Thread by @Itmechr3

Been thinking a lot lately about how different groups talk about anti-Asian violence. American liberals to the surprise of absolutely no one don't want to talk about imperialism but American leftists don't want to talk about the 1800's ethnic

Moreover, ICE must be destroyed

cleansing of the west coast, which almost all of the liberal accounts talk about. I think it has to do with 1. the fact that the anti-Asian massacres of that period were, to the extent that the two can be separated, about labor and not imperialism

Moreover, ICE must be destroyed

and 2. the fact that many of them were carried about by organized white labor. So the anti-imperialism people don't want to talk about it because it shows that anti-Asian violence is also structurally about borders and labor and not just the pure

Moreover, ICE must be destroyed

geopolitics they attribute it to (because they don't want to admit that if the US allied with every single Asian country and the press only ran good stories about China anti-Asian violence would continue). And the organized labor people didn't

Moreover, ICE must be destroyed

want to talk about it because all of their favorite orgs are at best complicit in and at worst literally carried out ethnic cleansing campaigns and that gets in the way of their "white labor is good and has no power so racism doesn't matter"

Moreover, ICE must be destroyed

arguments. It's also remarkable the extent that no one wants to talk about Christianity's roll in all of this, especially right wing Evangelicalism. Like the only people who talk about that part are people like me who grew up in Evangelical

Moreover, ICE must be destroyed

communities and thus had to watch it first hand. And the net result of all of this is that we've seen a confused welter of partial accounts of the violence that all lead to shitty inclusive answers

Moreover, ICE must be destroyed