As authoritarianism accelerates — as government-sanctioned violence becomes more overt in immigration enforcement, in policing, in the open deployment of federal force against civilians, and in the steady erosion of civil rights — people are scrambling for reference points.

But instead of reckoning with the long and violent architecture of U.S. history, much of this searching collapses into racialized tropes and xenophobic reassurance: This isn’t Afghanistan. This isn’t Iran or China. This is America. We have rights. This is a democracy. This isn’t who we are.

These statements are meant to comfort. They are meant to regulate fear, to calm the nervous system with the promise that no matter how bad things get, this country is somehow exempt from the logic of repression. Instead, they reveal how deeply many people still misunderstand both this country and the nature of authoritarian power.

They rest on a dangerous fiction: that large-scale state violence, political terror, and repression belong somewhere else — to “failed states,” to the Global South, to places imagined as perpetually unstable. This is not only historically false; it is how people in the U.S. have been trained not to recognize what is being built in front of them.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    I feel torn about this.

    By and large, the second group is always in the electoral and organizational minority. It’s always on the back foot, always in retreat, always losing.

    Talking about the America That Is Imperial versus the America That Is Protesting is like talking about Vichy France relative to the French Resistance. This latter group isn’t institutional. It isn’t endemic to the social project that is the nation state. What you’re pointing to is a kind of weed that the national government needs to root out every so often in order to grow its fascist garden.

    These groups may be American by residency or outward fashion or in the superficial tokens of identity. But they are enemies of America as an administration. They are anti-American in deed. They’re an insurgency that the American socio-economic system seeks to snuff out.

    • RainbowHedgehog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I don’t understand your logic here. Yeah, a lot of new ideas are pushed forward by fringe or oppressed groups. Those fringe groups can grow in size and power to challenge, and thus change the institution itself.

      MAGA was not institutional at first. They were fringe and weird. No one took them seriously. Look at where they are now.

      Slavery was institutional at first. But then the Republicans, an institution, were created to counter slavery. Abraham Lincoln literally tricked American citizens into supporting the 13th Amendment, thinking it was necessary to stop the Civil War. In reality, Lincoln kept the Civil War going longer than necessary to pass the Amendment.

      • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Abraham Lincoln literally tricked American citizens into supporting the 13th Amendment, thinking it was necessary to stop the Civil War. In reality, Lincoln kept the Civil War going longer than necessary to pass the Amendment.

        This is a weird perspective, considering the war ended and Lincoln died before the 13th was ratified. I’ve always been taught the 13th was to settle the legal status of slavery nationwide in a more permanent way than a presidential proclamation.

        • RainbowHedgehog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Oh I was wrong. I learned about this from Lincoln the movie. Turned out prolonging the war was added for dramatic effect. Thought it was true.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Those fringe groups can grow in size and power to challenge, and thus change the institution itself.

        Was that the case at the Battle of Blair Mountain or via the anti-war movement during Korea and Vietnam?

        Slavery was institutional at first. But then the Republicans, an institution, were created to counter slavery.

        The Republicans, as an institution, existed for a historical heartbeat. They took power in the midst of the Civil War in 1861, struggled for 16 years, and then surrendered to the slavers in exchange for a single term of the Hayes Administration. Lincoln ended the plantation system and gave a single generation of African Americans an opportunity to flee their southern oppressors, before “moderates” in the party slammed the doors shut. Then it was another century before civil rights for African Americans was raised to national prominence again.

        The Radical Republicanism of the 1960s couldn’t survive the end of the decade. The 13th amendment’s “prison” clause was ruthlessly exploited almost immediately, creating a state sanctioned plantation system that persists to this day. And the expansionist policies of the Republicans during and after the post-war era turned the white supremacist tendencies of the Confederate South into transcontinental genocide and imperial expansion, culminating in the globe-spanning American Empire presided over by the Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan Administrations.

        We didn’t end slavery. We internationalized slavery.