An extravagant phenomenon is taking place in these days, the destruction of statues. In itself, it is nothing special, in the sense that generally after the end of each regime the statues of the dictator are destroyed. The point is very simple: since the dictator is normally killed by a handful of people, all those who would have liked to participate in his killing do so but in effigy .
Of course, it also serves to send a political message, such as "the regime is over", and everything.
But the problem with the US is that no regime is falling. Radicalizing the clash is simply bringing back all those Trump voters who believe in the "white genocide", and is making us forget the terrible budget of the Coronavirus "managed" by Trump. It doesn't have to weaken it.
There is a strong component of magic thinking in this type of gesture, and it is the same that animates the fetishistic rituals of Vudun: what I do to the statuette depicting a guy will succeed the guy. Which, if they weren't long dead, would at least worry the superstitious. (I don't know if you remember when Calderoli was convinced that the Kyenge family had made him " a macumba ".)
But if we move on the political plane, how does the destruction of statues fit into the real discourse?
A political movement kills the enemy in effigy when it is unable to do it in reality, and does not have a strategy to do it, nor the appropriate leadership
All the black Americans are doing is asking the white legislator, (go see the racial composition of the American Congress, to understand) to end the police brutality. But the decision, since BLM has no leadership, does not depend on them. Sure, there are some people's tribunes among BLMs, but they can't be candidates. In short, there is no other Obama.
So this system won't collapse. And since the congress cannot change a mentality rooted in a law, and in practice the proposals will not change anything, on the contrary they will worsen the situation, the result is that they can only do symbolic acts. Just like demolishing statues.
Why am I saying that the proposals won't change anything? Well, simple.
Taking funds from the police is a stupid thing. For a reason, which is called "priority". Let's say you take the funds away from the NYPD. Well. But let's ask ourselves: are well-protected citizens of wealthy areas, say Manhattan, willing to give up their security?
The answer is no. They can say they agree with BLM as much as they want, but the wealthy who paid fortunes to live in a Gated Community (a neighborhood surrounded by walls and gates, and armed surveillance, to protect it from crime) and the managers of power real estate that bought houses of a certain value because they were in well-protected areas, will NEVER accept that houses will drop in value or that their Gated Communities will lose security. And since they are the rich, then generally they just need a phone call to the mayor.
So let's face it: you took the money away from the police, me not all the police. You took them away from the poor police. Sure, surely a police who kills you is a police you wouldn't want around if you're a nigger, but the problem is that with the murder and rape rates of poor neighborhoods, getting killed by a policeman is less of a danger than a nigger. run. I know the claim is paradoxical, but the abnormal number of negroes killed by the police is still a small fraction of the number of negroes killed by other negroes in the ghetto quarters.
So the police "defund" will eventually backfire on those who asked for it.
Many devastations will also backfire on them. If we look at the dynamics of the "looting", the devastation of the shops has occurred mainly in some states, in some counties and in some cities. Who have a precise demography.
What will probably happen is that the insurances will adapt the insurance premiums to the risk, calculated on an ethnic basis. At that point the chains will begin to have two alternatives: raise prices in those areas to re-enter the cost, or abandon those areas and invest in the areas benefited by the market. Just like telcos do when they only put fiber in town.
Result: the neighborhoods of the poor who become more disadvantaged, even in product terms.
Why all these terrible strategy mistakes? For several reasons: the first is that BLM is a movement without real leaders, and especially without real educated leaders. Destroying the statue of Christopher Columbus for example is idiocy, since the black Americans are NOT natives of the place, and from the point of view of the natives, they should get out of the way too if they "went back to before Columbus" . Christopher Columbus took some slaves, but they were not African American.
This is the same idiocy that led 'Cassius Clay to rename himself Mohamed Ali', convinced that in doing so he would acquire dignity: in his ignorance, the poor man did not know that the colonialists were buying black slaves in Africa because, in fact, in Africa Islamic slavery was (and still is) legal. So he acted, in his opinion, against those who bought his ancestors, but not against those who sold them.
And this is where the question of breaking down the symbols comes, but those that are not understood very well : if you are looking for the absolute symbol of colonialism that has brought millions of Africans to the USA, you just have to go to London. It's called "British Crown". It is exactly the body that gave the concessions to the various "Companies of the Indies", which then treated the slaves. The British crown is the political body that ordered the US invasion and colonization financed and organized.
Of course, even the royals of Belgium, Spain, Holland, Sweden, Portugal, Germany, Italy and others should be questioned about it. Some countries have removed the royals from the balls, but others still have them. The treasures they have accumulated come from the colonies. Many jewels in the English crown come from the colonies.
If you want to ask for compensation, you should knock on their door. If you want to slap someone, it's really them. Of course, these are the descendants, but as heirs they still partially possess the fortunes accumulated during the colonial period.
But it is precisely the lack of historical knowledge, ie education, which leads BLM to make the choices it makes. That is, choices of high symbolic value, but of very little effectiveness. Not that asking for an account of Elizabeth of England is a move of practical use, but at least it would make historical sense.
In Italy, then, the thing is ridiculous. Because the leaders of Italian colonial politics are essentially two entities: the Savoy crown and the Fascists. But the problem at this point is: do you tell me what sense it makes to remove a statue of Montanelli when in Predappio the shops live selling fascist memorabilia?
And again: do you intend to remove every Vittorio Emanuele square in the country? Do you want to destroy the Reggia Venaria? Do you want to eliminate practically every Roman monument, given that the Roman economic system was based entirely on slavery? (and yes, the Romans imported slaves from Africa, especially for agricultural use).
But the problem is not "if it would be right": justice is not a physical entity, therefore it cannot be a valid argument.
The point is: what is it for?
What is the use of destroying the statue of Montanelli when immigrants in Italy are still treated as slaves? There would be burning the effigies of many brands of tomatoes, which buy that raw material. There would be fires in the municipalities of the places where black slavery in the countryside is tolerated.
But it won't happen, and it won't, and that's the point.
The enemy is burned in effigy when one does not know how to defeat him in practice
The destruction of the statues is not a victory, but a sign of impotence: we cannot change anything about this system, we do not know how to change it in practice, therefore we destroy its symbols.
A complete admission of bankruptcy.
This insurrection is nothing more than a comfortable side for Trump, who is radicalizing his because his opponents are radicalizing, and there is no mention of the disaster that the coronavirus is doing in the United States.