logo
Politics based on grievance has a long and violent history in America

Politics based on grievance has a long and violent history in America

Yahooa day ago

Recently, President Donald Trump declared that he is 'bringing Columbus Day back from the ashes.' He hopes to make up for the removal of commemorative statues important to 'the Italians that love him so much.'
But Columbus Day had not been scrapped or reduced to ashes. Although President Joe Biden issued a proclamation for Indigenous Peoples Day in October 2024, on the same day he also declared a holiday in honor of Christopher Columbus.
Nonetheless, Trump posted in April 2025, 'Christopher is going to make a major comeback.' By using Columbus' name, which means 'Christ-bearer,' a president who covets the praise of faith leaders yoked the explorer to his campaign promise: 'For those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.'
By reasserting the importance of Columbus, the president took a stand against the toppling and vandalism of statues of Columbus. In this case, his act of retribution for his supporters focused on the holiday, which he could declare more easily than returning icons of a fallen man to empty pedestals.
Trump's statement invoked the politics of grievance – a sense of resentment or injustice fueled by perceived discrimination – that have characterized his actions for years.
The list of targets for his retribution, which have included Harvard University, elite law firms and former allies he believes have betrayed him, now exceeds 100, according to an NPR review.
As a historian of early America, I am familiar with how grievance marked the colonial era. Throughout this period, grievance fueled rage and violence.
Europeans who arrived in the Americas following Columbus' 1492 journey claimed the territories in the Western Hemisphere through an obsolete legal theory known as the 'doctrine of discovery.'
Spanish, English, French, Dutch and Portuguese rulers, according to this notion, owned portions of the Americas, regardless of the claims of Indigenous peoples. This presumption of ownership justified, in their minds, the use of violence against those who resisted them.
In 1598, for example, Spanish soldiers patrolling the pueblo of Acoma in New Mexico demanded food from local residents, whom the colonizers saw as their subordinates. The town's inhabitants, believing the request excessive, fought instead, killing 11 Spaniards.
In response, the governor of New Mexico, a territory almost entirely populated by Indigenous peoples, ordered the systematic amputations of the hands or feet of residents whom the soldiers thought had participated in the attack. They also enslaved hundreds in the town. Roughly 1,500 residents of Acoma died in the conflict, according to the National Park Service, a response seemingly driven more by grievance than strategy.
English colonizers proved just as quick to deploy extraordinary violence if they believed Native Americans deprived them of what they thought was theirs.
In March 1622, soldiers from the Powhatan Confederation – composed of Algonquian tribes from present-day Virginia – launched a surprise attack to protest encroachments on their lands, killing 347 colonists.
The English labeled the event a 'barbarous massacre,' using language that dehumanized the Powhatans and cast them as villainous raiders. An English pamphleteer named Edward Waterhouse castigated these Indigenous people as 'wyld naked Natives,' 'Pagan Infidels' and 'perfidious and inhumane.'
War began almost immediately. Colonial soldiers embraced a scorched-earth strategy, burning houses and crops when they could not locate their enemies. On May 22, 1623, one group sailed into Pamunkey territory to rescue captives.
Under a ruse of peaceful negotiation, they distributed poison to some 200 Native residents. By doing so, the colonial soldiers, driven by grievance more than law, ignored their own rules of war, which forbade the use of poison in war.
Even among colonists, grievance promoted violence.
In 1692, residents of Salem, Massachusetts, believed their misfortunes were the work of the devil. Their anxieties and anger led them to accuse others of witchcraft.
As historians who have studied the Salem witch trials have argued, many of the accusers in agricultural Salem Village – modern-day Danvers – harbored resentments against neighbors who had closer ties to nearby Salem Town, which was more commercial.
The aggrieved found a spokesman in the Rev. Samuel Parris, whose own earlier failure in business had led him to look for a new path forward as a minister. Parris' anger about his earlier disappointments fueled his indignation about what he saw as inadequate economic support from local authorities.
In a sermon, he underscored his financial irritation by emphasizing Judas' betrayal of Jesus for 'a poor & mean price,' as if it was the amount that mattered. The resentful residents and their bitter minister fueled the largest witch hunt in American history, which left at least 20 of the accused dead.
The most obvious forerunner of today's grievance-fueled politics was a rebellion in the spring and summer of 1676 by backcountry colonists in Virginia who battled their Jamestown-based colonial government. They were led by Nathaniel Bacon, a tobacco farmer who believed that provincial officials were not doing enough to protect outlying farms from attacks by Susquehannocks and other Indigenous residents.
Bacon and his followers, consumed by their 'declaration of grievances,' petitioned the local government for help. When they did not get the result they wanted, they marched against Jamestown. They set the capital alight and chased Gov. William Berkeley away.
Bacon succumbed to dysentery in October, and the movement collapsed without its charismatic leader. Berkeley survived but lost his position.
The rebellion has become etched into history as a violent attack against governing authorities that foreshadowed the 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol.
When President Trump invokes alleged insults to one community to satisfy the yearnings of his followers, he and his allies run the risk of once again stoking the passions of the aggrieved.
Acts of grievance come in different forms, depending on historical and political circumstance. But the urge to reclaim what someone thinks should be theirs can lead to deadly violence, as earlier Americans repeatedly discovered.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Peter C. Mancall, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Read more:
Why Trump's rage defies historical and literary comparisons, according to a classics expert
'Insurrection,' 'equity' and more − these are the words that trigger Trump supporters
Accept our king, our god − or else: The senseless 'requirement' Spanish colonizers used to justify their bloodshed in the Americas
Peter C. Mancall has received support from the University of Southern California, the Huntington Library, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and Oxford University to support his research on early America.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Prime Minister' Review: An Up-Close-and-Personal Peek Into Jacinda Arden's Six-Year Term Shows What Thoughtful Leadership Can Look Like
‘Prime Minister' Review: An Up-Close-and-Personal Peek Into Jacinda Arden's Six-Year Term Shows What Thoughtful Leadership Can Look Like

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

‘Prime Minister' Review: An Up-Close-and-Personal Peek Into Jacinda Arden's Six-Year Term Shows What Thoughtful Leadership Can Look Like

Editor's Note: This review originally ran during the 2025 Sundance Film Festival. Magnolia Pictures releases 'Prime Minster' in theaters Friday, June 13. A down-to-earth, compassionate woman who's spent her entire life building a career in public service is suddenly thrust into the leadership role of her party after the previous occupant is forced to step aside due to bad polling. Oh, and she only has a few weeks to turn things around before the entire country votes on whether or not they want her to assume the top office in the land. Sound familiar? More from IndieWire Wayward Teens Find Solace in Horse Country During Sundance Award-Winning 'East of Wall' Trailer 'Inside' Review: Guy Pearce Delivers Another Incredible Supporting Performance in Australian Prison Drama That Cuts Through All the Bull With 'Prime Minister,' filmmakers Michelle Walshe and Lindsey Utz present a compelling what-if to Americans now dealing with another four years under a ruthless tyrant by showcasing the capable leadership and everyday life of former New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern during her six-year term, as well as where she is today post-resignation. The documentary acts as an intimate study of what it means to serve others when it seems like the world is falling apart and to be a partner and mother at the same time. Despite the challenges both present, Ardern's deft and humane handling of crises reminds us that government can be a force for good, but only so long as we let it be. 'We have to rehumanize one another again' Ardern tells her students at Harvard University at the beginning of the film. We first meet Ardern in 2024, outside of her home country and relocated to Cambridge, Massachusetts, where she's working on a dual fellowship in both public leadership and online extremism — but also having time to walk her daughter, Neve, to the school bus in the morning. This dichotomy — of trying to be a force for good on both a grand and personal scale — persists throughout 'Prime Minister' as we flash back to 2017, when Ardern took to the political stage two months before the election and newly pregnant. She didn't have the time to think or panic. Her only option was to act and while she may have felt like she wasn't totally ready to do so, we're told the 'imposter syndrome' that took root during her teenage years had built in her the exact strength and confidence needed to face all the doubters and skeptics that stood between Adern doing what she felt was right by her country. This time in Ardern's life has been carefully documented not only via footage shot by her partner and eventual husband, NZ broadcaster Clarke Gayford, and others, but also audio interviews conducted by the National Library of New Zealand's Political Diary Oral History Project. As Ardern listens to these recordings in the present day while she writes and reflects on her experiences as PM, she takes an analytical approach to each moment, inspecting not only the words she's saying, but also recalling the emotional state she was in at the time they were given. In doing so, she offers both reflection and a comprehensive guide on how to steer a nation through times of great tragedy and suffering. 'Tell people what you know, even if it's hard.' 'People shouldn't have to thank you for a humane response' 'Your job is to govern for everybody.' These Jacinda-isms start to stack up as she faces one devastating event after another, yet at every point, we come to find these aren't just words to her, but deeply felt mantras. When the mass shooting at a mosque in Christchurch places a global spotlight on New Zealand and its gun laws, rather than shirk from the conversation or work to move past these traumas as we often do in America, Ardern finds a form of action she can take to ensure that massacres such as this never occur again. Less than a month after the attack, she passed a law that banned most semiautomatic weapons, assault rifles, and higher capacity magazines, as well as parts used to convert guns into semiautomatic weapons. As far as we can tell, this law worked, as archival news clips show New Zealanders returning weapons through a buyback program installed as part of the law and those weapons ultimately destroyed as a result. When the COVID-19 virus swept across the world, prompting most leaders to either freeze in terror or find ways to put profit above people, Ardern was one of the first to close her country's borders and enact strict lockdown procedures, a choice that allowed New Zealand to be one of the few countries to isolate the spread. Ardern makes clear that one of the only factors of relevance to her in coming to this decision was preventing widespread death. Any argument that ran in contrast to this, whether it be for economic or societal reasonings, proved secondary. In the end, it's estimated her steps, drastic as they may have been, potentially saved as many as 80,000 lives and made it so New Zealand could re-open safely long before most other countries were able to. However, with new strains breaking out and lockdowns needing to be reinstated, Ardern quickly became a target of fringe groups like anti-vaxxers and far-right conspiracy theorists importing Trump's hatred to the other side of the world. After Ardern's landslide re-election that saw her Labour Party gain the first majority government since introduction of a proportional representation system in 1996, her dissenters felt emboldened to take to the streets, forming a protest camp outside of the Parliament building that was not too dissimilar from the attempted American insurrection on January 6, 2021. While all of this is going on, Ardern is also trying to incorporate the raising of her daughter into the lifestyle of a global leader, a task she has to redefine almost immediately upon realizing the stress of the job will physically prevent her from breast-feeding. As Neve grows up playing in parliamentary offices and watching her mother on TV with no comprehension of the burdens she's shouldering, it's evident the impact of Ardern on her daughter during these years is mainly in shaping her independence, a fact she ultimately discerns in her resignation speech before Parliament. This ties back to one of the first things you start to notice about Ardern; Her sense of humor. She's always ready with a joke or a demonstration of wit, willing to laugh at herself and others in need of a bit of levity, but by the time the hateful rhetoric reaches her doorstep, that bubbly, yet sharp personality has given way to an exhausted individual ready to put herself and her family first. Ultimately, 'Prime Minister' feels like a film that would've had more impact if released a year ago, but today reads as a tragic depiction of yet another experienced, thoughtful woman whose determination to do good, both by her family and the country she represents, is steam-rolled by the horror and bigotry other individuals wish to bring on the world. Ardern ends up relying on force to push out the protesters and in doing so realizes that she can no longer keep the country together as a leader must do. Though it's not featured as part of the narrative, in resigning as PM, Ardern opened the door for Labour to suffer a landslide defeat in the next election, marring her own legacy for the sake of her mental health and as a response to those who stood in opposition to her. As she packs her office sporting a Portishead t-shirt and reveling in the presence of her now fiancé and their daughter, we can see her joy slowly start to flow back in, forcing us to wonder if any good person can actually govern in a world where politics have become seemingly ruled by those who are loudest and most out for themselves. Throughout the film, Ardern likens her experience at the helm of New Zealand's ship to explorer Ernest Shakleton's Antarctic voyage, a failed mission that was still considered a success based on every member of the crew surviving the journey. Maintaining confidence and bringing the team together under tenuous circumstances was a task Ardern seemed made for, but in stepping away, she reveals that with some missions, you can only go so far. 'How do we shine a light on the humanity that I know is still there' she asks herself and others watching this documentary in present day, fully aware that there are still greater battles to be fought despite our woeful inability to work as a collective. What unfortunately goes unsaid is that we need progressive leaders like her who push us in the right direction even if we're not ready to go there ourselves and as much as she may love her home country, choosing to leave it after what she went through does point to politics and governance on a global scale as a system that will always go through swings of progression and regression. Based on her efforts now, trying to both train the next generation and stem the tide of rising fascism online, we're left with the feeling that the best Ardern can do is pass it off, as it has been before, hoping that someday, someone else will come along to do their bit of good in the arena before the lions tear them apart. It's not exactly a bright message, but better than giving up entirely, and necessary considering her daughter will soon have to face these challenges in her own way as well. 'Prime Minister' premiered at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival. Magnolia Pictures releases the film Friday, June 13. Want to stay up to date on IndieWire's film and critical thoughts? to our newly launched newsletter, In Review by David Ehrlich, in which our Chief Film Critic and Head Reviews Editor rounds up the best new reviews and streaming picks along with some exclusive musings — all only available to subscribers. Best of IndieWire The 25 Best Alfred Hitchcock Movies, Ranked Every IndieWire TV Review from 2020, Ranked by Grade from Best to Worst

The gift Trump never meant to give: the spotlight to Democratic adversary Gavin Newsom
The gift Trump never meant to give: the spotlight to Democratic adversary Gavin Newsom

Los Angeles Times

time17 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

The gift Trump never meant to give: the spotlight to Democratic adversary Gavin Newsom

SACRAMENTO — President Trump craves attention and will stoop to any depth to grab it — even pour gasoline on a kindling fire in Los Angeles. But this time he unwittingly provided priceless attention for an adversary. Because Trump needlessly deployed National Guard troops and — more ridiculous, a Marine battalion to L.A. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was granted a prime-time speaking slot on national cable television to respond. 'We honor their service. We honor their bravery,' Newsom said of the troops. 'But we do not want our streets militarized by our own armed forces. Not in L.A. Not in California. Not anywhere … . 'California may be first — but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault right before our eyes. The moment we've feared has arrived.' I'm not sure the 'democracy is under assault' message has much traction, but keeping armed combat forces off our streets must be a salable pitch. Regardless, governors almost never get national TV time to deliver entire speeches, even as brief as Newsom's. You've practically got to be nominated for president. But the publicity-thirsty sitting president provided the cameras for California's governor. Newsom's strong address probably boosted his stock within the Democrat Party and revived dormant speculation about a 2028 presidential bid. No longer was the Democratic governor playing respectful nice guy and tempering criticism of the Republican president. Now he was standing up to the bully who loves to use California, Newsom and our progressive politics as a punching bag. Trump's red-state supporters love every swipe at this 'left coast' state. Newsom rose to the occasion, using his greatest asset: invaluable communication skills coupled with telegenic looks. He laid out his version of what happened to turn relatively peaceful protests against federal immigration raids into destructive street violence. And it's the correct version by objective accounts. On Saturday, Newsom said, federal immigration agents 'jumped out of an unmarked van' near a Home Depot parking lot and 'began grabbing people. A deliberate targeting of a heavily Latino suburb … . In response, everyday Angelenos' exercised their constitutional right to protest. Police were dispatched to keep the peace and mostly were successful, the governor continued. But then tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades were used — by federal agents, Newsom implied. Then Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops 'illegally and for no reason,' the governor asserted. 'This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation … . Anxiety for families and friends ramped up. Protests started again … . Several dozen lawbreakers became violent and destructive.' Newsom warned: 'That kind of criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Full stop.' And hundreds have been arrested. But he emphasized: 'This situation was winding down and was concentrated in just a few square blocks downtown. But that's not what Donald Trump wanted … . He chose theatrics over public safety.' In Trump's twisted view, if he hadn't sent in the National Guard, 'Los Angeles would be completely obliterated.' Never mind that the violence was confined to a few downtown blocks, a fraction of a city that spreads over 500 square miles. 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free and clean again,' the president promised. Veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy had it right, telling CNN: 'He's lighting the fire as an arsonist, then claiming to be the fireman.' It reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson's manufactured Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 that Congress passed, enabling him to vastly escalate U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Johnson reported a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. destroyers that many experts later concluded never happened. But I think Trump mainly is obsessed with attracting attention. He knows he'll get it by being provocative. Never mind the accuracy of his words or the wisdom of his actions. Sending in the Marines certainly was an eye-opener. So is staging a military parade on his birthday — an abuse of troops for attention, personal glorification and exercise of his own power. He'll say anything provocative without thinking it through: Tariffs one day, suspended the next. He'll boast of sending San Joaquin Valley water to L.A. for fighting fires when it's physically impossible to deliver it. While Trump was playing politics with immigrants and L.A. turmoil, a poll finding was released that should have pleased him. Californians no longer support providing public healthcare for immigrants living here illegally, the independent Public Policy Institute of California reported. Adult state residents were opposed by 58% to 41% in a survey taken before the L.A. trouble erupted. By contrast, a PPIC poll in 2021 found that Californians favored providing state healthcare for undocumented immigrants by 66% to 31%. Polling director Mark Baldassare concluded the public opposition stems mostly from the view that California taxpayers can't afford the costly program — not that they agree with Trump's anti-immigrant demagoguery. In fact, Newson has proposed paring back the state's multibillion-dollar program of providing Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants because the state budget has been spewing red ink. Given all the rhetoric about the L.A. protests, the statement that particularly impressed me came from freshman Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), whose downtown district stretches from Koreatown to Chinatown. 'Rocks thrown at officers, CHP cars and Waymo vehicles set on fire, arson on the 101 freeway — have nothing to do with immigration, justice or the values of our communities,' he said in a statement Sunday. 'These are not protesters — they were agitators. Their actions are reckless, dangerous and playing into exactly what Trump wants.' Gonzalez is a liberal former chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party who stuck to his point: Hoodlums can't be tolerated. And, thanks to Trump, Newsom was able to make a similar point about the president on national TV: His dangerous, self-serving actions can't be tolerated either.

Federal judge questions constitutionality of Trump sending National Guard to LA riots: ‘President is, of course, limited'
Federal judge questions constitutionality of Trump sending National Guard to LA riots: ‘President is, of course, limited'

New York Post

time22 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Federal judge questions constitutionality of Trump sending National Guard to LA riots: ‘President is, of course, limited'

WASHINGTON — A federal judge expressed skepticism Thursday about the constitutionality of President Trump's order to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell anti-ICE riots. Senior San Francisco US District Judge Charles Breyer heard arguments from attorneys for Trump's Justice Department and California Gov. Gavin Newsom after the Democrat had sued the feds over dispatching roughly 4,000 Guard members to protect officers carrying out immigration enforcement operations. 'We're talking about the president exercising his authority, and the president is, of course, limited,' Breyer, the younger brother of liberal former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, said at one point in the hearing. Advertisement 3 AP 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George.' Brett Shumate, the head of the DOJ's Civil Division, disputed Breyer's characterization of the president's order throughout the hour-long hearing, arguing that the commander-in-chief had 'delegated' the federalizing of the Guard through California's adjutant general, as legally required. Advertisement Shumate also claimed that Newsom was merely a 'conduit' for that order as it passed through the chain of command from Trump to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the state Guard. 'There's no consultation requirement, pre-approval requirement,' he argued. 'There's one commander-in-chief of the armed forces.' The California attorney general's office countered that allowing Trump's action to stand implied there would be 'no guardrails' for further abuse by the executive branch. 3 Clashes have erupted in LA over the last several days sparked by ICE raids. Barbara Davidson/NYPost Advertisement 3 A demonstrator points his finger towards members of the California National Guard during a protest against federal immigration sweeps in downtown Los Angeles. REUTERS 'The president, by fiat, can federalize the National Guard and deploy it,' an attorney for Newsom said, 'whenever there is disobedience to an order.' While Breyer took issue with the deployment of the National Guard, he appeared more inclined to let stand Trump's order sending around 700 US Marines to the Golden State to assist with the federal immigration crackdown. 'I don't understand how I'm supposed to do anything with the Marines, to tell you the truth,' the judge responded, quibbling with Newsom's legal team over whether their involvement violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Advertisement Breyer did not immediately issue a ruling, but said he hoped to put one out 'very soon.' This is a developing story. Please check back for more information.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store