The Nazis yms"z not
only were virulent anti-Semites but they hated across the board -- although
their view of Jews was especially vile. It is not by coincidence that we can
speak of Anti-Semitism as the 'canary in the coal mine' in regard to a
society's view of others -- for how a society treats Jews can often
indicate how it will, in general, treat others. Hate can be a generic
response to any other. The challenge, though, is that it also may not be
-- and there can be a problem if we see hate as solely generic.
One group’s hatred towards
another emerges either from a perceived perception of the group being hated or
of the group expressing the hate. In the former case, the explanation of the
hatred flows from a presumed fault in those being hated which is deemed
deserving of this response. In the latter case, though, the focus of the hate
does not emerge from a perceived fault in those being hated but, rather, a
presumed superiority in those hating. This type of self-perception can then
lead to a generic hate of all others. It is not simply that my group is
better than the other group because of a fault in the other group. The argument
is that my group is inherently better than the other group. This can then be
extended to a generic argument that my group is better than all other groups.
In recent times, we seem to be seeing a movement towards defining hate much
more in this manner, as a generic expression of superiority of one over all others.
This is not to say that this person of generic hate does not also make
distinctions between the individual others that this person may hate. It might
still be that this person will still define certain people as more deserving of
hate than the others. This was clearly the case with the Nazis. They hated Jews
more than they hated the other 'others' but the essence of their hate was in
their perceived superiority over all others. They had generic hate that then
broke down into different degrees of hate depending upon an other's specific
grouping. Their hate, though, was generic; its essence was the hate of all
others. It emerged from a bloated sense of self-worth. This form of hate
obviously still demands our concern. There is, however, a problem if we see
hate only in such generic terms, as reflecting solely this type of
motivation. Hate emerging from the specific attack on a particular group
through the demonization of that group can then be ignored.
This problem was reflected in
various statements made in response to the tragic shooting at the Chabad
synagogue in Poway. The gunman, upon being arrested, was also charged with
attempting to set fire to a mosque a month earlier. He obviously not only had
hatred toward Jews but also possessed hatred toward Muslims -- and that is something
which clearly should not to be ignored. But rather than describing him as
someone who had negative emotions toward these two distinct groups of the
other, his hatred for Jews and Muslims became one. There were those who were
trying to define his hate as solely generic; Antisemitism and Islamophobia
became one and the same. The pathology of the gunman was defined by his
feelings of superiority. He was a White Supremacist. There was, of course, some
truth in this assertion. What was lost, though, is that people could thereby
ignore the Anti-Semitism - the perceived perception of specifically Jews as
negative -- in what happened. By highlighting generic hate, people could avoid
addressing the problem of the specific negativity towards Jews.
We saw this in the recent
Congressional statement on racism which began as a specific rebuke of
Anti-Semitism. The argument was made that it should be a rebuke of all forms of
racism -- and, on the surface, there would seem to be merit in such a demand.
We should be against any type of such hatred. What is lost, though, in this
development is the recognition of these different motivations for hatred. By
grouping all hate together, by focusing on generic hatred, we are actually
thereby only focusing on one motivation of hatred -- the feeling of
superiority. This is not just a quantitative distinction: let's join all the
victims of hate in the resolution. A qualitative distinction is also thereby enunciated;
we lose sight of the specific roots of hate towards a particular community. The
full problem of Anti-Semitism is, thereby, not addressed. It is being swept
away with the effort to define any problem of hate as generic.
A further example of this issue
also surfaced more recently. Members of the U.S. Congress recently formed a
Black-Jewish caucus to deal with issues in the relationship between the Black
and Jewish community. I saw this as a positive development. My understanding
was that the purpose was to address negative emotions that exist between the
two groups. The attainable goal was to find a solution, to deal with the root
causes of these negative emotions. Then we heard someone stating that the
purpose of this new caucus was to deal with hatred towards Blacks and Jews. The
argument was again being made to make the issue generic hatred and, thereby,
avoid the real issues facing the relationship between these two communities. This
person was, perhaps, afraid of the findings if these issues were actually
investigated. My hope is that this caucus does not fall prey to such an
argument. I am not saying that it should not deal with the issue of generic
hate. It should not, however, allow those who wish to promote this issue of
generic hate to prevent any investigation and discussion of the other issues.
All hatred -- or tensions -- between groups are not the same. There may be,
indeed, a generic factor but not every problem of hatred necessarily shares the
same roots. There are those who are attempting to avoid the specific problems
of Anti-Semitism by defining any act of Anti-Semitism as a reflection of
generic hatred. This creates its own problems including the creation of a shelter
for the specific Anti-Semite. We cannot just ignore the problem of generic
hatred. We also cannot accept the created attempt to define all hatred as
generic to thereby allow for specific forms of hatred to be ignored.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
1 comment:
It should be obvious that in addressing this issue, I am also touching upon how people interrelate in general. Friction occurs between individuals and groups; hate is but the extreme negative consequence of such encounters. The real challenge is how best to respond to this friction. This demands a truthful investigation of the issue(s) between the parties including the honest appraisal of self. In such an environment, solutions can be found. Hate is then often the result when one does not truly wish to look at oneself in the pursuit of the common good. The only concern is the self. The desired solution is thus the one that only serves the self.
One interested in this topic may also wish to look at the following:
Insight 5757-22: Defining Sinat Chinum (Part One)
http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/insight5757-22.htm
Insight 5757-23: Defining Sinat Chinum (Part Two)
http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/insight5757-23.htm
Post a Comment