Last month, Talking Points Memo published three letters from its readers about guns and gun culture. Two of them deal with guns in a post-apocalyptic world, one of them specifically about the zombie apocalypse. The first was Readers on Guns #2, which deals directly with a theme I explored in Zombies meet preppers on ‘Fear the Walking Dead’ Season 3 on my own blog — racism as a motivation behind prepping for the zombie apocalypse.
I know that a lot of the rhetoric from the pro-gun crowd revolves around “protection from tyranny,” but my sense is that the “tactical situation” they are mostly thinking about is more lurid than that. You sometime hear them talking about the “zombie apocalypse” or more generally some sort of “social breakdown,” where their stockpiles might form the basis of a protective arsenal. Are they really worried about zombies? Of course not. That’s just a wink-wink, nod-nod.
Follow over the jump for the rest of this letter and all of the next.
The worry is even worse than anything the writers of “Fear the Walking Dead” writers came up with as a motivation for the Ottos and the rest of the survivalists at Brokejaw Ranch.
The tactical scenario the gun-crowd is thinking about is swarms of n___ers flooding out of the cities — perhaps after a natural disaster or some riot promoted by the Black Panthers or BLM or something. Their vision is some combination of Nat Turner’s rebellion, the Watts riots, and gangs engaged in “wilding.”
Obama’s election resulted in a frenzy of gun-buying, not because they suddenly thought the government would seize their guns, but rather because of a vision of Obama leading an army of “inner city” people to loot, rape, and otherwise dispossess whites.
Anyway, that is the “tactical scenario” they are planning for.
Not only are these guys racists, they’re dumb racists with lurid imaginations.
Readers on Guns #3 riffs on the use of “tactical” while describing a post-apocalyptic or post-collapse world, with or without zombies.
Creative Writing MFA candidate here, with some further thoughts on the word `tactical’ as it seemst o be used/intended in current gun culture. These are mostly implicit in the point made by your earlier reader but:
`Tactical’ is, as your reader points out, something of an epidemic usage in modern gun culture. Partly this just looks like an infectious marketing usage-it’s easier to sell a Tactical Widget than a regular old widget, and once your competitor is selling Tactical Widgets you’d better be selling them too. But it’s precisely these kind of seemingly-dead usages we’ve got to be most careful of-thoughtless language fills in gaps where we prefer not to have to think about our thinking.
So what’s really happening with `tactical’-well, for starters `tactical’ is fundamentally an oppositional term. A tactic is an action you take in contact with an enemy. It’s supposed to give you some kind of an advantage relative to their movements or operations. It’s notable that we’re almost always thinking of a human-or at least a reasoning-enemy. One doesn’t need tactics to shoot ducks or deer-only humans. It’s also worth noting that the conventional (and marketing) usage of tactics refers to situations that are more or less evenly matched-situations where a different type of stock or sight might make a difference. What specifically isn’t tactical is the common fantasy of armed revolt: a tactical widget isn’t much use against a bombing run. Or maybe it’s better to say that the fantasy of armed revolt only becomes tactical when it also recruits the fantasy of mass military mutiny. A tactical conflict-a tactical society-is a society where the social contract has completely collapsed. It’s a society that consists entirely of competition between consumer-sized groups of vigilantes.
But in addition to referring to a human opposition, the idea of the tactical refers to the idea that violence between these human factions is basically meritocratic-a tactic, after all, is a good idea. It’s a maneuver, a stratagem. `Luck is the residue of design,’ a tactics-consumer might say-and by buying so many tactical widgets they intend to be the luckiest. A world defined by tactics is a Darwinian world. The smartest and best-practiced survive (become warlords?) and the soft, secular liberals get what they deserve. This is a desire that’s increasingly prominent in modern right politics-the sense (wrong or right) that Our Tribe is the best and most deserving, and that all society is doing is keeping us from expressing the dominance we really ought to. This is the same thread that’s behind Trump’s GOP-standard `That makes me smart’ attitude about tax evasion, and probably that underlies much of the recent private-jet contretemps.
It’s unclear whether `tactical’ as a marketing term predates the (seemingly recent) prominence of these associations with `tactical.’ But it is clear that the world we’re ushered into by this use of tactical is one we probably don’t very much want to live in.
Not only do these people want to shoot their fellow Americans, they want civilization to collapse as well so they can reduce human organization down to a size they can manage. This Crazy Eddie does not approve.
Originally posted at Crazy Eddie’s Motie News.
kind of fascinating. Had a few conversations with friends who study pop culture over the years – mostly historians, but also some folks in anthro and comm. The impression I get is that you can get a good deal of info about what a society (or subset of society) is afraid of by what sort of horror media (films, television series, books, etc.) are popular at any given time.
From my standpoint, it was not much of a coincidence that zombie films took off (the sheer quantity of those released each year has been enormous and may only now be leveling off) around the time that it became obvious that the demographics in the US were changing, and that economic forces way beyond our control were changing (and arguably threatening) ways of life that had been taken for granted – add fears of pandemics to the mix just for kicks. Mainly I see a zombie flick and fear of Other jumps out as an obvious theme in many of them. The better of the films and shows have used a zombie apocalypse as a vehicle to shine a light on a racist undercurrent that afflicts our society as a demographic shift is happening, as well as the collapse of the social fabric caused by income inequality and social inequality more broadly (the late George Romero’s various films come to mind).
I found the Walking Dead franchise fascinating in part because the original series is set in rural America, which is in many ways struggling. Until recently, it’s been quite a hit in my little red corner of the US. The social fabric of rural America is in decay to the point of collapse, and the zombies represent the feared Other that will come to dominate and finish off treasured norms and mores once and for all.
Sometimes I see some interesting variations on the theme. The alternative ending to I am Legend suggested that in the aftermath of the equivalent to a zombie apocalypse, some form of coexistence and understanding was possible. Romero’s Land of the Dead can be potentially interpreted in that regard as well.
Okay, I know. I tend to overthink the whole zombie thing, and am a bit of a fan. Shaun of the Dead is still a favorite, because it is quite meta. Also Zombieland – as corny as it was, it was quite good at poking fun at racist tropes in pop culture (the zombies often get portray not much differently than the various native islanders faced by Gilligan and his friends, for example, especially in the climactic last scene at the theme park), as well as the culture of casual violence that seems to be so much a part of our pop culture.
“The impression I get is that you can get a good deal of info about what a society (or subset of society) is afraid of by what sort of horror media (films, television series, books, etc.) are popular at any given time.”
Your impression is absolutely correct. I’ve been studying zombies as a pop culture phenomenon and collecting other people’s observations like the ones above for most of this decade. I summarized most of the reasons I support for the popularity of the zombie apocalypse in horror in Zombies meet preppers on ‘Fear the Walking Dead’ Season 3: “the rural-urban disconnect, the fear of urban hordes ravaging the countryside, a lack of faith in progress, a not so subtle racism, and a desire to shoot their fellow Americans.” The rest I posted in Discovery News on World War Z: “Who needs a imaginary zombie plague when a very real flu pandemic combined with mass riots against a background of crumbling infrastructure could produce the same response, if not much the same result?” Ebola works even better than flu for this purpose. A reporter for Frontline on PBS said of an incident he covered that “It was like watching a Zombie movie.”
I can go on and on about zombies. A fellow blogger called me an expert on them. Too bad it’s on a topic that only exists in fiction.
There was a heated MetaFilter debate on whether the gun crowd’s preparations for “zombies” was code for urban minorities.
It seems pretty cut and dried to me that it is.
Yes, but also their non-prepper neighbors, who might want to “freeload” off their supplies. Communitarians, these people are not.