As people around the world tuned in to witness the sheer brutality of the violence that escalated in the heart of Charlottesville, Virginia, we had to once again remind ourselves that we were watching footage from an event happening in the harsh light of the present moment, not a dystopian portrayal of a civilization caving in on itself. For those of us following the race narrative with fixated eyes for quite some time now, both within and outside of America, the scenes unfolding may have served as a mere confirmation of our lurking, nascent fears; the contours of race, cultures and ethnicity have been sharpened by a populism that has served as lip service to a nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-diversity social psychology. The fabrics of inclusivity and acceptance have been ripped apart at the seams by a deep-seated anger, stitching them back together with chaotic hands.
Let's not pretend that either modern ethnic tensions or race violence are new phenomena; it would appear that, just as tax and death are inevitable, so too are the racial attacks, hate campaigns and scare mongering that plague the developed and the developing world; many of us would unerringly concede to the claim that we have evolved immeasurably as a social species from those shameful periods of slavery, serfdom, ethnic cleansing and segregation that served as the noxious chemicals that amalgamated to leave one of the human race's largest scars. On the other hand, one may ruminate on the abhorrent events that devastated Virginia and rightly ask just how far we have genuinely moved on from the days of apartheid. The empirical scale of what is happening now compared with, say, 20th century America under the Jim Crow legislation, would clearly suggest an undoubted improvement in the state of affairs. However, the physical facts of the matter only reveal half the story; just as actus reus and mens rea are both required to establish legal culpability in murder, so too are they needed to comprehend the full picture of modern day ethnic violence.
The horrors of Virginia reflected a psychological trend that has been brewing for years. The clash of civilizations that revered political scientist Huntington achieved acclaim for - a concept relentlessly bounded around the seminar rooms and echo chambers of politics students attempting to circumscribe the deeply complex realm of conflict and warfare - has quickly become a clash of colour. From 'black lives matter' to 'white lives matter' to 'all lives matter', it is clear that it is skin colour - the mere surface of a person's entire character - that continues to sharpen the swords of racists, nationalists and fascists. The idea that - as was repeatedly propagated by the villains of the Virginia protest - the white race or white lives need protecting and insulating from the outside world is frankly absurd to even the most unengaged onlooker; what exactly is this insidious exogenous threat that these men are adamant on defending themselves against?
Sadly, it became all too obvious all too quickly that the impetus behind such displays of barbarism was an indiscriminate, vague and unhesitating hatred for people of colour; a disdain for the contemporary yoke of immigration, integration and internationalization that - according to them - serves to diminish, ridicule and undermine any sense of racial cohesion or purity.
History has either taught us very little, or else we are impervious to it as a force from which to improve and strengthen the conditions of the present. Another potential reason is that many believe there to be no legitimate lesson that one can take from the crimes, abuses and violations of the past; perhaps segregation and apartheid could have worked if implemented properly and should thus be explored? Perhaps ethnic cleansing projects were just precocious at the time ? If this reflects any sense of a microcosm of the psyches of the men who gathered in hordes to champion a message of white rights and white freedom, then it is depressingly clear that some of us have learnt very little at all from history's events.
The denunciation of such atrocities is unproblematic for the most of us, almost an immediate reflex in fact ; however, much more contested is whether or not one should equally condemn the displays of violence and reckless abandon that the anti-protestors displayed as their response to the rally. Crowds of adults from the Left of the political compass demonstrated violent behaviour that epitomized their burning anger. Most of us were quick to notice the essential paradox of such behaviour; how can one condemn political violence against other social groups whilst proceeding to take part in it? Some more conservative critics saw such acts as no better than ISIS fundamentalists demolishing their own cultural edifices in Iraq. Was Trump therefore justified in condemning the violence on both sides ?
The sound bites of populists and their mobilising statements have arguably served as fuel to the fire for the nationalist, anti-immigration narrative. Have the controversial statements on nationalism, defending home citizens and insulating the West from radical Islam helped to legitimise or catalyse the behaviour of fascists? Perhaps it has indeed succeded in glueing together the elements of this noxious movement. However, we cannot let the onus of responsibility for such atrocities be moved away from the assailants, belligerants and perpetrators who physically commited the acts. It is they who are to be held to account for there actions. Examining the rise in such instances of ethnic violence of late, it is clear that a new dawn of racially motivated violence is upon us...