Your Comments Are Fairly Shocking
The Kyle Rittenhouse case really is the story that keeps on giving. Even though I wrote about it back in November, I still occasionally get people popping up in the comments to dispute facts that, by now, should be common knowledge.
But that’s the problem. Rittenhouse’s case got people especially mad because the reporting around it was especially bad. By the time the details were widely available, some people couldn’t reset. As the saying goes, “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with the facts.”
In my article, What If White Supremacy Isn’t The Problem?, I tried to set the facts as straight as possible. Using video evidence, court testimony, and careful cross-checking of reports, I pieced together the events as carefully and clearly as I could.
V was dissatisfied with my analysis.
V:
Your comments are fairly shocking and take smaller details, ignoring the big picture, to make an assessment. The Proud Boys are a white supremacist group. Kyle was there to defend against BLM with the support of Proud Boys and racist police. This entire episode is bathed in white supremacy, but if you shave out some details instead of looking at their real motivations, yes, you can soften this horrific story.
The gun fetish is white supremacy, as in when black folks started to carry guns, Reagan became all "pro gun regulation." 97% of "hunters" who own more than half of the guns in our nation despite being 3% of the population are all white males. That is not happening by accident. Their BELIEF that they and they alone should rule the streets (historically based in those who hunted down slaves and whose meme continues to this day) resulted in the death of Amaud Arbery. Trying to soften this reality is not helpful.
Steve QJ:
Kyle was there to defend against BLM
Unless you're claiming that people rioting and looting are synonymous with BLM (in which case you'd be demonstrably wrong), then no, there's no evidence whatsoever that Kyle was there to "defend against BLM."
Kyle was there because he answered a call to help defend Kenosha from looters who were burning innocent people's businesses to the ground. This had been going on for two nights, with little to no response from the police, before that call went out. Kyle had no business answering that call, but it's ridiculous to claim that he was there to fight BLM. Without the looters and rioters (or if the police had done something about them) the militia wouldn't have been there. This couldn't be more obvious to any serious person.
I'm not trying to soften anything. I have no idea how you're making that claim. I'm simply not making the mistake of tying 500 years of history to a single case. If you insist on invoking slavery every single time a white man does something with a gun, even if it's shooting other white men, then yes, everything can be argued to be about white supremacy. The problem is, this means you miss the actual relevant problems that can be fixed. Things like lax gun regulation, the inaction of the police, minors being legally allowed to walk around with guns because of loopholes.
Shouting "white supremacy" at these problems doesn't make any of them go away. And as we see, white people can also be victims of them. I'm not denying that white supremacy and racism exists. I'm just saying that it's not a useful lens to look at this case through. In fact, the only reason anybody is tempted to do so is because they were sold a bunch of misinformation about the case and can't reset now that the facts are clear.
V:
The police were literally fraternizing with this kid. White supremacists were literally fraternizing with this kid. It’s somewhat astounding to not see the connection. Heather McGhee wrote a whole book about how white supremacy damages white people called “The Sum of Us.” It is excellent and I highly recommend everyone read it.
“White supremacists were literally fraternizing with this kid. It’s somewhat astounding to not see the connection.”
Given the early reports that Rittenhouse had killed three black men, the white supremacist narrative was pretty much set in stone for some people. Even after it was revealed that he’d shot three white men. And, of course, the pictures of him throwing up white power symbols with the Proud Boys certainly didn’t help.
But is this evidence that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist? I don’t know. It’s extremely plausible to me that a dumb, impresssionable 18-year-old, being lavished with attention by a group of adults, might flash a few “ok” symbols to fit in with his new friends. So in the absemce of further evidence, I’m not buying the idea that he’s some kind of race warrior.
I mean, if he really did travel to Kenosha to kill black people, he literally could not have done a worse job.
Steve QJ:
The police were literally fraternizing with this kid. White supremacists were literally fraternizing with this kid.
And this has "literally" nothing to do with your claim that Rittenhouse was there to "defend against BLM". Or the reason why he was acquitted.
You can call his character into question all you like. We'd probably agree. I'm absolutely not on Rittenhouse's side in all this. You can talk about how ridiculous gun laws and self-defence laws are all you like. I'd almost definitely agree here too.
The point is, "white supremacy" is such a univariate, inaccurate, dead-end answer to the questions of why it happened and what to do about it. The rioters setting fire to Kenosha weren't white supremacists (or BLM). The residents and business owners who didn't want everything they owned burned to the ground weren't white supremacists. The prosecutors who filed charges that it was almost impossible for the jury to convict on weren't white supremacists.
"White supremacy" isn't shorthand for "anything you don't like".
V:
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Steve.
I’ve complained countless times about how the term “white supremacy” is overused to the point of meaninglessness. But I think the main reason people do it is that the people around them do it.
In certain circles, “white supremacy” really has become a catch-all term for, “thing I don’t approve of.” And while I’m not sure whether V actually understood the problem with this, it’s always nice to speak to somebody who seems capable of hearing a counterargument.
100% of us, at some point, will get our facts wrong. Our minds will be made up. There’s no shame in that. As long as we allow ourselves to be confused by the facts.
Dreadful event. No question. Kyle shouldn’t have been there but he was. A town he knew was being looted and burned to the ground by opportunists. What would you do to defend your town, your local businesses from wanton destruction?
I’m not capable of shooting another human. Kyle evidently was. The video of his fear-ridden behavior in light of adults chasing him isn’t pretty. It also has nothing to do with the cause of Black Lives Matter. There’s panic, there’s fear, there’s a mob.
The attempt to twist this into some weird white supremacist narrative is seriously warped.
I want good police, well trained, to patrol the streets and neighborhoods and protect the vulnerable from those who would do harm. Isn’t that the essence of the social compact? I don’t want to have to arm to ensure I’m safe. If police are demonized and we lose the rule of law, what’s left is the rule of the jungle. Is that really preferable to our current system, warts and all?
Let’s build a better system on the core of the rule of law, equally applied. Each of those phrases can use more scrutiny, but scrutiny and reform is better than tossing it in the trash bin and creating a free-for-all on the streets.
Very well said Steve. Thanks for your indefatigably well reasoned and researched analyis. I so appreciate your opposition to racism and hate and your determination to do so in a way that is fair and consistent with the facts, as best we can ascertain them. As an old guy who has worked on these issues for many years as an elected official, teacher, and activsit, your perspective is very inspirational for me and gives me a lot of hope.