Thread by @tzimmer_history

This captures the narrative that is animating the moderate / liberal turn against “wokeism,” but doesn’t hold up empirically: It is based on an implausible analysis of the political situation and a misleading perspective on racial conflict in American history. Some thoughts: 1/

Let’s start with the category error that is shared by lots of moderates and liberals: The assumption is that all the *talk about racism* is what irks many White people – when it’s actually the attempt to *dismantle racist structures and narratives* to which they object. 2/

The difference matters greatly: If it were just the supposedly incessant *talk* about racism, we could plausibly devise a strategy of appeasing White / reactionary sensibilities by *not talking* about it while still pursuing the project of realizing multiracial democracy. 3/

However, what reactionaries (and that includes people who may hold moderate / liberal views in matters other than racial justice) are actually saying is that the “woke” assault on the way the American political, social, and cultural order is structured has gone too far. 4/

How do you appease that? The only way would be to actually abandon the project of dismantling racist structures, to accept the status quo of a racial caste society in which a White elite gets to dominate. What you are defending then, however, is not multiracial democracy. 5/

This category error is directly related to a misleading interpretation of U.S. history. “Discussions of racism are a luxury for when democracy is safe” – but that’s not how it’s ever worked in this country. The price for racial progress has always been political instability. 6/

Let’s look at actual history: Political “consensus” was usually based on a cross-partisan agreement to leave the discriminatory social order intact and deny marginalized groups equal representation and civil rights. A White male elite consensus was the historical norm. 7/

The frequently invoked “consensus” of the post-World War II era, for instance, was depending on both parties agreeing that White patriarchal rule would remain largely untouched. “Civility” was the modus operandi between elites who adhered to that order. 8/

By the 1960s, however, that White elite consensus had begun to fracture; America split over the question of whether or not the country should become a multiracial, pluralistic democracy: a system in which an individual’s status is not determined by race, gender, or religion. 9/

Over time, one party came to accept this multiracial, pluralistic version of democracy (albeit very reluctantly at times) – while the other is committed to doing whatever it takes to prevent the perceived downfall of “real” (read: White Christian patriarchal) America. 10/

It was not a coincidence that “polarization” started when one party decided to break with the White elite consensus and supported the civil rights legislation of the 60s. “Polarization” is the price U.S. society has had to pay for real progress towards multiracial democracy. 11/

“Let’s wait until democracy is stable and then we can safely talk about racism” – historically, this has never worked. On the contrary, the reactionary counter-mobilization against demands for racial equality is precisely where that instability has always come from. 12/

American democracy was stable whenever and as long as it didn’t interfere with a political, social, and cultural order in which White Christians – and White Christian men, in particular – got to be on top and got to define what did and what did not count as “real America.” 13/

Conversely, moments of racial and social progress – or even just perceived progress – have always been conflictual, have always led to a reactionary counter-mobilization that threatened to abolish democracy altogether rather than accepting multiracial pluralism. 14/

The best example for why the Nichols approach doesn’t work might be the Obama presidency. The fact that first-term Obama didn’t talk about race hardly at all didn’t prevent a White reactionary counter-mobilization - because it’s not the *talking* that’s the problem. 15/

It was the very fact that a Black man was elected president that sent the Right into a frenzy. Those who demand that America remain a nation of and for White Christians feel their backs against the wall, and that siege mentality isn’t going away anytime soon. 16/

“If we just stopped talking about racism, they wouldn’t even realize we’re installing multiracial, pluralistic democracy” - the conservative commitment to White Christian patriarchal dominance deserves to be taken a lot more seriously than that. 17/

The people claiming to be fighting for democracy by purging “wokeism” and denouncing “CRT” should grapple in earnest with *what type of democracy* they are defending, and why that is a lot closer to the vision animating rightwing reactionaries than they are willing to admit. /end

Addendum: An important question

https://twitter.com/rottenindenmark/status/1458500594688303107