Politics
What Happened Last Wednesday?
What we all witnessed had nothing to do with “white privilege”
What happened on Wednesday has been described in numerous ways. A riot. A failed coup. An act of white terror. An attack on democracy. Each of these framings has its strengths and weaknesses, and rigorous debate on the terms of each has rightfully ensued.
However, the notion that Wednesday’s events instantiate “white privilege” is particularly off-base.
For starters, “white privilege” is a dead-end term that has been extended so far from its original meaning when Peggy McIntosh coined it back in the 1980s that it is no longer useful as a tool of political analysis (not that it ever was, to be quite honest). As historians Adam Rothman and Barbara Fields note, “those who hope for democracy should never accept the term ‘privilege’ to mean ‘not subject to a racist double standard.’ That is not a privilege. It is a right that belongs to every human being.”
To that end, one cannot overlook the obvious fact that nearly everyone who participated in Wednesday’s events was white. And many people have correctly pointed out that had the rioters been black, they would have been shot down in cold blood.
This is absolutely true and this clear, racist double-standard should not be discounted.
However, if we end the analysis there and attribute this all to “white privilege,” we are, in my estimation, left with two critical questions that remain unanswered: first, why did they desire to do what they did in the first place and second, why were they allowed to do it?
The “white privilege” framework cannot answer either question.
To answer the first question, we must critically interrogate what the American project is. It is predicated upon many contradictions: of capital, of “race,” of settler colonialism, of imperialism, etc. The so-called “founders” understood this, as did subsequent members of the ruling class, including those who comprise that strata today. They also knew that these contradictions were sufficiently unstable as to potentially arouse the masses. So how do they account for this? “American Exceptionalism”: an imagined community whereby its inhabitants are “naturally” the greatest things on earth and born within the greatest country known to man. This myth can, for the most part, render those contradictions moot. But they do not just go away.
What happens, then, if the following contradictions — which the ruling class perpetuates — cannot be kept at bay?
Contradictions of capital: Rampant inequality; housing affordability “crises” alongside luxury constructions; “uneven” development whereby nearly all resources, what’s considered “valuable,” etc., is funneled to cities at the expense of the countryside.
Contradictions of “race”/ism: How can one exist in a nation where “freedom” is to be taken for granted, but where the enslavement of African people was once commonplace? They cannot. The answer, then, is to mark those of putative African ancestry as sub-human and, as a corollary, not deserving of equal status or treatment. Then, call them the “black race.” This “black race” is then used to legitimate the contradictions of capital. This is both the logic of racial capitalism and the motor of white supremacy.
Contradictions of settler colonialism: Entire populations are exterminated in the name of “territorial expansion,” “manifest destiny,” and all the rest of it, furthering the idea that private property must be protected at all costs, even if it has been acquired by unjust, violent or genocidal means. Which, in America, can be applied broadly.
Contradictions of imperialism: The idea that the United States is the world’s “superpower” and anybody who refuses to kowtow will suffer its wrath. Oh, except that every major “war” the ruling class has waged in the post-world war II era has been “lost,” calling into question the supposed infallibility of America’s military apparatus.
And there are many, many others.
America’s distorted brand of nationalism can only “work” as a ruse for capital, racism, settler colonialism, imperialism, etc. so long as the ruling class can keep the contradictions of capital, racism, settler colonialism, imperialism, etc. at least somewhat contained. And if they cannot do it, well…[see Wednesday]
And since capital is taken for granted — as is perpetual war, “race,” “border control,” the militarized police state, and so forth — and because many people avoid critique of America because it is “exceptional,” then how do the believers of this myth make sense of these contradictions?
They rage.
Which brings me to my second question: why were they allowed to do this? President Trump — and other members of the ruling class — enabled them to rage out of fear of what might happen if America’s chief contradiction in terms is exposed, which is that this country is not, has never been, and will never be “exceptional.”
This is the reckoning that few are prepared to have, chief among them being those who stormed the Capitol on Wednesday. And it is precisely this moral reckoning that our manipulative ruling class will continue to avoid.
No individual who hopes for democracy can allow that to happen. The dangers are too great, and the white rage is far too diffuse.
Are those committed to the idea of democracy up to the task? Time will soon tell.
