This is a good example of the pervasive myth of white innocence that has been so foundational throughout the West’s history: economic anxiety, anti-elite backlash, or just liberals being mean – whatever animates their extremism, white people cannot be blamed for their actions.
This is an article about the Far Right in Australia, but countless versions of this piece have been written about rightwing extremism in Germany, in the UK, and of course in the U.S., where this particular genre of apologist tale has been a staple throughout the nation’s history.
The dogma of white innocence holds that we have to go look for innocent explanations, explanations that portray white people as fundamentally decent, leave their innate goodness intact, and depict them as ultimately blameless for their actions and the very outcomes they pushed.
And so we are told they were driven by sheer desperation, economic anxiety, by circumstances outside their own control, deceived by sinister forces – or pushed to the extreme by Liberal overreach, by Liberals being condescending, arrogant, or just mean. “That’s how we got Trump.”
Whatever the specifics of the apologist tale, the result is the same: Regardless of how racist the concrete outcomes of policies and the candidates they support, no matter how extreme the political action in which they engage, reactionary white people are never to be blamed.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Thomas Zimmer

Thomas Zimmer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tzimmer_history

14 Oct
“History will not be kind…” - “History will judge…” - “History will…” Stop.

What “history” will have to say about today’s Republican Party depends to a large degree on what happens here, now. “History” is not coming to the rescue of American democracy. That’s up to us.
I know why people keep saying this: “History will be our judge.” As a rhetorical device, it lends more weight to the message. And I understand the longing for some form of higher justice and the hope that “history” might be able to deliver it.
But that’s not how it works. What we refer to as “history” is a never-ending struggle, an always-raging debate on the past, informed, shaped, and fueled by ever-changing sensibilities and conflicts in the present.
Read 11 tweets
11 Oct
Important thread by @perrybaconjr. Too many people accept the idea that #polarization is the root of all evil that plagues America - when what we should really be doing is to reflect on the limits and pitfalls of using polarization as the governing paradigm of our time.
I’m writing a book about how Americans have tried to make sense of political, social, and cultural divisions since the 1960s, and how the idea of #polarization has come to occupy such a prominent place in the nation’s imaginary, how it has shaped the broader political discourse.
One particularly problematic element of the #polarization discourse is that it often comes with a pronounced nostalgia for “consensus” - ignoring that in many ways, polarization is the price U.S. society has had to pay for real progress towards multiracial, pluralistic democracy.
Read 6 tweets
7 Oct
It simply cannot be stressed enough: This truly multiracial, pluralistic democracy that @drvolts is talking about? It has never been achieved anywhere – it would be a world-historic first. That’s what gives the current struggle in the U.S. its global significance.
There certainly have been - and there are - several stable liberal democracies. But either they have been culturally and ethnically homogeneous to begin with (like the Scandinavian societies); or there has always been a pretty clearly defined ruling group, or “herrenvolk.”
A truly multiracial, pluralistic democracy in which an individual’s status was not determined to a significant degree by race, gender, or religion? I don’t think that’s ever been achieved anywhere.
Read 7 tweets
7 Oct
Completely agree. The #fascism debate quickly reaches an impasse when the term is merely used as a slur, basically just indicating maximal condemnation. We shouldn’t reduce the question to “Is Trump / Trumpism / the American Right *bad enough* to be called fascist?”
The fact that something is really, really bad (read: authoritarian, racist, anti-democratic, etc) does not automatically make it “fascist,” and saying something is not fascist does not mean it’s not bad. It might be equally bad, or even worse – just different.
For instance, calling the Confederacy a “fascist regime” wouldn’t make much sense to me analytically, and I’d say that’s a-historical (legitimate debates over proto-fascism notwithstanding). But that’s certainly not because the Confederacy wasn’t “bad enough” - it absolutely was!
Read 7 tweets
6 Oct
I think this is basically right. At the very least, we need to acknowledge that historically, “lowering the temperature” has almost always meant putting the breaks on - or even reversing - social and racial progress in an attempt to appease reactionary demands and sensibilities.
In that way, “lowering the temperature” has almost always come at the expense of traditionally marginalized groups and their demands for equality and respect.
Conversely, times of accelerated racial and social progress - or, more precisely: phases that were widely perceived as such by the white majority - have always been characterized by heightened political conflict and “polarization.”
Read 6 tweets
4 Oct
Immediately after January 6, there was a reasonable - though ultimately unconvincing, to me - case to be made for remaining somewhat skeptical towards the idea that what had happened was adequately described as an attempted “coup.” But now? Now that’s just obfuscation.
Critique of the “attempted coup” interpretation / terminology did not just come from the Right, but was particularly prevalent on the Left as well. But again, with all the information that’s come out since, it seems increasingly weird to insist that what happened doesn’t qualify.
I certainly get the general argument that we need to be specific and precise with our terms and interpretations. But what’s coming from the “Not a coup!” camp is something else: An unwillingness to acknowledge the seriousness of the events, and the danger to American democracy.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(