I think the center is the place where people want to live, most of the time. Where things don’t change much, and they have a sense of order in the world around them. In that sense, we don’t need them, certainly not leading anything. The “White Moderate” is a threat to things actually getting done because they don’t want change.
The best I think you can hope for is convince them that change needs to happen and I…
I’m not really sure how that happens. Because I’m finding myself running into a brick wall with my 60-year old mother and her complete white cluelessness when it comes to things like this. And I’m doing what I can, because she’s my mother and willing to listen to me. I don’t know how to drag the great mushy middle into a book-club to read “The New Jim Crow”
Exactly. A “moderate” position in America involves being uncomfortable with trans people and “All Lives Matter.” This is why getting the Centrists on your side accomplishes nothing. Our country needs a jolt of progress, because without it, we become increasingly susceptible to less loud white supremacists stealthily making their ideas appeal to people (Read: What happened to gaming culture during Gamergate).
Or even more subtle - being uncomfortable, but vaguely in favor of progressive-ish things, as long as no one is being rude about it. And ten years after some other people got loud and angry enough to take a baby step to the left, they’ll tell you they always supported them in their hearts. I can hold my bf’s hand in the street without fearing for my life because queer people had to throw bricks at cops before the country could begin to talk about whether we’re people at all.
The right apparently has it easy, because all you need to do is dress nice and everyone’s super stoked that the guy advocating a white ethno-state is so polite and handsome.
Actual centrists, anyway. Not the weird definition people seem to be using lately, which is “Anyone to the right of the platonic ideal of a utopian socialist”, so that they can sneer at the democrats as “Centrists.”
Fucking what? The Leftists are the ones demanding we stop talking about identity politics!
Shuja Haider, Bernie Sanders, Chapo trap house, Jacobin mag, TYT, you name it, at some point in the recent past we’ve had the big and respected voices of the “Leftist” faction expressing their disdain for identity politics. Katherine Cross, socialist sociologist and ex-Jacobin writer, got excluded from the leftist faction and derided as a neoliberal, because she openly supported identity politics.
Getting Centrists on your side accomplishes EVERYTHING, not nothing, because while you’re alienating them, and writing them off instead of engaging with them, the other side is there ready to use them to accomplish their own goals. We have to turn the Centrists into Progressives, or at least moderately Progressive, and the only way to do that is through patience and engagement. All new ideas get pushback. People fear what they don’t understand or don’t come into contact with, and instead of crucifying them for that, we need to reach out to them.
If you’re worried about our society becoming increasingly susceptible to less loud racists, punching Nazis and forcing them underground, whether in real life or online, creates the very environment that allows them to stealthily promote their ideas. Punching a Nazi might stop the person, but if you want to stop the ideas behind that person, you have to fight their ideas with your own. Look at what happened in Boston. There were so many counter-protesters that the actual Nazis barely even showed up. This needs to happen every time and everywhere. If the Alt-Right, the KKK, the Nazis, whomever, bring 1000 people, there needs to be 5000 counter-protestors. Ironically, denying Nazis a platform for their ideas also denies us our platform to challenge their ideas. It allows their ideas to fester and grow unchecked because we don’t know about it.
Forcing Nazis underground just makes them sympathetic and their ideas taboo and forbidden, and without a good counterargument, people, especially young people, are drawn to the taboo and forbidden.
The point of that tweet and its thread was that (white) people are focusing on antifa tactics re: convincing white people, more than structural racism.
Focusing criticism on resistance in order to be more palatable to indifferent white people is itself an act of white supremacy, centering white needs, interests, and ignorant demands as important. What I fail to see explained is why these people, who somehow haven’t made up their minds about Nazis being BAD, are so valuable, so tactical, so strategic to court. Why?? How are these lemmings useful?
Additionally, the argument hinges on tone policing. The marker of privilege is the failure to recognize that when it comes to fighting systemic power imbalance, there will always be a framing that can be used against you. Power ensures itself. In other words, you will always be too X.
If that line of reasoning convinces anyone, it’s because the rationale is retroactive.
The white moderate believes that their myopic, misinformed, and irrelevant perspective is sufficient, valid, default, and as (or more) legitimate than the lived experiences shared by a multitude of people who look different. When they talk about “people” without any racial adjectives, they mean white people. They mistake their stance for a mythical neutrality/objectivity/rationality, one that just reinforces the status quo. They take for granted and fail to recognize their own role in systemic injustice and biases that define their normality. They get defensive when confronted with their own privilege, because it’s perceived as a personal attack. They present themselves as fair arbiters, who would join your cause after you fulfill the prerequisite engagement challenge with moving goalposts.
In reality, they feel entitled to the labor spent to earn their approval. They are less interested in justice than making things about them. They would be satisfied to return to a peace ignorant of the violence which enables it, because being violent in opposing that violence is somehow worse. Hard pass.
Everything you wrote above is completely true. But you end your comment with “Hard pass.”
What’s the solution then?
Because these people vote. Because at the end of the day, this thread is about Nazis marching in America, not the UK, or Australia, or anywhere else, and as long as there’s an Electoral College, as long as each state gets two Senators, as long as the House of Representatives is capped at 435, and as long as Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices service lifetime appointments, moderates are going to be the ones playing ideological king-maker in this country.
Sure, you could live in New York or California, or another Blue State, but nationally, Progressives have to appeal to moderates, which means white people. Yes, demographically the country is becoming less White and less Christian, but unless you want to wait 20-30 years for the baby boomer generation to all die off, and even then, nothing is guaranteed with partisan gerrymandering and voter suppression, that means appealing to moderates… Or, like I wrote above, you could just want to burn the whole thing down.
Additionally, your point about white people focusing on antifa tactics instead of structural racism is also true, but as long as the media focuses on antifa tactics instead of structural racism, antifa needs to be addressed.
Finally, the article you linked to talking about Martin Luther King misses the point, at least in relation to antifa. People keep bringing up how it’s white privilege to denounce violence against Nazis, which is absolutely true, but from what I’ve seen, antifa is a predominantly white organization. Sure there are some exceptions, but basically you have a bunch of white antifa people punching a bunch of white Nazi assholes. I don’t see many POC going around promoting violence indiscriminately, just white people. I did all kinds of Google searches with various antifa search terms, and while it’s hard to tell for sure because most of the members have their faces covered, it’s almost predominantly white people (If I’m wrong about this, I genuinely want to know).
Since minorities and POC are the ones being targeted by Nazis and other Alt-Right organizations, I have to wonder, has antifa actually asked minorities and POC if they want antifa to be violent on their behalf? Maybe some minorities and POC think it’s just as counterproductive to use violence indiscriminately as much as I do.
My point is that there’s privilege on both sides of this issue. There’s the privilege of white people like me who don’t want to use indiscriminate violence, and there’s the privilege of the predominantly white antifa people who think they have free reign to fight Nazis however they want. Nowhere in your post about privilege is a discussion of what strategies and tactics are actually most effective. Let’s have THAT discussion. I can be myopic and exposing my white privilege to not want to use violence, but if that’s the tactic that works best, that’s the tactic that should be used.
…
And so I come to this – white liberal Christian friends, I’m talking to you. I’ve seen a lot of condemnation of “violent response,” lots of selective quoting Dr. King, lots of disparagement of antifa and the so-called “alt-left,” a moral equivalency from the depths of Hell if I ever saw one. You want to be nonviolent? That is good and noble. I think…I think I do, too. But I want you to understand what you’re asking of the people who take this necessary stance against white supremacy, the people who go to look evil in the face. You’re asking them to be beaten with brass knuckles, with bats, with fists. To be pounded into the ground, stomped on, and smashed. You’re asking them to bleed on the pavement and the grass. Some of them are going to die. And you’re asking them to do that without defending themselves.
…
Short answer: yes those conversations are happening, and I agree that it’s important that they do. And yes, white antifa are using their plot armor for people without it. Go to a BLM event instead of googling.
I’m not saying to burn it all down. But that if white “moderates” aren’t convinced already, it’s a more efficient use of time and effort restoring non gerrymandered voting rights, or enabling voting access to POC who don’t need convincing. Or hell, contributing to outreach and education groups. Tone policing just feeds the both sides narrative that white moderates eat up. Flippantly: let’s just hire a PR firm since the Nazis have one already.
Also, if you really want to be non-violent, trust law enforcement & justice system, and still want to help, become a legal observer. I’m not sure what good it will do anymore since we are in the GRRM timeline, but it’s good to have.
For (hopefully) the last time, no one on this forum is saying that people can’t defend themselves when they’re met with violence. No one is asking anyone to just stand there and be beaten. Why is this so hard to understand?
I agree with you that it may be the more efficient use of time and effort, but that doesn’t mean that moderates can be ignored. Our system of government is set up to favor the rural areas of the country over the urban ones. Unless there’s a major shift in where progressives live, moderate whites will always have some measure of political power due to where they live and how spread out they are, instead of being clustered in specific areas
Without being too flippant myself, this reminds me of all those bad memes on Facebook where someone is arguing that we shouldn’t take care of refugees because there are American veterans who are homeless and need help. Eventually, someone always writes the comment: “Why can’t we do both?” And that’s my answer to you. Why can’t we do both? We can focus on restoring non-gerrymandered voting rights and enabling voting access to POC AND reach out to moderates. Why does it have to be an either/or dichotomy?
The legal observer thing is a great idea, thanks for mentioning that.
Antifa is just like almost any other organization – there will be a percentage of goons among them who are just looking for an excuse to start a fight, whether or not that fight is legitimate or not. I mean, some of them (or at least goons who claim to be part of them) beat up a journalist. Whether the media is overplaying the percentage of goons vs. the broader goals of Antifa is certainly an issue that needs to be discussed, however.
To those Antifa who aren’t specifically looking for a fight and basically act as “human shields” for counter-fascist protests, I applaud you. I hope you only escalate to violence when absolutely necessary, and I assume that by and large you do.
Sometimes, like in the Boston example, all it takes is a large enough show of strength in numbers to show the Nazis that they are not welcome and will not be tolerated. Other times, unfortunately, yes, you may need to get more violent. I’m certainly more in favor of the former, but not philosophically opposed to the latter if necessary.
I’m not saying not to reach out to white moderates (if you’re a masochist). Why you think I’m responding here lol. I’m saying that the “antifa violence makes it harder to convince white moderates who could be super helpful” line is unhelpful backseat activism and pretty questionable considering.
Side note, There are contradictory narratives of violence at protests, sometimes using completely irrelevant photos. What white moderates choose to believe will reflect their existing biases, gravitating towards whiteness and authority. That antifa is being presented as violent without nuance by government officials and media, and that people believe that is what convinces me it is a PR problem, rather than a fundamental issue with the movement.
Additionally, if violence in self defense is acceptable, what form/level of violence is ok to defend against? State violence? Threats and incitement? Is only the targeted individual free to engage or can they enlist proxies? Is it acceptable to respond on another’s behalf to fatal or debilitating violence? Is there a statute of limitations after which we wait until another person is hurt/killed? When others side with the aggressor, are they acceptable targets? I’m saying that Nazi advocacy is violence. The ideology hinges on violence. Why wait for nazis to do what they are threatening to continue doing, and have a record of doing, especially if afterwards moderates will pop out of the woodwork to condemn any response. I’m saying this is all self defense, from a collective standpoint, if not an individual one.
The only issue upon which I was undecided was whether or not it was ok to punch nazis, “in cold blood” as it were. In hot blood I’ll punch many a person. (was because I defined my position above, totes cool to punch nazis specifically in cold blood)
If we’re now talking about whether or not antifa is a force for good or not, this is open and shut. duh of course they’re a force for good, they’re vital for standing up to nazis in hot blood, especially when others won’t.
On the violence of antifa that’s really all that need be said.
Want real criticism? How about the fact that antifa isn’t super cohesive about what they want. If we’re gonna make a movement out of counterprotesting, how about some well defined goals. Something like an exception to the first amendment condemning and lawfully revoking the free expression of nazism a-la Germany?
Have some smart legal mind write that up, and have some people with signal boosting power get the word out, and put it on antifa signs, to be shown at counterprotests.
I definitely think the street medics would benefit from some form of organization / adopting a respectability performance like journalists have… Just so they don’t get pulled off by LE while doing CPR. Hopefully. Also, since they adopted the face mask and camel colors, they were hard to find in a crowd. In Boston, pkerr & I had a sign with a red cross, for this reason.
None of the concern trolling from the white moderates has done anything more than show that they care more about their own hurt feelings and the evil system that upholds white supremacy than the conflict necessary to actively proiritize the safety of the communities directly threaten by Nazis and their reactionary enablers. Most of the white people accused of appeasement here simple played victim as if their imagined slight is worth more than the actual lives being threatened by Nazi goons. It just shows that white moderates will always prioritize order over justice. They aren’t going to lift a finger to defend me and mine when the murderous hordes of Nazis approach. Though I have my political disagreements with anarchists I would rather have the occasional faults of people that are willing to fight side by side with me than the verbal support of people frozen in the ice of their own indifference. Most of the anarchists that I know are people of color, and the casual erasure displayed here by these white moderates just shows that their faux concern is just a mask to divide and conquer, as if white people making the conversation all about the small contingent of white people that make them feel bad isn’t the whitest thing you could be doing right now.
