How do we stop the ignorance, hate, & violence directed against people just trying to live their lives in peace (& in theory, equality)? A simple question. One answer from a post on my Facebook wall:
We all have to start standing up to the everyday bigotry we see and hear in our lives. When you hear it, challenge it. Find a non-hateful way to respond to hate. We need to stop being tolerant of intolerance.
But the sad truth is that most people are too timid to challenge or call out bigotry we see/hear around us. That means stepping outside of our safety zone, and it forces us to deal with the reaction of the bigot in question – and that’s to be kind, an unpleasant thought. If we all did it though, we would have succeeded in cleansing most of the bigotry out of our society by now. But the bigotry is like kudzu – unwatched and not trimmed back, it grows wildly out of control, consuming everything in its wake.
Take the horrific incident in Wisconsin. Members of the Sikh community gather in what they believe is a safe, sacred space, only to have an alleged neo-Nazi blow away people – an act of domestic terror, as officials have declared it. Rmuse at PoliticusUSA:
It is too early to know if the shooter in Wisconsin mistook Sikhs for Muslims, or if he acted out of a twisted belief he was protecting America from an Islamic threat, but with the propaganda campaign and fear-mongering about the threat of Islam, it will not be surprising if he thought he was killing Muslims to stop Sharia Law. Although the anti-Islam movement began after 9/11, it gained traction when an African-American man ran for President, and since Barack Obama has been in office, there has been increasing vitriol targeting Muslim-Americans.
…This country is in jeopardy of erupting into sectarian violence based on race and religion, and in fact, among ultra-right wing fringe groups there is persistent talk of a coming race war. In the coming days Americans will learn what, if any, motivation caused a thirty-something white male to drive to a Sikh temple and begin shooting innocent Americans congregating to worship in the manner they see fit. One thing is clear, the man did not drive to the local Baptist or Assembly of God church and open fire on white congregants, and there were no anti-Catholic rallies in Wisconsin to incite protests against Vatican law leaving only one plausible conclusion; something drove a white man to gun down dark-skinned people with long beards and head coverings, and one can imagine that he confused peaceful Sikhs with equally peaceful Muslims he thought were plotting to replace the Constitution with Sharia Law and conquer America. If he had been paying attention, he would know America has already been conquered by right-wing hate and their propaganda machine at Fox News and the Republican National Committee.
As more information comes out about this domestic terrorist, it’s depressing to see just how much the above is affirmed.
Wade Michael Page, the alleged shooter who opened fire at a Sikh Temple near Milwaukee, has been identified as a neo-Nazi by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Page, 40, is accused of killing six people before a police officer shot and killed him.
“He has been in the neo-Nazi, white power music scene for more than a decade,” said Mark Potok, a senior fellow in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project…Page was a member of the band white power band End Apathy and had been a member other bands according to the SPLC. There is also evidence he attended white power concerts and events across the country.
And, of course, in the wake of the Aurora movie theatre shooting and this act of terrorism, the discussions will turn to gun control again. Really? Have folks been out to lunch? Neither political party is going to do jack about guns in an election year (or probably at any point in the near future) due to the NRA and fears on the Dem side that they are already seen as soft on guns. And Nancy Pelosi was immediately out of the gate after the Wisconsin tragedy to say no action is forthcoming on the Hill.
“The votes aren’t there for gun control,” she said. “We certainly aren’t going to be able to do it in this Congress, and I don’t know that we would be able to do it in a Democratic Congress because it takes a lot of votes to go down that path.”
Indeed, after the Colorado shootings, just four lawmakers held a press conference calling for better gun safety laws. Two of them, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), followed up with a bill that would make it significantly harder to buy unlimited amounts of ammunition on the Internet, which is how the Colorado shooter purchased his bullets. Congressional leaders have already signaled the bill isn’t likely to go anywhere.
Hell, the sale of ammo went up after Obama was elected in 2008 precisely because the wingers were stirred up that he was going to take their guns away. Good luck, folks on the gun control side — you’re going to get nowhere.
If we politically aren’t ready to deal with guns, and issues of access and safety, then how do you stop the ignorance, hate, & violence? For too many it seems they are A-OK with the “occasional” mass mow-downs of innocent people in order not to rock the political boat. And, of course, it’s pretty hard to have rational discussions with bigoted fearful of all stripes if they believe that they have their interpretation of the Bible, or belief system behind them. The rule of law is irrelevant.
So where does that leave us in terms of my question? Any suggestions?





27 Comments


My guess is that Michele Bachmann and her four fellow Republican caucus goons imagined that they’d do to Huma Abedin what others did to Van Jones. They thought they’d be celebrated by the right wing for claiming another Obama administration scalp–and during the election campaigns no less. Then McCain screwed up the plan.
When politicians engage in this sort of bigoted demagoguery, it gives a sense of license and empowerment to common bigots to engage in atrocities. Bachmann didn’t claim the scalp she wanted, but she deserves some of the blame for six that were adorned with turbans.
As long as the corporate media gives carte blanche to teabaggin Republicans to spread their fear, hate, lies and intolerance the violence will continue.
Republicans, their brain dead teabaggin allies and their friends in the corporate media, especially Fox, fan the flames of intolerance and hate. When someone acts on their fear mongering they are first to say that despite their “words” they are not culpable.
“We need to stop being tolerant of intolerance.”
So the solutions is a particular kind of counter-intolerance? A “good” intolerance? A countervailing intolerance?
If the crux of the problem is intolerance, why would one want to imitate that structure?
If we concentrate on changing others, we will get nowhere in a losing battle. If we concentrate on changing ourselves–our ideas, values, language and then act on these things–we stand a chance of making things better. If those of us who are against “bigotry-fueled violence” model the bravery of not being afraid, we might get somewhere, at least within our own limited spheres. But it is almost always harder to change ourselves than it is to insist that others change. Calling others out on their intolerance is easy. Acting on one’s convictions and modeling tolerance is hard.
What is behind hate, bigotry and the resulting violence is fear. Challenging the fear-addled will not reform them. It will likely cause them to become more defensive and hardened. Have we not all seen how Tea Partiers and other authoritarians respond to external conflicts and threats? The solution must involve overcoming fear. We want to limit “bigotry-fueled violence”? Then we must start by behaving in public like we are not afraid.
Who are each of us likely to be influenced by, someone who intolerantly challenges our fear-based prejudices or someone who acts like they are free and unafraid?
People respond to social pressure. The bigots grumble bitterly about “political correctness,” but our society is far less racist, sexist and homophobic than it was 50 years ago because most people eventually realized that such attitudes were destructive and ought to be shunned. We still have a long ways to go, but we won’t get there if all the push is coming from the bigots.
How about having the NYPD spy on the hate groups. I understand they have a staff for that kind of thing.
Maybe we have to take back our government one wingnut at a time. How about we go after this Bachmann screwball?
Its tough to change a culture. How about we focus on the things we can change ?
We KNOW murder rates correlate to economic inequality.
What causes gun violence ? The evidence.
We KNOW that extremist groups like the Nazis spring up when there is a bad economy. So maybe we should do something about fixing the economy and inequality ?
– use the existing Humphrey Hawkins law to justify an executive order creating a WPA
– use the existing platinum coin law to mint a $60 trillion dollar platinum coin to pay off the national debt and fund WPA
– push for a $12 minimum wage (Australia has a $16 min)
– push to replace free trade with fair trade
– push to eliminate the regressive FICA tax, pay for SS with FTT instead.
– push to decriminalize drugs, since much violent crime is drug-related
And so on.
We’ll never completely eliminate violence. But I’m pretty sure we can reduce violence significantly.
We probably cannot completely eliminate bogitry or the related violence, but we could eliminate most of it. That will never happen, however, as long as one of the major political parties relies heavily on it to win elections.
Ah, as my little bro’S bumper STICKER oN his pricy beemer said:
EXTERMINATE ALL EXTREMISTS
I think you hit the nail on the head. People tend to be tribal, its not an easy force to counteract and is rife for manipulation by the 1%. I think if we look at those periods of history where we have improved relations between different groups (of all stripes) we would probably see they were periods of economic stability. It might be interesting to investigate if one had the time.
I would also add that its very difficult to reach out to bigot when you, yourself, are bigoted. Our society very much is, look at how we treat Muslims. Democrats have no problems if the target group is the right one.
Look at the response to drone attacks. If the OP wants a plan for change, I would start with internal consistency. Then I would work towards goals that helped all groups equally based on compassion for everyone. You’ll never get anywhere without consensus. In this bought-and-paid for political environment it will be difficult even with consensus.
I’d also start with the assumption that economic inequality is the linch-pin of so many other problems and should be addressed as soon as or while we stop murdering innocent people.
“We all have to start standing up to the everyday bigotry that we see in our lives.”
And: “We need to stop being tolerant of intolerance.”
Those are worthy aims. If we had a preznint whom would mount the pulpit and really raise some hell, it would help.
Instead, about 20 minutes ago, I watched Barack Obama’s doling out of more de riguer sympathy to the victims in the latest slaughter.
Watching him twist himself into knots avoiding even SPEAKING the work “gun”, was black-humor hilarious.
He didn’t utter it in lamenting the Arizona massacre, nor the Aurora massacre, nor about this one at the Sikh temple.
“Coward” doesn’t begin to describe this jellyfish.
He could simply point out that, since some 50-odd people died in Britain from guns in 2011, while, in the same year, more than 31,000 americans died from gun causes, we just might take a good look at the advantages of putting some restrictions on the purchase of unlimited amounts of firearms and ammunition. Of course, since he clearly shits green nickels at the sight of the letters “NRA”, and since it’s obvious that no amount of gun violence can even get him to mention that word, it aint gonna happen.
BTW, Pam; your simpering platitudes are no help at all .
I was counting down the days until some half-assed racist loser gunned down Sikhs, mistaking them for Muslims.
“. . .“We need to stop being tolerant of intolerance.”
So the solutions is a particular kind of counter-intolerance? A “good” intolerance? A countervailing intolerance?. . .”
————————-
You noticed that, too? Maybe you’re on to something.
There is a cottage industry dealing in celebrating discovered intolerance as a vehicle for more of the same, an opportunity to pin labels, or some such. A joi de vivre, causus belli, or whatever, depending. But it’s half baked, since there aren’t solutions offered or thoughtful analysis.
I’m not sure if society is actually more violent nowadays or if it’s just the news which spreads faster and easier. We certainly seem to hear a lot about it nowadays, and there’s no resolution.
I think what kids are exposed to early on matters in this process. There’s plenty of money-generating violence around them 24/7 — real weapons, fake weapon toys, video games, violent music, big screen stuff from Hollywood, and on and on. A lot of this is coyly crafted proxy stuff for plausible deniability, avoiding condemnation, while still generating the dough and making the kids want more such stimulation. Think of a kid’s cartoon where a subject gets decapitated, and shot, then gets up and walks away seemingly unscathed. The kids find that stuff on TV, in the theater, and under the Xmas tree.
Maybe the kids get numbed that way moreso nowadays and develop a distorted view of reality. Wouldn’t they become more susceptible to bigotry and intolerance (also types of violence, I think) which they encounter among the grownups? Maybe it becomes normal, they grow up, and pass it along to their own kids.
no one is really addressing the issue that ties all the senseless viloence together. Whether its christian mom’s hacking up their babies or high school students spree killing or wannabe security guards gunning down teens, the one thing they all have in common are they were all taking their “meds”.
Seems the more prevelant the dosing of Americans has become the more of these incidents there are. Personally from my perspective none of the pills the pharmcos are pushing has made us any healthier or happier or better in anyway. If anything, the discussion should be how we get people off these freaking happy pills instead of how to control guns.
Regardless, There are always going to be crazies who commit unthinkble acts. Even if we took away guns they would just make bombs or something else.
Most of the points made above have some portion of validity. But ultimately the United States is a pluralistic society that has freedom of speech in its constitution that protects hate speech. Occassionally the price of this freedom manifests itself in an undisireable way.
I like the message on your Facebook wall. It might also be worthwhile to take a cue from the rhetoric of politics. I’m thinking of the term “political capital” as it gets applied to officials when they first gain office and everyone speculates on how they’ll spend it.
The fact is that almost everyone has “personal capital” to spend, even if it’s just a small circle where it has any purchase. So spend it. What have you got to lose? A relationship with someone who apparently did not have any respect for you after all? Go ahead, risk it. You could even gain some respect you didn’t realize you could get.
As long as people like Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee keep whoring it up for the press and they have followers this will never be stopped.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/pat-robertson-links-hate-of-god-to-wis-sikh-temple-shooting-79559/
I think you’re saying the political climate is exacerbating things, and I couldn’t agree more.
The purveyors just can’t help themselves, whatever it takes to corral a few votes, they’ll say, as long as there’s a net gain. It’s usually negative, rarely positive. The candidates are 100% responsible for this, and they don’t seem to know how to extricate themselves, and the process, from that dilemma.
An earlier commenter mentioned “senseless” violence. It’s a comfy modifier to help us fend off any responsibility of our own. That is, we’re all sensible members of humanity, no?, but they’re not. Not too useful.
However, I’m reminded that a lot of planning went into most of the recent headline grabbing tragedies. There was plenty of time for the perpetrators to reflect and reject such dire acts. Consider something quite different from an unplanned, “senseless” act of passion of the moment. So I’d note — McVeigh, Columbine, Giffords’ assailant, the suicide pilot at the TX IRS building, the Unibomber, Aurora, and now Wisconsin (I don’t recall all the names).
I don’t think parsing ideology will help answer these, since that’s a mixed bag in that list, which must be a lot bigger than that handful. It would seem, however, they all of them were anarchists of some sort. I’m not sure how useful that is, either.
I’m not suggesting that we don’t push but that we push ourselves instead of against others.
Indeed. You show me someone who makes a decent wage doing something meaningful, has a reasonable amount of autonomy and power, and isn’t brainwashed by the TeeVee to fear his neighbor, and I’ll show you someone who isn’t engaged in racist violence. It would be great if this problem could be addressed rationally by improving quality of life in the US, as per your suggestions, but between the Christian notion of sin and the American myth of boot strap, self-made success that’s a hell of a hard row to row. But no reason not to try.
“I think if we look at those periods of history where we have improved relations between different groups (of all stripes) we would probably see they were periods of economic stability. It might be interesting to investigate if one had the time.”
A great recent example of this phenomenon is what has been taking place in Darfur. In the past, diverse pastoralists and planters had a generally happy, healthy symbiotic relationship. With the increasing desertification of the region, which is to say economic instability, the positive relationship of the past broke down into ethnic violence. Here’s a good, quick overview by Alex de Waal: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n15/alex-de-waal/counter-insurgency-on-the-cheap
Other fruitful places to look might be the history of fringe religions in Europe like the Mennonites. Or the Roma.
I suspect violence has generally decreased in the US over the past 200+ years. But that of course depends on who you are–I’m thinking of Latinos in Anaheim, for example. The sense of its pervasiveness, owing to television, has increased. Or, what may have happened since the advent of the mass electronic media of radio, movies and TV is that actual violence has given way to greater pretend and imagined violence. Well, at least domestically. If you live outside of the US and have something the empire wants, actual violence has measurably increased.
Indeed. If freedom of speech doesn’t expressly, specifically include speech that ones finds abhorrent, then freedom of speech has no meaning or value at all.
Bang! Good one, BT. It’s the little everyday things with those you see and talk with that have the impact.
I just want to say to the Sikh community, I love you and I’m sorry this happened. That’s all.
Maybe so. I added Oswald to my list and recall how very long ago that was — nearly 50 years.
Back then the electronic media was already up to snuff, if not as versatile or convenient as today. People were glued to their TVs for a week over that, pretty well informed.