Daily Times

The American Civil War technically ended on April 9, 1865 with Confederate General Robert E Lee’s surrender to Union General Ulysses S Grant at Appomattox Courthouse. It would, however, take another 16 months for President Andrew Johnson to formally declare and end to the conflict in August 1866.

Now, more than a century-and-a-half later, the US is once more at war with itself. But this time around the clash is not about power, authority or the rights of the federal government over individual states. Rather, racism and socio-economic disparity and injustice lie at the heart of today’s battleground. Worryingly, one party is in denial about the dangers of this latest conflict while the other misreads the cures.

Throughout much of America’s history, race and racism were largely connoted in terms of the black-white dichotomy, despite persisting discrimination against the Irish, Germans, East European immigrants and Jews and Catholics. This hostility later extended towards the Chinese and Japanese. Since the 9/11 attacks of 2001, Muslims found themselves in hot water, plunging headfirst into this racial cauldron.

Donald Trump, with or without malice aforethought, brought matters to a boil with his (selective) Muslim travel ban; describing Mexican immigrants as “rapists and murderers”; and allowing the “America First” slogan to be hijacked by nativists to rail against minorities. More recently, he labelled Covid-19 the “Kung Flu” and the “Chinese Virus”. Thereby triggering violent reprisals that targeted Asian-Americans to such an extent that the Senate has now passed the Covid-19 Hate Crimes Act.

The expansion of racism beyond the black-white divide has been aided by real and perceived socio-economic injustice and inequality. The new battle lines include: racial profiling; reparations for the travesty of slavery; redistribution of wealth from the ever decreasing numbers of largely white Americans to less fortunes citizens; defunding police departments to transfer cash injections to social and economic programmes; decriminalisation of certain offences, particularly those related to rioting and looting under the banner of social activism; to instances of white police officers killing African-American citizens.

Racism and socio-economic disparity and injustice lie at the heart of today’s battleground. Worryingly, one party is in denial about the dangers of this latest conflict while the other misreads the cures

But how much of this is rational? Let us consider two recent ‘skirmishes’ in this latest civil war.

The first is the death of George Floyd, who became a posthumous icon for anti-police brutality against people of colour, especially Afro-American men. His murder, lasting some nine-and-a-half minutes, was captured on video and today symbolises institutional racism within the police. Yet it is still necessary to ask, what if Floyd had been white? Would public outrage have been as great? Or what if Derek Chauvin, the law enforcement agent responsible for his death, had also been black? Would riots have erupted spontaneously to protest black-on-black murder? And what if Floyd had been white and Chauvin black?

The second is the death of 16 year-old Ma’Kia Bryant. The teenager was fatally shot (four times) by Columbus police less than an hour before the Chauvin verdict. Bryant had reportedly called law enforcement agents for protection but was found holding a knife. According to her aunt, she had dropped the weapon before the police firing. The questions here remain the same. What if Bryant had stabbed and killed someone and the police had refused to use deadly force, allowing her to flee the scene? Would police officer Nicholas Reardon have been taken to task for failing to prevent that crime? Or suppose Byrant had been white?

The Biden administration plans to tackle racial and socio-economic injustice and inequality by way of an ambitious agenda for jobs, infrastructure and investment. Yet funding for this is to come from having the rich pay their “fair share”,which means raising the corporate tax rate as well as increasing capital gains and income tax on earnings of more than $400,000 per year. Again we must ask pertinent questions: will such redistribution of wealth temper this new civil war by improving the lot of minorities? Or will it lead to a waste of resources; a negative impact on the economy; or taxpayer revolt? All of which can exacerbate prevailing tensions

De-criminalisation is more than a skirmish. A member of the crowd waiting outside the court for the Chauvin verdict dropped a veritable bombshell. Speaking to a reporter, the individual noted that if the former policeman were convicted on all three counts of murder and manslaughter — not a single person would be “forced to riot” in protest against an unjust verdict. It is worth mentioning that in the immediate aftermath of Floyd’s death last year, looting was openly tolerated as if quid pro quo for the loss of life.

Greater peril lurks. During the Vietnam War, violence and terrorism came almost exclusively from domestic far-left and communist movements intent on destroying the government. The Black Panther Party (BPP) and the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) were among the better known ‘terrorist’ organisations. Today, law enforcement and intelligence agencies identify white supremacist extremist groups as the biggest domestic terror threat to the US. Nevertheless, several fringe members of Congress have called for a ‘Anglo-Saxon’ and ‘America First’ caucus, despite the obvious racist undertones.

The political war being waged by two hyper-polarised parties puts the prospect of a truce or ceasefire over issues of race, racism and socio-economic disparity and injustice dangerously out of reach. Fortunately, this civil war will not leave 700,000 Americans dead, with no Appomattox Court House is in sight.

Dr Harlan Ullman is Senior Advisor at Washington, DC’s Atlantic Council. His latest book, The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Threat to a Divided Nation and the World at Large due out late this year describes the 1923 Fund in greater detail. He tweets @harlankullman