Mediaboss Marketing

| Published 14 hours ago

TO THE EDITOR:

In response to the Feb. 13 letter-to-the-editor titled The Alternative Right Exists on our Campus, a group of graduate students and recent Ph.D. graduates in the Department of History, informed by the methods of our discipline, have come together to challenge the basic premises presented by its author. We come from working class and professional backgrounds, from many regions of the United States and the world and with a variety of expertise.

We do not wish to make sweeping generalizations about President Trumps supporters. The 64 million individuals who voted for Trump did so for diverse reasons, and the alt-right represents only one part of that coalition. The alt-right itself is not a monolith, but we can better understand its goals by considering its leadership.

Over the past month, some have taken to invoking alt-right figureheads like Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos as objects of sympathy. From the letter, one might assume these men are the unfairly maligned opponents of outsourcing. What do their words and actions tell us about their vision for our country? And what does history tell us about their claims?

Milo Yiannopoulos believes women are biologically inferior to men and supports Saudi Arabias ban on female drivers. He once described immigrants from the Middle East as [hordes] of homophobic Muslims...being imported to the west so they can shoot up gay nightclubs. Despite being gay himself, Yiannopoulos is no friend to the LGBTQ community. He refers to immigration advocates as whiny gay leftists and prefers not to hire gay employees. Last December, Yiannopoulos verbally harassed a transgender student at UW-Milwaukee after she challenged his presence on campus, saying he needs to man up and [the] way that you know hes failing is Id almost still bang him.

Because the author of the Daily Tar Heel letter paraphrased Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it is worth noting that Richard Spencer has called the civil rights leader a degenerate. Spencers ultimate goal is to create "a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans. It would be a new society based on very different ideals than, say, the Declaration of Independence." Spencer supports peaceful ethnic cleansing," as if forcibly removing other races from the country is not itself a form of violence.

Fascism is still a slippery term to define, and this is not a claim we attempt to substantiate here. But it is clear that alt-right leaders believe in the superiority of whiteness, straightness and cisgender-ness. And their dream society values these characteristics at the expense of all others. Alt-right leaders promote these values without any regard for demonstrable evidence. Instead, they treat their conclusions as self-evident.

The author paints those who challenge the alt-right as opponents of free speech. Yet subjecting a claim to critique and analysis is not the same as telling someone to sit down and shut up. Historical scholarship requires us to interrogate all claims and to challenge any opinion that relies on empty rhetoric, stereotypes or assumptions.

The alt-right regularly and seriously misrepresents the American past and present. The author suggested that to fight for social justice is to undermine 240 years of blood, sweat and tears. Yet he neglected to specify who shed them. The historical evidence shows that oppressed communities, those that lead the fight for social justice, have shed much of the blood, sweat and tears. This is clear even on our own campus.

UNC was built upon ancestral Occaneechi land, and Chapel Hill was once part of a vast network of trading paths connecting the Occaneechis, Catawbas, Tutelos and other nations. Anglo-American settlers took possession of this land through violence, dispossession and disease. Enslaved Black people helped build UNCs campus. Before the Civil War, slave owners hired out enslaved Black people to clean dormitories, stoke fires and perform other menial tasks for UNCs white students.

Yet both Black and Native students were historically excluded from UNC. UNCs first Native student, Henry Owl (Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians), received his degree in 1929, and it was not until the 1950s that Black students began to graduate from this university. Even then, Black students were not permitted to live in the same facilities as their white classmates.

It took a long and dangerous struggle for Black students and faculty merely to gain access to this university. Today, Black students and their allies continue to fight institutionalized forms of discrimination at UNC. Joining the fight for social justice does not mean putting skin color above ideas. It means recognizing that: 1) white supremacy still exists, 2) members of oppressed communities continue to shape our campus and the world and 3) the work of forging a more egalitarian university and society is not complete.

The author is correct that working-class people have not outlived oppression, even in our own state and on our own campus. North Carolinas right to work legislation has made it nearly impossible for state employees to collectively organize, and the university has a rich history of combatting such efforts. But by dismissing the struggles of immigrants and other groups within the working class, alt-right leaders imply that the working class is exclusively white and male. In fact, it includes people of all races, faiths and gender and sexual identities. Therefore, supporting a living wage for women and people of color or standing against the Muslim ban are working class issues.

UNCs history reminds us that while all workers have indeed suffered, some have faced additional challenges. In 1996, UNC housekeepers won a long struggle against the university for higher wages, better educational and training opportunities and other benefits. These housekeepers were largely Black women, fighting a labor system where Black university employees received lower compensation and fewer opportunities for advancement than white employees. Such fights are not merely distractions. They are central to working class struggle.

In conclusion, we must hold the alt-right to the same standards of inquiry as other ideologies. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but as members of UNCs campus and of the global community, we have a responsibility to differentiate between personal beliefs and substantiated conclusions. When an opinion does not stand the test of inquiry or when it denies equality or basic human rights we must confine it to the dustbin of history.

Note: This letter does not represent the views of the Department of History, rather individual graduate and former graduate students of the Department.

Lindsay Ayling

Danielle Balderas

Justin Blanton

Alyssa Bowen

Ryan Branagan

Robin Buller

Anglica Castillo Reyna

Kirsten Cooper

Ansev Demirhan

Samuel Finesurrey

Ann Halbert-Brooks

Erika Huckestein

Aubrey Lauersdorf

Zardas Lee

Emily Lipira

Maria Matthes

Sarah Miles

Isabell Moore

Caroline Newhall

Mark Porlides

Jon D. C. Powell

Carol Prince

Mark Reeves

Anthony Rossodivito

Samee Siddiqui

Allison Somogyi

Jennifer Standish

Larissa Stiglich

Daniel Velsquez

Mary Elizabeth Walters

Garrett Wright

Justin Wu

Mishio Yamanaka

Read more in Letters, Opinion,

Share on social media?

Continue reading here:
Letter: What UNC's history tells us about the alt-right - The Daily Tar Heel