Can I learn something from hate mail?
A short time ago, I received an e-mail from a family member. For the sake of family harmony, I must add that the relative is on my side. I'll call him "Dave".The email was a forwarded screed written against a faith–not, needless to say, Dave's. I was disgusted and astonished he'd endorse what I considered hate literature. He had also sent it to friends, as well as his wife and adult children.
My response was to ask him to also send the message to his friends of that faith, and I'd do the same, and see what they thought of its "truth".
The upshot was a terse e-mail from Dave: "Stick with your friends; sorry for the exchange". I received a series of e-mails and links from my friend, countering some of the distortions. He wondered why Dave felt as he did, asking, "Has Dave had any difficult or hostile encounters with (us)?"
Though I haven't see Dave for years, I'd guess not. He likely has no friends of that faith, either– which I admit I figured. I was making a point: how easy it is to hold enemy images when we know not a single one of "them". I'm not naive to the deep conflicts of the world, especially those with religious agendas. But the e-mail was not focused on the extremist element, it was, at its conclusion, a diatribe against all of "them".
I sat up late into the night ranting to myself. But Dave had sent me a gift wrapped in that disturbing message: the opportunity to examine my own prejudice.
Have you ever played the Stereotyping Game, where someone identifies a group (blondes, Slavs, poodles, architects) and you complete the sentence "All ... are..."? I used it in a social psychology class I taught; it elicited whoops of embarrassed laughter but led to intense discussion: What is bigotry; what is conviction? How do we know "what 'they' are like?
How easily those stereotypes came to mind, how readily we seek confirmation and reject contrary evidence. We become dumber, less responsive to complex problems and dilemmas. It's a seductive form of stupidity.
I began to view Dave through the lenses of various stereotypes: his nationality, age, profession, class. In a matter of hours, Dave had passed from kindly, distant relative to major jerk. The rift opened to an uncrossable chasm.
I decided, Done with him.
After a night's sleep I had another thought: Oh no. I have to keep talking to him. Ignoring him is a form of apathy, even cowardice.
I recalled a version–several have been used at various sites–of a well-known statement (often presented as a poem) by the Protestant minister, Martin Niemöller, ca. 1946. His words reminded me, as they have many, that silence is nearly always interpreted as assent.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Comments
I deal with a relative whose bigotry has caused a serious rift. I can't be around him because almost every conversation contains a bigoted, hateful comment. Sad.
It really hits home when you bring people into your family who belong to groups that get targeted.
You might want to read Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy by Eric Metaxas. Wonderful book about another heroic (and I don't use that word lightly) Lutheran Pastor who ultimately was executed by the Third Reich for his unyielding defense of free speech.
C.
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait". I am surprised that Pinterest does not moderate such comments.
Pam: I agree and that's why I suggested he contact his friends among that group. It's much harder to generalize when you live in a diverse setting.
Kristien62: I so hope we all speak up. Sometimes we even stereotype ourselves: "I'm Italian so I talk with my hands." It can be an unconsciously learned pattern.
Madame: Agree it is not based on critical thinking, and sometimes they do think critically- but have chosen a very selective exposure to what they read or listen to.
LPC: I once married a man whose family was opposed to my religion. They were essentially really good people operating in an inherited belief system. They actually liked me and did that by ignoring my background. I got a first hand view of prejudice's deep roots.
M: I am more afraid of the interests who court Daves because the end of this piece of mail says,
"In twenty years there will be enough (of them) in the US to elect the President. Be warned and act accordingly." Chilling.
materfamilias: I find that younger (and even some older Canadians) Canadians do not fully 'get' the impact of slavery and its aftermath in the US, since it is not directly part of Canadian culture. I would like to ask her how she would like to be taken,sold, shipped from her homeland and enslaved for life. Not that bad, eh?
C.: Dave is not usually exposed to diverse cultures, which makes him vulnerable to such material.
Empathy certainly reduces bigotry by meeting the fear in someone with understanding.
L'age: Now let's see if I can stick with it!
The e-mail is not a criticism of the practices of a cult but of an entire religion, and all its practitioners.
There are some really warped groups out there, some operating under the guise of "religion" and I agree we must speak out about those too.
This is nothing new, she was always angry and critical but became more hateful with age, just as her father did. Her mother wasn't like this, my own father isn't like this (and, poor man, I can only imagine how much bigoted ranting he's subjected to on a daily basis). I'm mortified. Not only is my sweet husband in about 3 categories she hates, but I am too (no surprise) and all of my closest friends have at least one terrible "flaw" to her. So I have to keep my family quarantined from the rest of my life since I'm used to deranged behavior but others should not have to be wounded by it.
Frankly, I wonder if she isn't losing some sanity, or maybe her disappointment at my not becoming a surgeon and marrying another surgeon really IS that great...
Family, where the genetic lottery hands you a surprise in every box.
Here, the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the internet.
I did not publish the content of that e-mail for that reason, and also because I find it deliberate misinformation.
So sometimes when I say something and then am asked "Did you just realize you said..." that's been illuminating. Like you, initially defensive but then, more awake.
I have heard that many elderly become more extreme, maybe hateful to others, maybe abusive to family, as pain, fear of losing control, and fear of death close in. Also as medical conditions erode their minds and sanity. Very sad situation.
We spent time talking about a new documentary about Hannah Arendt and 1930s Germany. And as I grew up in Miami, that led us to talking not only about the Holocaust but also about Cuba and how some Miami folks viewed the influx of Cubans in those days.
Amazing, isn't it?
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/02/27/hate_speech_ruling_antigay_pamphlets_broke_law_supreme_court_of_canada_says.html
Jean S.: The more talking, the better, even as we struggle with how to reconcile the value of free speech with the malevolence of defamation.
I am a white Christian (culturally, at least). Where I grew up, in a Detroit suburb, we were literally all the same. In my high school of some 2,000 students, there were no blacks, one Japanese kid, and one Jew, that I knew of. I first met a black person in college. I think I'm pretty open-minded, but I'm aware of holding some stereotypes and prejudices deep down. But I am more unbiased than my parents, and WAY more than my grandparents.
I'm glad that my kids have a different experience. Despite the stereotype (!) people have about Texas, in our suburban Houston neighborhood, my daughter goes to high school with, and is friends with, Muslim kids from Pakistan, Hindu kids from India, a Bosnian Muslim girl, several kids from Africa, a boy from Argentina, and plenty of white Christian Texan types. She's much better prepared to deal with the real world than many of us, especially people like your relative. The "other" doesn't have much meaning for her.
---Jill Ann
diverchic: To immediately observe my thoughts has been an important step. It was also a big wake up to be (as one of the dominant group) suddenly on the receiving end of prejudice, to feel its sting and the frustration of not being seen or respected.
Recently, one of my old friends from high school was ranting about the Oscars (of all things) on FB. He claimed that "the Oscars" were trying to push "their morality", "their values" on the rest of us. I found his whole screed to be bizarre. All I could see was anger.
And I agree that generalization is not ever a good analytic tool. As a Texan, I have borne the brunt of some real stereotyping about Texans! Yes, it is offensive to be thrown into the same barrel with others who have their own set of views which are not your own.
I agree that dialog should not be cut off with those who hate, but it is sometimes challenging to find a productive avenue for that dialog. Sometimes it is best to just ask questions to try and determine the source of the hate and anger.
Because a branch of my family is Texan I'm aware of the stereotypes. They occasionally 'play the role': "Whhhat, you call that a big steak? I'm from Texas, that's a meatball."
Have we all done it at one time or another? Most likely.
Is is wrong or unfair? Most definately.
This topic leaves me wanting to try harder to look beyond the surface.
Very thought provoking. Thanks Duchesse.
In my case, I might not responded to Dave if he had not cc'd family. It takes energy and a skill to address fear, even when it is founded on fact. Addressing fear built on lies is even more work.
Sounds like you would like me to pay attention to negative remarks from persons who chose to (anonymously) represent persons of another faith as horrible people, to find a "kernel of truth".
I read widely, seeking both sides of issues, but consider whether a piece is fact-based, or, if someone's opinion, presented as such.
I have a tendency to tell someone like that (after presenting evidence) that he has his head up his behind. Of course I've had mine there, too, which is why I recognize it.
Your ability to deliver the message gently is inspiring and I hope it does get them to think.
Well, not exactly. All I know of the situation is what you've represented, i.e.:
"The e-mail was a forwarded screed written against a faith"
This does not indicate the writer was anonymous, nor does it state that s/he specifically described religious practitioners in any way, so I have not rendered an opinion on those issues. My only point is that there is often more than one truth to be considered. However, I can answer your question "Can I learn something from hate speech?" The answer is no; once you have characterized speech as hate, you do not appear to be capable of sufficient dispassion to analyze its content. The answer may be different for someone else, of course.
Your conclusion is erroneous. It's not *Dave* I'm "not paying attention to", it's the defamation and and bigotry of the forwarded e-mail.
I did learn something from it, as I said: an opportunity to examine my own prejudice.
Anonymous@3:12:
First, a "screed against a faith" is pretty likely to include its practitioners, wouldn't you say?
Second, there is indeed "more than one truth to be considered"; however, when an e-mail characterizes *any* group via sweeping generalization, in defamatory language, I don't give it the credibiity I'd accord a thoughtful, fact-based, thorough treatise written by an identifiable source.
Now I am mulling why comments like yours are always anonymous. Why would you say that is?
I stand by what I wrote and-though hate e-mails are rampant- feel parsing them for kernel of truth is not the best use of my time.
M: Do you know the term "concern troll"? That is why your comment was deleted.
I'm not sure what "comments like mine" means, nor can I speak for others who choose not to use their full names (which includes everyone who has commented on your post), but I can respond for myself: The softwear options given for "Choose an Identity" only appear to give me one choice (perhaps due to my own computer illiteracy, as I have no Google account, OpenID or Name/URL). I have no problem identifying myself as the other posters do: Terry P
I perceived the title of your post to be an invitation to philosophical discussion, but I now see you were just seeking validation of your outrage. That's fine, just something that doesn't particularly interest me, so I'll move on. Sorry to have disturbed you.
Your excuse of computer illiteracy is a little dubious in 2013. You *did*, however, get one of your judgments right: hate mail outrages me. But you missed my key point: I decided to keep talking to Dave.
Having a teenage son with an active mind, I am constantly reminded that we as a human society, will always disagree about something, that will not end. Otherwise it will be way too boring, when we all agree with each other.
My son does not have to agree with me at all, he has the freedom to choose. Opionions are just opinions. It is different when the person "Dave" is actually making law that is based on his opinions and forces everyone else to obey, that will be come dangerous.
I really do not think that is what you are talking about here. When others' opinins become hate speech automatically when it is different from yours or mine, it does point out some underlying hypocrisy.
I disagree with you, but when a message is drenched in such vile terms, it does make me less willing to enter into discussion.
However, I would enter into one. Anonymous authors of hate e-mails are generally not looking for discussion, though- or they would not hide behind anonymnity. They want to sensationalize, scare and vent their bile.
I read the entire e-mail more than once, and considered its arguments. I consulted members of that faith, looking for more learned input concerning certain sections attributed (inaccurately, as it turned out) to "scripture".
In other words, I gave this e-mail some time, though it does disgust me.
I do not term the e-mail hate speech because it presents a viewpoint "automatically different" from mine; I term it hate speech because it seeks, through misrepresentation, hyperbole, and distortion, to vilify an entire group based on religion.
The piece has been picked up by other bloggers and by journalists who deem hate mail, though I don't need their concurrence to call it like I see it.