[[link removed]]

THE FALLACY OF THE ‘WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY’ NARRATIVE  
[[link removed]]


 

Gerald Nesmith Jr
June 9, 2024
Aljazeera
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Waiting on history to deliver karmic justice for war crimes is a
useless exercise, especially at a time when urgent action is needed. _


President Joe Biden eats ice cream while answering journalists'
questions on February 26, 2024, in New York , AP/Evan Vucci

 

Over the past nine months, we have witnessed one of the most
well-documented instances of genocide unfold in the Gaza Strip. Across
the world, there has been a tremendous amount of mobilisation and
genuine disruption in protest of this atrocity. The United States,
too, has seen large demonstrations and protest actions against the
government’s unwavering support for the Israeli Occupation Forces
and leadership.

In the midst of this, a longstanding and useless narrative has
re-emerged. Many have denounced officials supporting Israel for being
on the wrong side of history and actively being in favour of what will
go down in the public record as a genocide. There is an expectation
that somehow history will hold them to account.

But if the historical record was truly a concern for those in power,
the president of the United States would not be taking questions about
the genocidal carnage unfolding daily while chowing down on a double
scoop of mint chip ice cream.

This idea is borne out of a need to soothe the Western conscience. And
it is not out of a lack of awareness of history that this narrative
takes hold; in fact, it’s often the exact opposite. For those who
learn of the many historical tragedies and atrocities that our current
world order is built on, there seems to be a need for some type of
higher justice. A justice more lasting than simply some bad polling
for a few months and some scathing op-eds.

But what the “wrong side of history” narrative really does is
undermine our ability to engage with the very real conditions of the
present.

To get to the point where we can move on from viewing history as a
form of karmic justice for the most powerful members of our society,
we must first understand our relationship with it.

There is a tendency to treat history like a bullet-point presentation
of the highlights and not the singular story of our existence on this
planet. It is as if we are experiencing events in a vacuum, as if we
do not actually exist in a context shaped by the past. This often
leads to a superficial or incomplete perception of historical reality.

As James Baldwin wrote in a 1965 essay titled The White Man’s Guilt
for Ebony magazine: “people who imagine that history flatters them
[…] are impaled on their history like a butterfly on a pin and
become incapable of seeing or changing themselves, or the world”. He
is correct in this assessment but what he and many of us today fail to
consider is just how far the most powerful members of our society will
go to remove any of the heavy guilt of history from their shoulders. 

A good example of what I mean is the legacy of Dr Martin Luther King
Jr. During his lifetime he was wildly unpopular with the American
public. It wasn’t until years after his death that the minds of the
majority slowly began to change.

Today some see the proliferation of Dr King’s message as proof that
history can provide the sense of justice that people are seeking. I
believe this is untrue for two reasons.

First, saying history vindicated MLK largely neglects the actual
mechanism for change that he helped set up. It wasn’t out of the
goodness of their souls that the majority of Americans embraced
MLK’s message. Rather it was the day in and day out concerted
efforts of the Black community that brought about that change.

 
Second, Dr King’s legacy has been significantly diluted in the
public arena to make it more palatable to the majority. A man, whose
beliefs and philosophy were based in the radical anticapitalist and
anti-imperialist tradition, has been reduced to a little more than the
patron saint of white guilt.

The distortion of MLK’s legacy is just one example of how history
can be twisted to make it more easily digestible or useful to white
supremacist power structures. This process has been brought to an
extreme with recent efforts to rewrite Black history. In Florida, for
example, local authorities changed teaching standards for Black
history to the point that students are now taught that slavery brought
“personal benefit” to Black people.

And just as history can be used in the public realm to distort the
memory and understanding of struggles against oppression, it can also
be used to whitewash oppressors.

In recent years, we have seen how the legacies of leaders like George
W Bush and Ronald Reagan, have been carefully rehabilitated. Instead
of facing calls for accountability for war crimes during the so-called
“war on terror”, Bush is now enjoying retirement, painting
portraits, attending public events and commenting on news developments
as a respected former official.

Meanwhile, Reagan, whose atrocity portfolio stretches from funding
death squads in Latin America to supporting the racist apartheid
regime of South Africa, is celebrated by Democrats and Republicans
alike for his moxie and past policies.

 
It is not that the most powerful people among us do not care about
their legacies when they make decisions. It is that they know they
have the resources and sway to change public perception while they are
alive or that the “civility” argument will be used to temper
criticism after their death, regardless of all the crimes against
humanity they may have committed.

It is dangerous to perceive history as the ultimate equaliser not only
because it is not but also because it dampens motivation to engage in
real initiatives for change by giving an easy outlet to our feelings
of helplessness and anxiety.

We must realise that to ensure the maintenance of accurate accounts of
history, we have to rely on our greatest tool: organising and the
lessons from those who organised before us.

In his pivotal book, A People’s History of the United States,
historian Howard Zinn wrote: “The memory of oppressed people is one
thing that cannot be taken away, and for such people, with such
memories, revolt is always an inch below the surface.”

Indeed, memory and revolt are closely intertwined. Those who know and
are aware of their own history, also engage in actively making it;
they do not remain passive onlookers. Holding the powerful to account
is not a fool’s errand and organising is the way to do it.

Joe Biden, Benjamin Netanyahu, and all of those responsible for the
ever-rising death toll in Palestine are relying on the uncomfortable
fact that when it comes to killing done in service of American
interest, many in the West have very short memories.

Expecting history to hold these individuals accountable for actions
they committed in service of a system of oppression is useless. It may
bring temporary relief of anxiety, but ultimately, it paralyses us at
a time when urgent action is needed.

Injustice is not naturally remedied by history. It is challenged and
fought by people who mobilise to dismantle systems of oppression.

_===_

Gerald Nesmith Jr is a writer and radio host from North Carolina. He
covers the intersections of pop culture and politics for a variety of
outlets, including Essence and Flood Magazine.

* US History and Accountability; US And Israeli War Crimes; Death
Toll in Palestine;
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]