With all the recent love that has been extended to immigrants (really, it’s been nonstop kisses and flowers), one could be forgiven for believing that hate groups in America are on the decline.
However, a recent report from the Southern Poverty Law Center says that the number of hate groups increased just a little — 244 percent — over the previous year. Now, this intimidating statistic provokes a natural question: What is the definition of a hate group?
Recently, I wrote about the Republican Party’s attempt to kill itself.
Specifically, I talked about how the GOP stance on immigration is increasingly being viewed as intolerant to Latinos.
Now, it’s easy to dismiss the harsh rhetoric coming from the right wing as the toxicity of a few racists, many of whom have found a home in the Tea Party or other conservative organizations.
Baseball season is winding down, and my hometown team continues to flounder (no, I don’t want to talk about it, thank you).
But one bright spot in this dismal year is the perpetually colorful Ozzie Guillen. The manager of the Chicago White Sox often makes comments that range from bizarre to offensive, and one never knows if he’s going to let loose with a maniacal observation, incoherent insight, or slanderous attack. Not many people can go from egotistical rant to self-loathing diatribe in the same interview, but Guillen manages it.
Recently, Guillen made news by claiming that Major League Baseball treats Asian players better than it does Latin American players. He pointed out that, among other things, Asian players are assigned translators, while Latin American players are left to fend for themselves.
Guillen added that “We bring a Japanese player and they are very good and they bring all these privileges to them. We bring a Dominican kid … go to the minor leagues, good luck.”
OK, his syntax is garbled (it’s part of his charm). But Guillen’s point — that Latin American players are treated as less important and more disposable — is a valid one.
One could argue that it’s simple economics. MLB probably assumes that the many players from the Dominican Republic and Cuba and so on will look out for each other. Maybe they feel that they have to coddle a kid from Taiwan. I don’t know.
But I appreciate that Guillen, in his own undeniably idiosyncratic way, has once again gotten people to think about an issue bigger than baseball.
The other outrageous comment that caught my attention recently came from an unlikely source.
Yes, Rupert Murdoch, Mr. Fox News himself, recently called for immigration reform that would create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented residents. This is the infamous “amnesty” provision.
Murdoch said that we’re missing a chance for reform because we’re bashing illegal immigrants too much. He added that Americans need to deal with the fact that more residents are speaking Spanish, saying that such changes have “been going on in this country for hundreds of years. You’ve got to adjust.”
Coming from a guy who signs Bill O’Reilly’s paychecks, his comments are clearly more shocking than anything Ozzie Guillen could say.
Hey, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s bring up that whole “What is racism?” discussion again. That’s always good for a few laughs. And nobody ever gets riled up to fight.
Yes, one of my recent posts brought in more critical comments and hate mail than usual. In it, I expressed my opinion that racism requires bigotry plus power. As such, in America, white people can be racist, while ethnic minorities don’t have the cultural potency to express pure racism.
Of course, I didn’t come up with this definition. It’s been around for years, and millions of people agree with it. In all likelihood, millions more disagree with it.
When I wrote the post, this definition of racism wasn’t even my main point, nor did I think it would garner more than a few derisive comments. As such, I was surprised when so many people lashed out, repeatedly. It was a rare moment of naivety on my part.
I addressed the fallout in this post, but I have to add a couple of points.
First, we have to acknowledge our different perspectives. As I’ve written before, calling a white person a racist is about the worst insult that can be leveled at them.
For this reason, it is in the white person’s interest to believe that this derogatory term is not reserved solely for them. It lessens the sting if anybody can be racist. Conversely, it’s in the ethnic minority’s interest to say, “You’re not pinning yet another horrible label on me; that one is all about you.”
Second, and on a more personal level, I still believe that most of the people who disagreed with me have sincere and principled arguments. However, it was impossible to miss a creepy subtext within a tiny minority of attack missives.
Clearly, some individuals were not used to having their opinions questioned, and grew quite irritated at my refusal to say, “OK, you win.” I can only assume that they have some degree of cultural power, and they need others to acknowledge that.
I can only ponder why that is.
“If you really want racism to disappear, don’t mention it!”
Comment on CNN message board
I recently read an article on a mainstream news site that addressed the messy racial overtones of a certain political situation. I expected the reader comments to be a maelstrom of partisan rhetoric and crazed theories. They did not disappoint.
However, one reader took a different approach. The commentator railed against the site for running the article in the first place. The comment was, more or less, “Stop playing the race card. All it does is divide us.”
I couldn’t help but think of a recent comment I received on one of my posts. I had written about some recent shenanigans aimed at Latinos. A reader didn’t dispute my analysis of the event. Instead, he or she stated that I was beating a dead horse and that looking at racial issues was “getting old.”
I recently spoke to my old friend the Bitca. At one point, we talked about my writing.
She said, “Your blog doesn’t need a button that says, ‘Like.’ You need a button that says, ‘You really fucking did it now.’ I would have clicked that button.”
Then she laughed.
She was talking about one of my recent posts, which irked more than a few people over on the Change.org site.
Recently, everyone’s most charismatic anti-Semitic homophobe, Mel Gibson, expanded his repertoire. According to widely distributed recordings, Gibson has gone beyond disliking just gays and Jews. He also despises women, blacks, and Latinos. I’m talking about those direct threats to his ex-girlfriend and his causal dropping of both the N-word and the W-word.
Now, a common question, besides the snide pondering of what his pals Danny Glover and Jodie Foster think of all this, is how could such a devoutly religious man be so filled with hatred? After all, Gibson directed The Passion of the Christ (a slice of hardcore propaganda for Christianity if ever there was one) and has been vocal about his faith.
As a brief aside, I may have mentioned – once or several hundred times – that I was raised Catholic, as many Hispanics are. I dropped out of the Church when I was a teenager.
One reason I left the Church was that I grew weary of being told I should feel guilty for every thought or action, no matter how innocuous. But I will give credit to my old parish for one thing: It at least told me that I should feel bad if I ignored Jesus Christ’s teachings.
To my surprise, many Americans don’t even have the self-respect to acknowledge when they are contradicting their spiritual foundation. I’m referring, of course, about the recent study that found a positive correlation between religion and racism.
We all know that most U.S. churches are racially homogenous (over 90 percent of them, by some estimates). But this study found that in these ethnically pure places of worship, “strong religious in-group identity was associated with derogation of racial out-groups.” This means that many Christians are looking at one of Christ’s great commands – “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39) – and amending it with the phrase “unless they look different than you.”
The researchers found that “religion is practiced largely within race” and as such, “religious in-group identity promotes general ethnocentrism.” This study focused on white Protestants, but the researchers believe that their findings apply to other groups because “all religions teach moral superiority.”
I’d like to say that all this surprises me, but it doesn’t. I’m sure we have all met religious people who struck us as somewhat less than holy. I still remember the older man who told anyone who would listen that he was saved, because he had accepted Jesus Christ as his savior. And then he dropped a few choice comments about minorities.
And my wife told me about the time she was stuck in a car with a group of well-to-do (and supposedly devout) Christians. To her surprise, her fellow passengers joked about running over African Americans on the way to their destination. They were going, of course, to a wedding… in church.
My wife is no longer friends with these people.
What amazes me is the overt contradiction that these feelings should create. Yet there seems to be little internal conflict.
Even religious homophobes who are secretly gay spend time praying to “cure” their supposed affliction. Their tragically wrongheaded approach at least causes them angst.
But many Christians apparently see nothing wrong with praising Jesus and then dismissing one of his central principles. Perhaps the more studious racists in the study can justify it with the ancient argument that all the other races are decedents of Ham, Noah’s ostracized son, and are therefore worthy of scorn. But somehow, I doubt this theological viewpoint comes up too much.
Regardless of how religious people justify it, the effect is real. The researchers “failed to find that racial tolerance arises from humanitarian values, consistent with the idea that religious humanitarianism is largely expressed to in-group members.”
In sum, I can say I’m a good person if I’m nice to people at my church. And it’s best if I don’t think about it too much beyond that.
As such, Mel Gibson has plenty of company.
Again, the study implies that every religion has this dirty little secret. One could argue, in fact, that modern religion demands a certain level of hatred for the mythical Other.
For example, the Amish are as religious as it gets, submitting their lives to a strict version of what they believe God wants. And yet, this very devotion to spiritual belief also requires a certain level of xenophobia. It’s necessary to maintain their theological (and theoretical) purity. Even if the Amish went looking for converts, I doubt they would be in a big hurry to accept a black person (by the way, if the Wayans brothers would like to develop this concept into a zany comedy, tell them to call me and we’ll do lunch).
So was there anything positive about this study? Did the researchers find any group that might offer some hope for the future?
Yes, there was. The researchers said, almost as an aside, that “only religious agnostics were racially tolerant.”
Well, that’s just great. How are we supposed to fit that into a sermon?
Here’s a quick thanks to Mel for his comment on my most recent post.
Before that article, I wrote about how the words “racism” and “racist” are tossed around a little too freely in America. I’ve been on the receiving end a few times, and I’ve also noticed that my posts (here, on HuffPo, and at Change.org) sometimes provoke readers to unload the word at each other.
Really, some of the threads beneath my articles – despite people’s insistence of principled claims and frequent use of SAT vocabulary words – are really little more than back-and-forth versions of “I know you are, but what am I?”
For the most part, I’ve been pretty lucky when it comes to my neighbors. I’ve gotten along with the vast majority of them, and I’ve never had cross-yard feuds or open hostility toward the people who live near me.
Yes, there have been a few annoyances. In college, one of the other tenants in the ramshackle student housing where I lived was infamous for getting loaded, arguing with his girlfriend, and getting kicked out of the apartment. From there he would scream her name for hours until she let him back in. Her name was Jody (or more accurately, “Joooo-Deee!”), and I will never forget it because I heard him screech it so often.
When I lived in New York City, our downstairs neighbor was a cranky old woman who banged on the ceiling (our floor) if she thought we were getting too rambunctious. And when I lived on Hollywood Boulevard, I arrived home from work one day to see my neighbor being hauled out in a bodybag. He was a junkie and had OD’d… actually, I guess that’s less “annoyance” and more “freaky trauma.”
But you get the point. I’ve never agonized over who lives next door to me.
Many Americans, however, most certainly do.
A recent study found that, as of 2006, about a fifth of Americans would be upset if immigrants or foreign workers moved in next to them. This percentage has almost doubled since 1990.
Although the phrase “immigrants or foreign workers” is vague, one can safely assume that most Americans conjure images of Latinos when presented with this wording. It’s doubtful that many Americans would become enraged if, say, a British expat moved into the neighborhood. As such, the researchers’ terminology may not translate directly into antipathy for Hispanics, but it’s close.
For the sake of comparison, the researchers asked about two other despised groups in America – homosexuals and Muslims – to gauge social intolerance. I assume that asking about black people moving in next door was considered trite.
The report found that hostility toward Muslims has also increased and that they are even less popular than immigrants. A possible reason for this is the September 11 attacks, which provoked many Americans to think of Muslims as, you know, a bunch of crazed terrorists.
Interestingly, homosexuals were the group with which people had the biggest problem. More than a quarter of Americans said they would have issues if people “of that lifestyle” moved in next door. However, this was also the only group in for which tolerance has increased. Perhaps all those “Will & Grace” reruns are having an effect.
In any case, more Americans these days have trouble co-existing with immigrant neighbors, and as the report points out, we’re not even talking about “illegal immigrants.” That just covers people who happened to have committed the grievous sin of being born someplace other than the United States.
The reasons for this are numerous, but certainly are not complex. For many Americans, all immigrants are Latinos, all Latinos are illegals, and all illegals are murderous thieves hell-bent on destroying the nation. It’s basic math.
Add in an economic recession and right-wing paranoia broadcast 24/7, and it’s little wonder that so many people will consider slapping a “For Sale” sign on their lawn if the new neighbor speaks with a funny accent.
I have to wonder, of course, about the welcoming committee for a gay Muslim immigrant. Actually, let’s not dwell on that one too much… way too disturbing.
I’ve officially lost count. For a while, I could tell you exactly how many times I’ve been called a racist, but now the number escapes me. I do know, however, that it’s quite a bit.
People on the right have hurled that term at me for saying that immigration reform is needed, or for pointing out that SB 1070 might make Latinos nervous, or for implying that ethnic minorities often have different perspectives than the majority culture does on some issues (that last one is a huge no-no).
However, people on the left have also tossed it my way (the term “imperialist” is also popular with them). Most recently, I got it for using the word “Hispanic” instead of “Latino”… or it may have been the other way around. I can’t recall.
In any case, whenever I am accused of being a racist, I wonder if I should ask the person to reconsider and choose another insult. I can supply a lengthy list, if they so desire.
You see, I’m concerned that we’ve watered down the terms “racism” and “racist.” Once upon a time, these words conjured up images of guys in KKK hoods, or of George Wallace in the doorway, or of old women shrieking slurs in public. This was hardcore stuff.
