,
11 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
My presentation at #APSA19 was the 1st time I presented my work on white supremacy publicly. I got several Qs as to whether we really need white supremacy to explain variation in responses to terrorism. Here's why I insist on using the term. 1/
1. White supremacy is more than skin color. It's a system of institutions and practices so deeply embedded in our society that we're trained not to look for it if we're white. It is a system that privileges not only skin color, but also behaviors... 2/
...that we've decided are associated with skin color. POC who behave "like whites" receive more favorable treatment in school, from HR departments, & while walking down the street. Whiteness is a culture, not just physical appearance. 3/
2. White supremacy is not "just class". In this country (& in most, I'd wager), white supremacy has deeply shaped class. It's why POC, to this day, are concentrated in poorer neighborhoods in many cities—bc of deliberate gov't policies. epi.org/publication/th… 4/
3. White supremacy can't only be blamed on elites. Elites are products of the societies in which they grew up and were socialized. They have agency in the narratives that they push, but the system constraints what narratives are even thinkable in the 1st place. 5/
The common thread throughout arguments about the role of race, class, & elite agency in how we treat political violence in the U.S. (& elsewhere) is white supremacy. It is the constant backdrop. Perhaps you think that means it explains nothing. I think it explains everything. 6/
And by "explain" I don't mean that explanations centered on race, class, or elite narratives are wrong. It means that if we don't situate race, class, & elite narratives within the larger white supremacist power structure, we miss how they're connected... 7/
...and feed off of each other to reproduce a particular ingroup-outgroup structure, one in which whiteness is privileged in elite discourse, in governance, and in the quotidian. 8/
Talking about white supremacy is often uncomfortable, esp. for white people, bc its perpetuation depends on us not acknowledging how pervasive & pernicious it is—& how it benefits us. That's how it lasts. That's where it gets its power. 9/
And that's where the Q at the top of this thread comes from: do we really need white supremacy in this scholarly story? That Q gets posed bc we take for granted that we don't. That's not a personal attack—it's how the system teaches us. But we can push back against that. 10/
So I say "white supremacy" on purpose. It's not about a political angle. It's not about normativity. It's about looking at the system holistically and connecting the dots. That, to me, is the core of science. Not doing so would be irresponsible. /fin
