by Nomad
 |
(From Mad Magazine, 1968) |
The Beneficiaries of Hatred
Blind hate has been around since the days of Cain and Abel. According to that story, Cain's hate caused him to murder his own brother and as a result, Cain was cursed and marked for life. In some respects, we all wear that mark. It sometimes seems as though humanity will never be able to extinguish it. People hating other people is just part of our DNA.There's the type of hate between individuals that leads you to despise your sister-in-law or stick pins in dolls that look like your boss.
The Cain and Abel variety.
But there's another kind that seems to be flourishing: the irrational hatred, bigotry, and violence among nations and within societies. groups. That's the category of hate that leads deranged people to march into a temple and to senselessly kill 97-year-old Jewish ladies.
The 2004 book "Why We Hate" searches for answers and comes to some important observations.
In time of economic instability, structural change or political turmoil, the members of the majority group often react to a real or perceived threat to their position in society by turning against the members of the minority groups in their midst.Part of that has to do with maintaining distractions.
Operating under a zero-sum definition of the situation (i.e. someone else's loss viewed as a personal gain), they try to limit the minority's rights and access to their country's economic resources. The inability of the formal governing structures to protect the rights of all residents and to address growing social inequality becomes the root cause of many ethnic conflicts.
In its most extreme form, these kinds of conflicts can create conditions for atrocities like genocide and ethnic cleansing. The 20th century is one long litany of systematic slaughter of minority populations.
Much of the blame for such conditions can be attributed to leaders who promote fear and hatred. They identify minorities as a threat to the safety and stability- and to the privilege- of the majority group.
Many Americans gave an involuntary shudder in 2016 when Trump accepted the nomination of the Republican Party. He stood on the podium, before applauding Republicans and claimed that he would be the "voice" for frustrated disenfranchised Americans. But it was clear he was not speaking for minorities. He was speaking for the white majority who were "the forgotten men and women of our country."
The irony is that, while claiming to speak for the white majority, he actually protects the interest of a very different sort of minority: the wealthiest class of Americans. In recent years, Republican-led Congress has approved of tax cuts that have shaved trillions of dollars off federal government revenues. And who benefits? Not Trump's core voters he claims to represent.
And that's the whole point of the fear-mongering and the hate-stirring. Dividing the white population from the minorities ensures that both groups are incapable of defending themselves from exploitation by super-wealthy class. In short, keeping these groups afraid and hateful is a useful tool.
Unabashed Enablers
Trump, of course, has his hate enablers. I am not just speaking of the Republican party.
As the book also points out, the mass media plays a critical role in stoking ethnic hatred in general by "trumpeting the ethnic rhetoric of nationalistic parties."
It exaggerates grievances and exploits division. In the days before the breakup of Yugoslavia, the well-supported official media broadcast the emotive propaganda of the majority population without mentioning the other side of the story.
That's not an isolated example. Prior to the 1994 Rwanda genocide, in which between 500,000–1,000,000 people were killed, local radio stations and newspapers were carefully used by the conspirators to dehumanize the Tutsi minority.
Before all hell broke loose, one popular radio station became well known for rabble-rousing broadcasts, promoting the murder and torture of innocent Tutsis. In addition, events were fabricated, aim at creating a Hutu backlash.
Later, the U.N. Tribunal claimed that the paper “poisoned the minds of readers,” whereas the radio station actively participated in the call for their extermination, even going as far to call out the names of individuals that they were seeking. In many forms, Rwandan media was entirely responsible for uprooting pre-existing racial tensions and transforming them into a full-blown genocide.
On less a level, we see the similar efforts to pit the majority against the minority closer to home.
Under the shield of "fair and balanced" Fox News (as well as right-wing radio) do very much the same thing in the US. Take Fox prime-time host, Tucker Carlson. Media Matters has charted Carlson's "unabashed championing of white grievances earned him the accolades of neo-Nazis."
Since 2007, Carlson has gone from "thinly veiled racism into full-throated white supremacy:" Most recently, he called hate speech "a made-up category designed to gut the First Amendment and shut you up."
If there's no such thing as hate speech, according to Carlson, then he cannot be guilty of anything but free expression.
Dangerous Nationalism
The other day, President Trump took off the mask he has worn for so long. He finally admitted what most of us have suspected.
"You know, they have a word – it’s sort of became old-fashioned – it’s called a nationalist. And I say, really, we’re not supposed to use that word. You know what I am? I’m a nationalist, okay? I’m a nationalist. Nationalist. Nothing wrong. Use that word. Use that word."
There are some very good reasons why the word has fallen "out of fashion." In the 20th century, nationalist leaders, particularly of the far-right were associated with fascism.
Nationalist ideology has been responsible for an unprecedented level of ethnically motivated brutality including the Nazis’ annihilation of some 6 million European Jews in the Holocaust, and the forced displacement and mass killings carried out in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s.
What was striking for a lot of Americans was the fact that Trump should, despite its shady references, still use the word "nationalism" over the word more common to American presidents "patriotism."
It was very likely a word cunningly chosen for him by Stephen Miller. a Trump advisor and reportedly an old friend of the controversial white nationalist leader Richard Spencer. Spencer was one of the organizers of the "Unite the Right" rally in Virginia which led to dozens of injuries and the death of counterprotester Heather Heyer.
But really, is there a difference between a patriot and a nationalist? This definition by Charles De Gaulle, who led the French Resistance against Nazi Germany in World War II, is, I suppose, as good as any.
Patriotism is when the love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when the hate for people other than your own comes first.
Cain's Reply
In a liberal democracy, the leaders must recognize and respect minority rights. It is the government's responsibility to discourage (and certainly not to embolden or rally) the prejudices and hatred of the majority against the minorities.
That's especially true of the United States, which has prided itself on its tolerance and diversity even when it has fallen short of those aspirations.
Even when it failed, most Americans strongly believed that majority rule balanced with respect to minority rights was vital to a democratic government. It was something that was ingrained in us from the time we were children. It was found the Golden Rule too: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
How much clearer could it be?
That was echoed in President Kennedy's famous speech:
“The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities; whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated.”
This approach- even when it was only a goal and not a reality- was what Americans were once so proud of. Now it is being trashed on a daily basis by the president of the United States.
For this reason, America's survival as a nation depends on a repudiation of Trump's nationalism. We must forcefully reject all that Trump stands for or we, as a nation, will pay a heavy price.
That brings us back to the hateful Cain and his sibling, Abel. When Cain was asked by God where Abel was, the smart-aleck Cain spits back, "Am I my brother’s keeper?"
That retort has echoed down through the centuries. Yes or No? What say you? This is the question that every nationalist leader like Trump and must be forced to answer.
Pondering this question, Rachel Farbiarz, a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law, gives this excellent answer.
“The ‘neighbors’ for whom you must care are not only the people around you, but the entirety of this large, unruly human family from which you are a lucky, and burdened, descendent. Each member of this family is your ‘brother.’ And none, therefore, are you free to abandon.”