In the aftermath of the ICE raid of a nail salon here in Newburyport, something unfolded on social media as revealing of what America has become as the raid itself.
According to terrorized employees and customers, masked agents entered the shop, guns drawn. The scene, all said, was one of terror still felt after the shop owner was taken away.
All of this was in the Newburyport Police report and a statement based on it issued by the mayor. All of that was on the Daily News’ website and all over social media within hours of the event.
For all it’s faults, social media offers an chance to draw attention to inner details often lost in a sensational event.
For instance, the Chinese national arrested by ICE was not their primary target. If he was, then any law enforcement agents would have entered the shop without guns drawn.
ICE’s prime targets are never people sought and arrested or killed. It’s those who witness the drawn guns, and if ICE has the least pretext, the gunfire. Immediately following that, it’s the people who will hear of it, the neighborhood, the town or city, and with a murder or two, the state, perhaps every state.
Deportation is ICE’s secondary purpose. Foremost is the terrorization of populations that do not conform to MAGA’s agenda.
ICE’s indirection is much like that of the censorship of American history in schools. The real purpose is not to protect (white) children from being uncomfortable, but to prevent them from knowing what their ancestors have done–and, White God forbid, possibly identifying with white folks who aided the Underground Railroad or joined the Abolitionist cause.
Any discomfort is felt by the parents wanting to bury their family past. Unable to admit that, they cite their kids, using them as shields.
But that shows how a guns-drawn ICE raid is part of a much bigger picture we keep seeing in bits and pieces, including those who cheer ICE on and enthusiastically support America’s transition into an authoritarian regime because they perceive that it favors them over those under direct attack.
To borrow an old adage, Trumpism is in the details.
One social media post complained that, lacking any video, there was no evidence of ICE entering with guns drawn. I couldn’t help myself: “What part of the word ‘eyewitness’ do you not understand?”
No matter what I or others said, a few folks insisted that only a video could establish proof. Said one, “I can say I’m an eyewitness and make up anything.”
Trying with phenomenal effort to sound matter-of-fact, I pointed out that, one, you had to be present to be an eyewitness, and, two, the several who were there all told the same story. To which someone teased, “No video, no guns.”
The exchange went on for awhile with other commenters on both sides of an argument that would have dumbfounded every Republican and Democrat alike before 2016: Whether or not eyewitness accounts can serve as evidence.
To say no is willful ignorance on steroids. If applied to history, America would have a lot to correct. How do we know John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln? Was Lincoln assassinated?
And how many court cases would be overturned? Is there a video of Dred Scott in a free state? No? Well, then, every American court must overturn every decision made before the invention of the camera.
Of course, the Supreme Court we have now would be happy to overturn “Right vs. Wrong.”
This recent exchange fits a pattern that the Trump Administration has culled from a book written following World War II to show the details of how authoritarianism begins, grows, and takes hold.
“Don’t believe your own eyes and ears,” is a tenet of George Orwell’s 1984, a book intended as a warning but now serving as a blueprint. Trump himself said exactly that, to a gathering of veterans no less, early in his first term.
It’s an extension of constant slurs against the press–and historians and scientists–but, as Orwell along with Hannah Arendt reasoned, it is not to convince us of anything, but to make us doubt everything.
Where’s the video?
-821-























