[News] Trump Says Go Back, We Say Fight Back
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Wed Nov 16 11:07:40 EST 2016
http://bostonreview.net/forum/after-trump/robin-d-g-kelley-trump-says-go-back-we-say-fight-back#.WCuggdG6I2o.facebook
*Trump Says Go Back, We Say Fight Back*
Robin D. G. Kelley
Nov 15, 2016
If we are to keep the enormity of the forces aligned against us from
establishing a false hierarchy of oppression, we must school ourselves
to recognize that any attack against Blacks, any attack against women,
is an attack against all of us who recognize that our interests are not
being served by the systems we support. Each one of us here is a link in
the connection between antipoor legislation, gay shootings, the burning
of synagogues, street harassment, attacks against women, and resurgent
violence against Black people.
—Audre Lorde, “Learning from the 60s”
Donald J. Trump’s election was a national trauma, an epic catastrophe
that has left millions in the United States and around the world in a
state of utter shock, uncertainty, deep depression, and genuine fear.
The fear is palpable and justified, especially for those Trump and his
acolytes targeted—the undocumented, Muslims, anyone who “looks”
undocumented or Muslim, people of color, Jews, the LGBTQ community, the
disabled, women, activists of all kinds (especially Black Lives Matter
and allied movements resisting state-sanctioned violence), trade unions.
. . . the list is long. And the attacks have begun; as I write these
words, reports of hate crimes and racist violence
<https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/11/over-200-incidents-hateful-harassment-and-intimidation-election-day>
are flooding my inbox.
The common refrain is that no one expected this. (Of course, the truth
is that many people did expect this, just not in the elite media.) At no
point, this refrain goes, could “we” imagine Trump in the Oval office
surrounded by a cabinet made up of some of the most idiotic, corrupt,
and authoritarian characters in modern day politics—Rudolph Giuliani,
Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, John Bolton, Ben Carson,
Jeff Sessions, David “Blue Lives Matter” Clarke, Joe Arpaio, to name a
few. Meanwhile, paid professional pundits are scrambling to peddle their
analyses and to normalize the results—on the same broadcast media that
helped deliver Trump’s victory by making him their ratings-boosting
spectacle rather than attending to issues, ideas, and other candidates
(e.g., Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein). They deliver the same old
platitudes: disaffected voters, angry white men who have suffered
economically and feel forgotten, Trump’s populist message represented
the nation’s deep-seated distrust of Washington, ad infinitum. Some
liberal pundits have begun to speak of President-Elect Trump as
thoughtful and conciliatory, and some even suggest that his
unpredictability may prove to be an asset. The protests are premature or
misplaced. All of this from the same folks who predicted a Clinton victory.
This election was a referendum on whether the United States will be a
straight, white nation reminiscent of the mythic “old days” when armed
white men ruled.
But the outcome should not have surprised us. This election was, among
other things, a referendum on whether the United States will be a
straight, white nation reminiscent of the mythic “old days” when armed
white men ruled, owned their castle, boasted of unvanquished military
power, and everyone else knew their place. Henry Giroux’s new book
/America at War With Itself/
<http://www.citylights.com/book/?GCOI=87286100277470> made this point
with clarity and foresight two months before the election. The easy
claim that Trump appeals to legitimate working-class populism driven by
class anger, Giroux argues, ignores both the historical link between
whiteness, citizenship, and humanity, and the American dream of wealth
accumulation built on private property. Trump’s followers are not trying
to redistribute the wealth, nor are they all “working class”—their
annual median income is about $72,000. On the contrary, they are
attracted to Trump’s wealth as metonym of an American dream that they,
too, can enjoy once America is “great” again—which is to say, once the
country returns to being “a white MAN’s country.” What Giroux identifies
as “civic illiteracy” keeps them convinced that the descendants of
unfree labor or the colonized, or those who are currently unfree, are to
blame for America’s decline and for blocking their path to Trump-style
success.
For the white people who voted overwhelmingly for Trump, their candidate
embodied the anti-Obama backlash. Pundits who say race was not a factor
point to rural, predominantly white counties that went for Obama in 2008
and 2012, but now went for Trump, and to the low black and Latinx voter
turnout. However, turnout was down overall, not just among African
Americans. Post-election analysis shows that as a percentage of total
votes the black vote dropped
<http://www.phillytrib.com/news/black-voter-turnout-a-look-at-the-numbers/article_49d1aed9-76be-550e-b063-15ad7639dc97.html>
only 1 percent compared with the 2012 election, even while the number of
black ballots counted decreased by nearly 11 percent. (Why this happened
is beyond the scope of this essay, but one might begin with Greg
Palast’s findings <http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/>
about voter suppression and the use of “crosscheck” to invalidate
ballots.) Moreover, claims that nearly a third of Latinxs went for Trump
have been disputed by the website Latino Decision
<http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2016/11/09/the-rundown-on-latino-voter-election-eve-polling-and-latino-exit-polls/>,
whose careful research puts the figure at 18 percent. The turnout does
not contradict the fact that Trump drew the clear majority of white
votes. This is not startling news.
If history is our guide, “whitelash” usually follows periods of expanded
racial justice and democratic rights. In the aftermath of
Reconstruction, there were many instances in which southern white men
switched from the biracial, abolitionist Republicans to the “redeemers,”
whether it be the Democrats or, in states like Texas, the “White Man’s
Party.” (No ambiguity there.) Or in the 1880s and ’90s, when white
Populists betrayed their Black Populist allies in a united struggle to
redistribute railroad land grants to farmers, reduce debt by inflating
currency, abolish private national banks, nationalize railroads and
telegraphs, and impose a graduated income tax to shift the burden onto
the wealthy, among other things. Many of these one-time white “allies”
joined the Ku Klux Klan, defeated the Lodge Force Bill of 1890 which
would have authorized federal supervision of elections to protect black
voting rights, and led the efforts to disfranchise black voters. Or the
late 1960s, when vibrant struggles for black, brown, American Indian,
Asian American, gay and lesbian, and women’s liberation, the anti-war
movement, and student demands for a democratic revolution were followed
by white backlash and the election of Richard Nixon—whose rhetoric of
“law and order” and the “silent majority” Trump shamelessly plagiarized.
“Whitelash” usually follows periods of expanded racial justice and
democratic rights.
Of course, Hilary Clinton did win the popular vote, and some are
restoring to the easy lament that, were it not for the arcane Electoral
College (itself a relic of slave power
<http://people.uncw.edu/lowery/pls101/wilson_chapter_outlines/The%20Proslavery%20Origins%20of%20the%20Electoral%20College.pdf>),
we would not be here. One might add, too, that had it not been for the
gutting of the Voting Rights Act opening the door for expanded
strategies of voter suppression, or the permanent disfranchisement of
some or all convicted felons in ten states, or the fact that virtually
all people currently in cages cannot vote at all, or the persistence of
misogyny in our culture, we may have had a different outcome. This is
all true. But we cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of white
men and a /majority of white women/, across class lines, voted for a
platform and a message of white supremacy, Islamophobia, misogyny,
xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-science, anti-Earth,
militarism, torture, and policies that blatantly maintain income
inequality. The vast majority of people of color voted against Trump,
with black women registering the highest voting percentage for Clinton
of any other demographic (93 percent). It is an astounding number when
we consider that her husband’s administration oversaw the virtual
destruction of the social safety net by turning welfare into workfare,
cutting food stamps, preventing undocumented workers from receiving
benefits, and denying former drug felons and users access to public
housing; a dramatic expansion of the border patrol, immigrant detention
centers, and the fence on Mexico’s border; a crime bill that escalated
the war on drugs and accelerated mass incarceration; as well as NAFTA
and legislation deregulating financial institutions.
Still, had Trump received only a third of the votes he did and been
defeated, we still would have had ample reason to worry about our future.
I am not suggesting that white racism alone explains Trump’s victory.
Nor am I dismissing the white working class’s very real economic
grievances. It is not a matter of disaffection /versus/ racism or sexism
/versus/ fear. Rather, racism, class anxieties, and prevailing gender
ideologies operate together, inseparably, or as Kimberlé Crenshaw would
say, intersectionally. White working-class men understand their plight
through a racial and gendered lens. For women and people of color to
hold positions of privilege or power /over/ them is simply unnatural and
can only be explained by an act of unfairness—for example, affirmative
action. White privilege is taken for granted to the point where it need
not be named and can’t be named. So, as activist/scholar Bill Fletcher
recently observed
<http://billfletcherjr.com/2016/quick-reflections-november-2016-election/>,
even though Trump’s call to deport immigrants, close the borders, and
reject free trade policies appealed to working-class whites’ discontent
with the effects of globalization, Trump’s plans do not amount to a
rejection of neoliberalism. Fletcher writes, “Trump focused on the
symptoms inherent in neoliberal globalization, such as job loss, but his
was not a critique of neoliberalism. He continues to advance
deregulation, tax cuts, anti-unionism, etc. He was making no systemic
critique at all, but the examples that he pointed to from wreckage
resulting from economic and social dislocation, resonated for many
whites who felt, for various reasons, that their world was collapsing.”
Yet Fletcher is quick not to reduce white working-class support for
Trump to class fears alone, adding, “This segment of the white
population was looking in terror at the erosion of the American Dream,
but they were looking at it through the prism of race.”
Racism, class anxieties, and prevailing gender ideologies operate
together, inseparably, and intersectionally.
A /New York Times/ poll
<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html>
shows that Trump supporters identified immigration and terrorism, not
the economy, as the two most important issues in the campaign.
Immigration and terrorism are both about race—Mexicans and Muslims. That
there are “illegal” immigrants from around the globe, including Canada,
Israel, and all over Europe doesn’t matter: anti-immigrant movements
target those who can be racially profiled. And while Trump’s America
fears “terrorism,” it does not disavow homegrown terrorist organizations
such as the Ku Klux Klan, despite the fact that white nationalist
movements are responsible for the majority of violent terrorist attacks
on U.S. soil. On the contrary, Trump was not only endorsed by white
nationalists and U.S.-based fascists, but during the campaign he refused
to renounce their support, and Trump’s leading candidate for attorney
general, Rudy Giuliani, has openly called
<http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/07/11/fox-rudy-giuliani-doubles-down-claim-black-lives-matter-inherently-racist/211477>
Black Lives Matter “terrorists.”
So where do we go from here? If we really care about the world, our
country, and our future, we have no choice but to resist. We need to
reject a thoroughly bankrupt Democratic Party leadership that is calling
for conciliation and, in Obama’s words, “rooting for [Trump’s] success.”
Pay attention: Trump’s success means mass deportation; massive military
spending; the continuation and escalation of global war; a conservative
Supreme Court poised to roll back /Roe v. Wade/, marriage equality, and
too many rights to name here; a justice department and FBI dedicated to
growing the Bush/Obama-era surveillance state and waging
COINTELPRO-style war on activists; fiscal policies that will accelerate
income inequality; massive cuts in social spending; the weakening or
elimination of the Affordable Care Act; and
the partial dismantling and corporatization of government.
What must resistance look like? There are at least five things we have
to do right now:
*1. /Build up the sanctuary movement/.*
In the 1980s, when nearly one million refugees fled U.S.-backed
dictatorships in Guatemala and El Salvador, churches offered shelter,
sanctuary, and assistance to those seeking political asylum, and over
thirty cities were subsequently designated “sanctuary cities” by their
local governments. The Obama administration’s deportations of
undocumented workers rebooted the sanctuary movement, along with a
vibrant immigrant rights movement that pushed the president to use
executive authority to launch the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA) program and the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and
Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). Trump has vowed to end both programs,
leaving some five million immigrants vulnerable to deportation and
identifiable through their applications, and he has promised to
immediately cut all federal funding for sanctuary cities. To those who
argue that millions of undocumented people are not “political refugees,”
I counter that Trump’s war on immigrants is driven entirely by his quest
to take power—they will become casualties of his political machinations.
Some states have already outlawed the longstanding principle of
sanctuary status, but this should not deter us from strengthening and
expanding the sanctuary movement to other institutions. For example,
many of us who work in the University of California system are working
to turn our campuses into sanctuaries—preferably with legal and
administrative backing. But even without the law behind us, we must act
on moral principle.
*2. /Defend all of our targeted communities./*
We must defend against hate crimes, Islamophobia, anti-black racism,
attacks on queer and trans people, and the erosion of reproductive
rights. There is no need to reinvent the wheel since there are already
hundreds of organizations across the country dedicated to the fight,
including INCITE: Women of Color Against Violence
<http://incite-national.org/>, Radical Women
<http://www.radicalwomen.org/index.shtml>, the Immigrant Solidarity
Network <http://www.immigrantsolidarity.org/>, the Praxis Project
<https://www.facebook.com/The-Praxis-Project-47086345822/>, the Praxis
Center <http://www.kzoo.edu/praxis/>, CAAAV: Organizing Asian
Communities <http://caaav.org/>, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant
Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) <http://www.chirla.org/>, the African
American Policy Forum <http://www.aapf.org/>, the Network Against
Islamophobia
<https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/topics/network-against-islamophobia/>,
and Causa Justa <http://cjjc.org/>, to name only a few. One of the main
targets of attack, of course, is the Movement for Black Lives
<http://action.movementforblacklives.org/>, along with the dozens of
organizations upon which it was built—Black Lives Matter, the Dream
Defenders, Million Hoodies, Black Youth Project 100, Malcolm X
Grassroots Movement, We Charge Genocide, and Black Organizing for
Leadership and Dignity (BOLD), among others. We need to support these
movements and institutions, financially and by doing the work. And we
must defend the political and cultural spaces that enable us to plot,
plan, build community and sustain social movements. Here in Los Angeles
this means spaces such as the L.A. Black Workers Center, the
Labor/Community Strategy Center and its new community space, Strategy
and Soul, the L.A. Community Action Network, the Southern California
Library for Social Studies and Research, the Community Coalition, and
Revolutionary Autonomous Communities, among many others. In New York we
can point to Decolonize This Place; in Detroit, the Boggs Center; in St.
Louis, Organization for Black Struggle, and so on. There are literally
hundreds of centers around the country building for local power, and
while none were immune to state surveillance in the past, we can expect
heightened monitoring and outright attacks under this extreme right-wing
regime. Now is not the time to retreat to our identity silos. We need
solidarity more than ever, recognizing that all solidarities are
imperfect, often fragile, temporary, and always forged in struggle and
sustained through hard work. In our state of emergency, political
disagreements, slights, misunderstandings, and microaggressions should
not prohibit us from fighting for peoples rights, privileges, and lives.
*3. /Stop referring to the South as a political backwater, a distinctive
site of racist right-wing reaction/.*
First, white supremacy, homophobia, and anti-union attitudes are
national, not regional, problems. Second, black and multiracial groups
in the South are at the forefront of resisting Trump’s authoritarian
agenda and building power outside the mainstream Democratic Party. Among
them are Project South <http://projectsouth.org/>, Southerners on New
Ground (SONG) <http://southernersonnewground.org/>, the Moral Mondays
Movement, Kindred: Southern Healing Justice Collective
<http://www.kindredhealingjustice.org/>, Jackson Rising
<http://www.cooperationjackson.org/announcementsblog/2016/8/9/jackson-rising-the-struggle-for-economic-democracy-and-self-determination-in-jackson-mississippi>
in Mississippi, Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) in Louisville,
Asian Americans Advancing Justice in Atlanta, and the Georgia Latino
Alliance for Human Rights.
The frontline battles that preceded Trump’s election must not be
abandoned. On the contrary, they need to be strengthened. We must
redouble our fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline and support the
Standing Rock Sioux Nation’s historic resistance. There is no question
that Trump’s election has further empowered the corporation behind the
pipeline—the Texas-based Fortune 500 company Energy Transfer Partners—to
continue the build no matter what the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or
the Obama Justice Department says. We need to recognize Standing Rock as
not only a struggle for environmental justice but an episode in Native
people’s five-hundred-year resistance to colonialism. And speaking of
colonialism, the crisis in Puerto Rico has not abated—not in the least.
As I write, Puerto Ricans on the island and in the U.S. mainland are
using every means at their disposal to resist PROMESA
<https://pasquines.us/2016/09/20/as-promesa-is-implemented-protests-begin-in-puerto-rico/>,
the U.S. plan that empowers a seven-member, unelected board to impose
austerity measures as a way of restructuring its debt—measures that
include wage reductions, selling off public assets, altering retirement
plans for public employees, and fast-tracking changes even if they
violate existing laws.
*4/. Support and deepen the anti-Klan and anti-fascist movement./*
We must especially support groups such as Southern Poverty Law Center
<https://www.splcenter.org/>, which has been on the frontlines of this
movement for decades. Although the fight against white supremacist
organizations has been continual since the 1860s, the federal government
has never successfully outlawed the Klan and similar vigilante groups
(although in the 1950s the state of Alabama succeeded in outlawing the
NAACP). With Trump’s election we are likely to see a surge in white
nationalist and other right-wing terrorism, including attacks on black
churches, synagogues, mosques, abortion clinics; and against non-white,
queer, and trans people and immigrants. Some on the left will argue that
resisting the so-called “alt-right” is a secondary issue since these are
fringe movements and building class unity across racial lines ought to
be our priority. But with the memory of Colorado Springs and Charleston
seared into our memory, this argument rings hollow. And while President
Obama’s poignant rendition of “Amazing Grace” at Reverend Clementa
Pinckney’s funeral moved much of the nation, the truth is that it is
easier to pass laws criminalizing organizations that support the boycott
of businesses and institutions complicit in Israel’s illegal occupation
of Palestine than it is to outlaw the Ku Klux Klan.
*5. /Rebuild the labor movement/.*
As obvious as this may seem, the entire labor movement is under attack
on a global scale. Today labor unions are portrayed as corrupt, bloated,
a drain on the economy, and modern-day cartels that threaten workers’
“liberty.” Corporations and the CEOs who run them are portrayed as the
most efficient and effective mode of organization. In our neoliberal
age, emergency financial managers are sent in to replace elected
government during real or imagined economic crises; charter schools
organized along corporate lines are replacing public schools;
universities are being restructured along corporate lines with
presidents increasingly functioning like CEOs; and a businessman with a
checkered record, a history of improprieties and legal violations and
allegations of sexual assault, and no experience whatsoever in
government is elected president.
Today’s economic debates focus not on alternatives to capitalism but on
what kind of capitalism—capitalism with a safety net for the poor or one
driven by extreme free-market liberalization? A capitalism in which the
state’s role is to bail out big banks and financial institutions, or one
where the state imposes (or rather restores) greater regulation in order
to avoid economic crises? In both of these scenarios, a weakened labor
movement is a given. The once-powerful unions are doing little more than
fighting to restore basic collective bargaining rights and deciding how
much they are going to give back. Union leaders are struggling just to
participate in crafting austerity measures. In the New Deal era, the
state’s efforts to save capitalism centered on Keynesian strategies of
massive state expenditures in infrastructure, job creation, a social
safety net in the form of direct aid and social security, and certain
protections for the right of unions to organize. All these measures were
made possible by a strong labor movement. There was a level of militant
organization that we did not see in our post-2008 collapse, in spite of
Occupy Wall Street. While Occupy was massive, international, and built
on preexisting social justice movements, it lacked the kind of
institutional power base and political clout that organized labor had in
the 1930s. Of course, labor unions have also been powerful engines of
racial and gender exclusion, working with capital to impose glass
ceilings and racially segmented wages, but the twenty-first-century
labor movement has largely embraced principles of social justice,
antiracism, immigrant rights, and cross-border strategies.
Obviously there is much missing here, like abolishing the Electoral
College and continuing to wage a fight for local power in the
legislative and electoral arenas as well as in the streets. Local
campaigns to raise the minimum wage, for example, have not only produced
key victories but served to mobilize people around issues of injustice
and inequality. The sites of resistance will become clearer as the
political situation becomes more concrete, especially after January 20.
Exposing whiteness for what it is—a foundational myth for the birth and
consolidation of capitalism—is fundamental if we are to build a genuine
social movement.
But I want to return to the white working class and how we might break
the cycle of “whitelash.” First, we cannot change this country without
winning over some portion of white working people, and I am not talking
about gaining votes for the Democratic Party. I am talking about opening
a path to freeing white people from the prison house of whiteness. True,
with whiteness comes privilege, but many of the perceived privileges are
inaccessible to most, which then generates resentment. Exposing
whiteness for what it is—a foundational myth for the birth and
consolidation of capitalism—is fundamental if we are to build a genuine
social movement dedicated to dismantling the oppressive regimes of
racism, heteropatriarchy, empire, and class exploitation that is at the
root of inequality, precarity, materialism, and violence in many forms.
I am not suggesting we ignore their grievances, but that we help white
working people understand the source of their discontent—real and imagined.
Is this possible? The struggle to recruit the white working class is an
old story. Black movement leaders have been trying to free white working
people from the paltry wages of whiteness since Reconstruction, at
least, and it seems to always end badly. This history is not necessarily
legible because we tend to conflate populism and fascism with what Henry
Giroux astutely identifies as authoritarianism. Populism is the idea
that ordinary people ought to have the power to control their government
and their communities, especially along lines that benefit the
collective. In the 1880s and ’90s, the black populist movement adopted a
vision of a new society based on cooperative economics. The great writer
and activist Timothy Thomas Fortune gave their unique vision eloquent
voice and plans for action in his book /Black and White: Land, Labor and
Politics in the South/ (1884), which offered a path for the emancipation
of the nation as a whole, not just black people. He attacked America’s
betrayal of Reconstruction, identified monopoly and private ownership of
land as the central source of inequality, and articulated a vision of a
democratic, caring political economy based on equity and fairness. The
National Colored Alliance members had advanced beyond printing more
money or demanding free silver, adopting instead a more radical
redistribution of wealth and power. They wanted more than a short-term
alliance just to raise wages for picking cotton or reducing debt. But
Fortune understood that a genuine cooperative commonwealth is not
possible unless white workers and farmers join the movement. “The hour
is approaching,” he wrote, “when the laboring classes of our country,
North, East, West and South, will recognize that they have a /common
cause/, a /common humanity/ and a /common enemy/; and that, therefore,
if they would triumph over wrong and place the laurel wreath upon
triumphant justice, without distinction of race or of previous condition
/they must unite/!” Whatever unity they managed to create proved
ephemeral. As in so many other scenarios, most whites chose white
supremacy over liberation.
The lessons here are crucial. We cannot build a sustainable movement
without a paradigm shift. Stopgap, utilitarian alliances to stop
Trump aren’t enough. I concur with Giroux, who calls on all of us to
wage “an anti-fascist struggle that is not simply about remaking
economic structures, but also about refashioning identities, values, and
social relations as part of a democratic project that reconfigures what
it means to desire a better and more democratic future.”
--
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
863.9977 www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20161116/934bbdd1/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list