Monday, June 22, 2020

Black Lives Matter: Trump, Antifa, and the Anti-Racist movement

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Aditi Mohta

Article Title

Black Lives Matter: Trump, Antifa, and the Anti-Racist movement

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

June 22, 2020

URL

President Trump visits St. John Episcopal Church, Washington

President Trump visits St. John Episcopal Church, Washington | Source: White House via Wikimedia

As massive protests following the passing of George Floyd kept on shaking the United States. President Donald Trump tweeted on 31st of May that far-left group Antifa was the one behind the violent riots and he would designate it as a terrorist group. He said, “The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization.” This assertion was repeated by the US Attorney General William Barr as well.

Antifa, short for anti-fascists, is an amorphous movement and not an organization as Trump labels it to be. They tend to be on the left of the U.S. political spectrum, many describing themselves as socialists, anarchists, anti-capitalists or communists. Antifa, according to many commentators, is just a decentralized collection of individual activists who mostly use non-violent methods to achieve their goal, which is to resist the spread of fascism. They track people who spread racist hatred and fascist ideology through on-ground events, traditional media, or social media and use cultural forms of art like drawing, music, film screenings etc. to spread the message of inclusivity. There are more militant anti-fascist groups as well, who mostly engage in non-militant activities but are willing to use more confrontational tactics at times as well. 

This is not the first time that Donald Trump has criticized Antifa to shift the focus away from racial discrimination faced by the black community in USA. In this instance as well President has tried to portray the protestors and looters with a vague phrase “radical-left bad people” and invoking “Antifa” to represent the whole of leftist militant groups which are bound more by belief than by any organizational structure.

Taking a cue from President Trump, many officials, conservative commentators and white supremacists started blaming Antifa for using the “Black Life Matters” movement to indulge in violence and undermining the government of the USA. Mr Trump’s national security adviser, Robert C. O’Brien, had also blamed such activists during his appearances on CNN and A.B.C. News. Mr O’Brien said the F.B.I. needed to “come up with a plan” to deal with Antifa. John Guandolo, who was in the FBI for 13 years, went a step ahead and claimed that Antifa and “Black Life Matters” are communist organizations, who are planning to overthrow the US government. He also praised President Trump for calling Antifa a terrorist organization and lamented that the FBI are unaware of its plan. Fiona Moriarty-McLaughlin, a journalist at the right-wing publication Washington Examiner, re-posted a video purportedly depicting "Paid #Antifa thugs" vandalizing the store — even though there is no evidence to suggest that the vandals were members of the movement.

The FBI and local law enforcement agencies have aggressively pursued charges against rioters, looters and others accused of havoc. However there is no evidence of any involvement of organized violence by Antifa or any other left-wing group. The most serious case that has emerged in federal court involved three men in Nevada linked to a loose, national network of far-right extremists advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. They were arrested on May 30 on charges of trying to foment violence during Black Lives Matter protests. There are many instances when white thugs were seen vandalizing which blacks feared could be used against them.

The invocation of Antifa by President Trump during the “Black Life Matters” protest is conveniently used by the conservative commentators and white supremacists to somehow shift the focus away from the deep rooted racism in the USA to the violent actions by some protesters during the “Black Life Matter” protest.

As massive protests following the passing of George Floyd kept on shaking the United States. President Donald Trump tweeted on 31st of May that far-left group Antifa was the one behind the violent riots and he would designate it as a terrorist group. He said, “The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization.” This assertion was repeated by the US Attorney General William Barr as well.

Antifa, short for anti-fascists, is an amorphous movement and not an organization as Trump labels it to be. They tend to be on the left of the U.S. political spectrum, many describing themselves as socialists, anarchists, anti-capitalists or communists. Antifa, according to many commentators, is just a decentralized collection of individual activists who mostly use non-violent methods to achieve their goal, which is to resist the spread of fascism. They track people who spread racist hatred and fascist ideology through on-ground events, traditional media, or social media and use cultural forms of art like drawing, music, film screenings etc. to spread the message of exclusivity. There are more militant anti-fascist groups as well, who mostly engage in non-militant activities but are willing to use more confrontational tactics at times as well. 

This is not the first time that Donald Trump has criticized Antifa to shift the focus away from racial discrimination faced by the black community in USA. In this instance as well President has tried to portray the protestors and looters with a vague phrase “radical-left bad people” and invoking “Antifa” to represent the whole of leftist militant groups which are bound more by belief than by any organizational structure.

Taking a cue from President Trump, many officials, conservative commentators and white supremacists started blaming Antifa for using the “Black Life Matters” movement to indulge in violence and undermining the government of the USA. Mr Trump’s national security adviser, Robert C. O’Brien, had also blamed such activists during his appearances on CNN and A.B.C. News. Mr O’Brien said the F.B.I. needed to “come up with a plan” to deal with Antifa. John Guandolo, who was in the FBI for 13 years, went a step ahead and claimed that Antifa and “Black Life Matters” are communist organizations, who are planning to overthrow the US government. He also praised President Trump for calling Antifa a terrorist organization and lamented that the FBI are unaware of its plan. Fiona Moriarty-McLaughlin, a journalist at the right-wing publication Washington Examiner, re-posted a video purportedly depicting "Paid #Antifa thugs" vandalizing the store — even though there is no evidence to suggest that the vandals were members of the movement.

The FBI and local law enforcement agencies have aggressively pursued charges against rioters, looters and others accused of havoc. However there is no evidence of any involvement of organized violence by Antifa or any other left-wing group. The most serious case that has emerged in federal court involved three men in Nevada linked to a loose, national network of far-right extremists advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. They were arrested on May 30 on charges of trying to foment violence during Black Lives Matter protests. There are many instances when white thugs were seen vandalizing which blacks feared could be used against them.

The invocation of Antifa by President Trump during the “Black Life Matters” protest is conveniently used by the conservative commentators and white supremacists to somehow shift the focus away from the deep rooted racism in the USA to the violent actions by some protesters during the “Black Life Matter” protest.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:43 PM

Sweden’s No Lockdown Policy: How That Changed The Outcome

Sweden has gone against conventional wisdom in its response to the COVID-19 situation. While the neighbouring countries like Denmark, Finland and Norway imposed strict lockdown on the places and services frequented by the public, Sweden has chosen to not do so at all during the initial phases when COVID-19 started taking the shape of a worldwide pandemic. The public places like Cafes, restaurants, gyms, malls, playgrounds, ski slopes and some of the schools were kept open all across Sweden.

The country’s fight against the threat of pandemic was handled exclusively by the Public Health Authority, with no political interference. They believed that a lockdown only serves to delay the virus, which is not necessary since the health services are equipped to deal with the cases. They also made it clear that achieving herd immunity is also not their aim. The public authorities in Sweden instead relied on the public's sense of responsibility, and appealed to them to do frequent hand washing, observe social distancing and keep people over 70 years old from going out.

The state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, made multiple statements about the state’s unusual approach, such as 1) “Once you get into a lockdown, it’s difficult to get out of it,”, “How do you reopen?  When?” 2) “There is no evidence whatsoever that doing more at this stage would make

any difference. It’s far better to introduce stringent measures at very specific intervals, and keep them running for as little time as possible” , 3) " As long as the healthcare system reasonably can cope with and give good care to the ones that need care, it's not clear that having the cases later in time is better”.

The assumption of public responsibility did not work for Sweden and there were people out on the streets, in cafes, restaurants and playgrounds. Not wearing a mask was the social norm instead of the reverse. The models for charting the virus spread given by the concerned authorities also turned out to be faulty forcing them to rescind it. Over 2000 Swedish researchers and doctors signed a petition which claimed that there was not enough testing,tracking or isolation in the country. They believed that the authority has clearly not planned their response and that the authority’s claim for herd immunity has very little scientific basis, even though the government has repeatedly claimed that herd immunity is not what they were aiming for.

Sweden’s lax approach to the combating of coronavirus forced its neighbouring Scandinavian countries to close the border for the Swedish citizens. Some of the Swedish officials were worried for the possible harm to the long term relations between Sweden and its neighbours.  Also, the plan of letting life go on as usual to avoid the economic recession occurring due to a lockdown also failed as it didn’t shield  the country from economic slowdown.

Here comes the question; was the lockdown successful or not? There are some comparisons that have been drawn which indicate more deaths per 100,000 people than in nearby countries with homogenous population, even though it is significantly lesser than some of the European countries. While the infections rates are double that of Denmark, the death rates in comparison are much higher. This difference has been attributed to the fact that approximately half of these deaths have occurred in old care homes despite the stated priority of the officials to protect the elderly. This has been in part to the volunteer program, which replaced symptomatic old age home cares with new volunteers, hence increasing exposure. Another factor is the lack of protective equipment in such homes, along with laws preventing administration of medical procedures without the presence of doctors. There were reports of people threatened with lawsuits for banning visitors.

All of this led to Mr.Tegnell claiming that the ideal policy would have been something between what Sweden adopted and what the other countries did, in the light of what they know now. However this claim of Mr.Tegnell will be put to test when the second wave comes, later in time.

Read More