makes Community Defense Necessary

Between 2005-2010, I published a ‘zine called American Gun Culture Report. My writers were overwhelmingly folks of color, LGBTQ and others who owned firearms because they cared about community defense and knew the violent history of gun control being used to disarm persecuted populations. 

Since those years, I have been contacted by countless individuals sharing stories about using guns to resolve dangerous situations. Typical were examples close to me. One friend pointed her shotgun at a man who broke into her house, scaring him away, and another friend recently drew his pistol on a knife wielding man attempting a gay bashing attack, holding him until police arrived. In none of these cases were shots fired and a firearm ended the confrontations peacefully. 

Many people told me they kept such stories themselves, because there is such a harmful stigma connecting guns with conservative politics. There are easily available statistics about firearms being used for terrible acts, yet none documenting how often they save lives. However, just a brief look at American history demonstrates the important role armed defense has played, from the Appalachian Mining Wars to Mississippi Civil Rights struggle. In more recent times, I have provided firearms training out in rural parts of Oregon where immigrant communities exist under regular threat from Right wing groups and law enforcement is distrusted or simply unavailable.

But gun violence finally touched my life. Last February, a dear friend was shot and almost killed at the hands of a fascist mass shooter who opened fire on a peaceful police accountability protest at a Portland park. One woman died and several others were wounded before antifascist security used their AR-15 to quickly stop him. If Measure 114 were in effect, my friend and many others would surely be dead.

Before voting, please consider all the consequences.

Thank you for your time.

Ross Eliot

I will write a more comprehensive article detailing problematic issues with Measure 114, but in brief they are:

  1. Police issued permits – Currently any Oregonian who passes an extensive background check through the federal NICS database can purchase firearms. 114 gives cops complete power to create their own secondary system, keep files on individuals and deny applicants using their own criteria. Given abuses widely documented among law enforcement, this would create an environment ripe for further corruption. Police could easily restrict permits to preferred individuals and deny others without oversight to determine if people from particular racial or ethnic groups, religious backgrounds, LGBTQ status or political affiliations were being screened out. It’s particularly alarming given the open collusion often seen between cops and militant fascist groups, not to mention the high domestic violence rates among officers, making them even more suspect in determining who should be allowed self defense rights.
  1. Magazine restrictions – 114 bans magazines over ten rounds, which eliminates those used in the majority of firearms. It allows those already owned, but as there is no realistic way to document when, perhaps decades old purchases took place, this further gives the police questionable power. To provide perspective, there are currently millions of magazines over the limit in Oregon . Most gun violence either involves suicides or under ten shots being fired, so this law makes very little practical sense, other than making community defense more difficult.

SB 554 and the Self Defense Collateral Damage

1 Reply

I currently work for a low-income housing non profit. While being part of an industry that helps people in our community is rewarding, this regularly puts myself and my co-workers in contact with individuals experiencing crisis, whether mental health or substance abuse related. Despite occasional tense moments, we do our best de-escalating confrontations and negotiating solutions as best we can. Very rarely does anyone get hurt.

One exception took place several years ago at an apartment complex in our portfolio. A male resident barged into the leasing office with a baseball bat and struck the building manager over the head, knocking her unconscious. He then ran out and began assaulting other people nearby. Amidst this chaos, the manager recovered enough to retrieve a can of mace from her purse. She bravely intercepted the assailant and sprayed him down, incapacitating the man until police arrived. 

Once she returned from a brief hospital stay, co-workers and residents congratulated this woman for quick thinking and resourcefulness that certainly prevented more serious injuries. Yet, our official corporate response was more subdued. An all-staff email reminded everyone that our employee agreement prohibited self defense instruments on company property. As one might imagine, this included firearms, but also pepper spray and electric tasers. 

At the time, this sparked consternation, with several building managers openly declaring they would rather be fired than leave themselves defenseless. They pointed out how violent abusers stalk victims in many locations, workplaces included. Some women mentioned personally surviving domestic assault and how keeping a taser or pepper spray nearby was simply how they lived their lives now. Leaving self defense tools at home would create huge gaps in their personal safety… not just on site, but during commutes, plus any side trips or appointments along the way.

A damage control email quickly made the rounds, promising all field offices would soon have panic buttons installed under the desks. Some employees grumbled, pointing out any response would still be delayed, but in general, this declaration calmed things. After a couple months, I checked in with some managers, asking if their offices were set up yet. They grimly reported no. Perplexed, I questioned the head of maintenance, inquiring about progress. He responded vaguely, reporting that details were still being ironed out and assured me I’d be kept in the loop. More months went by…then years, and that was the last anyone heard about panic buttons as far as I’m aware.

So, what does this have to do with gun politics? Well, laws ostensibly regulating firearms sometimes reach much further than expected, just like workplace rules. Oregon Senate Bill 554, recently passed by the legislature reads:

166.370. (1)(a) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony. 

The term “weapon” is defined by listing an array of objects including:

(c) Mace, tear gas, pepper mace or any similar deleterious agent as defined in ORS 163.211; (d) An electrical stun gun or any similar instrument; 

Now, as everyone should be well aware, laws are not enforced equally. Regarding my earlier example, during an all-staff meeting following that incident, the head of HR reminded everyone about our policy against self defense items. I glanced over at one of the building managers who earlier voiced disagreement and sure enough, sitting on the table in front of her glinted a can of pepper spray clipped onto her key ring. Nobody said a damn thing.

It seemed moderately hilarious at the time, but looking back, highlights how privilege and bias play out. This building manager was a white woman, well regarded at our nonprofit after years of service, and clearly felt little concern over breaking a major company regulation while preserving her own sense of security. I absolutely support her in doing so, but also wonder about my other co-workers, Black and Brown women with similar safety concerns, yet less confident in their employment, who make personal risk equations every day. Which is more endangered right now? Their life or their job?

Likewise, as more locations adopt policies prohibiting many people’s self defense options, already marginalized populations necessarily feel the pressure more. Several years ago I received a tearful phone call from a friend in another city. She was sheltering in a public library after running from a man who had sexually assaulted her nearby. It seemed like an easy decision, but what if she had a mace canister buried in her backpack? Under SB 554, instead of finding sanctuary, she could now be a felon for violating laws promoted to the public as reducing gun violence. While my white co-worker might feel secure in authorities giving her a pass on that, in this case my friend hiding from her assailant was a Black woman, too afraid of the police to call 911.

None of these complications are discussed in major media accounts of SB 554. Instead it’s described only as a bill to mandate safe storage of firearms and allow greater restrictions on where guns can be carried. It’s understandable why people are concerned about these issues. Firearms remain a hot commodity for theft, and while hindering access in emergency situations is problematic, greater numbers locked up securely will hopefully reduce unauthorized access. Likewise, as someone who has faced down armed fascist groups on the streets many times, I understand more than most the knee-jerk impulse to ban firearms from public places. 

Being a butch white man, personal safety is rarely a concern for me. Potential predators detect a hard target and cops see a buddy they’d probably enjoy some beers with. Yet among many women- or any less physically intimidating individuals, daily life often resembles an anxiety ridden obstacle course… taking inconvenient routes around dark streets, staying alert for signs an abusive ex is back in town or checking in with friends during dates. Large numbers of people I know habitually carry self defense spray. It’s unlikely anyone would support limiting their ability in doing so, yet SB 554 has done this with virtually no discussion. We can argue about gun control… but when the safety of our most vulnerable neighbors is compromised as a byproduct, only dangerous abusers benefit.