Lasman: Rethinking hatred

Hate — one of the few emotions with a legal definition — has been all the rage lately. Commentators and columnists debate why “they” hate us, why we hate “them” and whether we should all unite in condemnation of some third entity, be it extremism or global warming. The tumult has found its way to this paper, where a levelheaded article “Yale groups combat anti-Muslim sentiment” (Sept. 7) was typhooned with an outpouring of anonymous online comments in which Islamophobia jostled with anti-Semitism, even letting Christian supremacism land the occasional blow.

I was shocked at the vituperative hatred that some members of this community apparently espouse. It strains credulity that some who willingly affiliate themselves with a liberal, multinational university could be so terrifically illiberal and insular. What compels someone to read an entirely inoffensive article about ecumenicalism and spew bigotry, with nary a thought for decorum or careful argument?

As though to shed light on the issue, there came last Friday’s “Why we hate” by Alex Klein ’12. Instead of a helpful taxonomy of bigotry, however, the column offered little more than tired declarations about Islam, democracy and patriotism, all nominally in service of an espousement of dialogue and some murky counter-terrorist action plan. I am no more capable than Klein of either explaining or repairing America’s current hate fixation. However, as a test case, I’d like to discuss another contemporary situation divorced from the familiar terms of jihad and Quran-burnings — one which Yale doesn’t even have a cultural organization to address. While Islamophobia dominates headlines in the United States, Europe is embroiled in a debate over a group most Americans still think of in terms of racist fantasy and stereotypical fiction — the Romani.

The Romani people constitute one of the world’s largest stateless ethnic groups — between six and 11 million. They have never had a state to call their own; they have never even been promised one. Since arriving in Europe following a trans-Asiatic odyssey beginning in Rajasthan, India, they have endured a unique blend of bondage, discrimination and continued poverty that seems to reprise the more familiar woes of Jews, African Americans and Native Americans. In Romania, they were enslaved until 1856; during the Porajmos, the Nazis murdered at least 200,000 of them (a third of their total population at the time); and, in parts of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, eugenic attempts to destroy them continued until at least 2001. Though they are one of the few groups routinely labeled with ethnic slurs — “gypsy” and “tsigan” (from the Greek for untouchable) — it took a 2005 Canadian Supreme Court decision to establish that antiziganism qualifies as hate speech.

While Europe has become increasingly borderless, much of it remains unwelcoming to the traditionally itinerant Romani. In 2008, after a woman was murdered by a Romani immigrant in a suburb of Rome, the Italian government declared a “nomad emergency” — a racial euphemism poorly disguised. This July, French officials dismantled some 51 “traveler” camps and repatriated their inhabitants. Under French immigration law, all such camps are illegal. However, the European Union justice commission has accused the French government of targeting Romani as an ethnic group, citing a leaked memo from the Interior Ministry which stated, “Three hundred camps or illegal settlements must be cleared within three months, Roma camps are a priority.”

Hatred of the Romani runs through the whole spectrum of society, from Neo-Nazis to presidents — Nicolas Sarkozy rebuked the E.U.’s commission’s accusation by suggesting that the Justice Commissioner allow the expelled Romani to settle in her native Luxembourg, as though seeking to ferret out a common distaste. It’s indisputable that Romani communities have higher rates of crime, unemployment and nearly every other social ill than the societies that surround them; but as we know from an America in which blacks are 6.4 times more likely to be incarcerated than whites, such rates are symptomatic not of inherent tendencies but rather of sustained and wide-scale inequality and discrimination. The caretakers of a Romani girl with whom I worked in Romania were frightened to leave her side in the hospital, fearing doctors might mistreat her.

Institutionalized bigotry exposes hatred at its roots. We hate not because of single, proximate causes such as the murder of the woman outside Rome, but because of a deep distrust of those who refuse to immediately abandon their separateness and leap into our melting pot. We hate because the ultimate causes, whether of Romani poverty or Islamic radicalism, are uncomfortably close to home. They are the harvest of our past sins: discrimination and inhumanity in the first case, imperialism and cultural chauvinism in the second. We hate because during economic decline, we seek scapegoats, the more visible the better.

Hate allows us a cultural relativism of shocking ignorance: an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan is provocative, while offensive cartoons of a revered religious figure are harmless free speech. But we can’t have it both ways — a liberal society cannot be liberal only when liberalism suits its tastes. Hate permits hiding behind familiar but baseless generalizations. Worldwide, a slightly higher percentage of Catholics are in the Irish Republican Army than Muslims are in al-Qaeda — though both are dwarfed by the percentage of Basques affiliated with ETA, an organization responsible for some 800 deaths since 1968. Yet no one discusses a Basque predilection to terror — white and without distinctive headgear, the Basques pass snap-judgment “alien” tests without a second glance. For that matter, I’d be the first to admit that we Jews invented terrorism, both mythologically (reread the Samson story) and historically (look up the Sicarii). And though Jews have been called many things through our long history with discrimination, “inherently violent” isn’t typically one of them.

The Romani are not the only people who have endured collective hatred through centuries of migration, war, purges and liberalization. However, their continued existence and struggles present a bold challenge to those who seek to excuse, rationalize or redirect bigotry.

We will hate as long as we see through the mirror but darkly — until we can confront our own failings, and our own flawed selves, face to face.

Sam Lasman is a junior in Berkeley College.

Comments

  • theantiyale

    Not EVERYONE posted anonymously (a form of cowardice, especially on controversial topics).

    Xenophobia, not hatred, is the cause of bigotry.

    Important article. Would like you to elaborate on the “creation” of terrorism.

    Paul Keane

    [link text][1]

    [1]: http://thantiyale.blogspot.com “Salivating the Burger”

  • FailBoat

    Yawn.

    Documentation? Try finding any documentation in this piece or Klein’s earlier piece. There is none. Both of your pieces are long and tired assertions of how much everyone else hates Romanis/Muslims without any regard for 1) statistical analysis, 2) argumentation, or 3) reality.

    Yale needs to start encouraging more rigorous thinking from its humanities majors.

  • FailBoat

    As for “Christian supremacism” — Are you completely divorced from reality, Mr. Lasman? All religions consider themselves supreme – there would be no point in practicing a faith if you did not think it to be *the correct* faith.

    This is the Yale bubble at work, and it is sickening. I see stuff like this every day.

  • Arafat

    Mr. Lasman,

    I think your article suffers from faulty logic in many areas.

    For instnace you write, “Worldwide, a slightly higher percentage of Catholics are in the Irish Republican Army than Muslims are in al-Qaeda” yet fail to mention there are some one hundred, or more, Al Qaeda-clone groups throughout the Muslim world. Furthermore, as the polls show in the following link, something like 50% of Muslims support Al Qaeda even though they are not members of Al Qaeda.

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/201003229181/world/terrorism/the-myth-of-qthe-small-fringeq.html

  • Arafat

    I also take exception with your use of the word “Islamophobia”.

    The proper meaning of Islamophobia is: A non-Muslim who has taken the time to study Islam and Islam’s history and appreciates the inherent aggressive, supremacist nature of its core tenants.

    Here are some quotes from people who know Islam for what it is. These men are Islamophobes, people who understand and have experienced the true nature of Islam. (As an aside, you might ask the people of Darfur whether they are Islamophobes.)

    Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria on Islam
    “I am afraid that God has sent these men to lay waste the world”.

    Gregory Palamus of Thessalonica on Islam
    “For these impious people, hated by God and infamous, boast of having got the better of the Romans by their love of God…they live by the bow, the sword and debauchery, finding pleasure in taking slaves, devoting themselves to murder, pillage, spoil and not only do they commit these crimes, but even – what an aberration – they believe that God approves of them. This is what I think of them, now that I know precisely about their way of life.”

    John WesleyJohn Wesley on Islam
    “Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it…have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind.”

    John Quincy AdamsJohn Quincy Adams on Islam
    “The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.”

    “Qur’an… an accursed book… So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world.” —William Gladstone (1809-1898) Prime Minister of Great Britain 1868 – 1894

  • theantiyale

    **DEPENDETH IT ON WHOSE GOD DOETH THE PLUNDER?**

    ***Quincy speaketh with forked tongue.
    PK***

    JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
    The nineteenth century belief that the United States would eventually encompass all of North America is known as “continentalism”.An early proponent of this idea was John Quincy Adams, a leading figure in U.S. expansion between the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the Polk administration in the 1840s. In 1811, Adams wrote to his father:
    *The whole continent of North America **appears to be destined by Divine Providence** to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union*.
    (Wikipedia)

    [link text][1]

    [1]: http://theantiyale.blogspot.com “Salivating the Burger”

  • powertothepeaceful

    Great column! Sorry so many people consistently miss the point.

  • Yale12

    Arafat, you seem to think that finding quotes from famous historical figures to support your Islamophobia somehow makes it legitimate. You could do the same to legitimize a fear of black people, or women’s suffrage. It wouldn’t make you right.

  • Arafat

    You’re right Yale12. Churchill, Roosevelt and their ilk are not worth quoting.

    Maybe this will suffice instead:

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Quran-Hate.htm

  • domlawton

    Arafat: sarcasm aside, Churchill was a miserable, petulant, racist piece of trash who isn’t worth quoting in the slightest. I’m consistently amazed at the mysterious love affair Americans seem to have with him.
    “I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race, has come in and taken their place.”

  • The Anti-Yale

    Racist, and an inebriate.; but, eloquent. (and saved the free world with his rhetorical skills). You might be writing from the inside of a death camp today if it were not for Churchill.

  • The Anti-Yale

  • Pingback: acne treatment mask

  • Pingback: free credit report government

  • Pingback: cheap life insurance

  • Pingback: eyelash growth product

  • Pingback: http://theriverof.com/member/93001

  • Pingback: Gustavo Whittall

  • Pingback: online car insurance quotes

  • Pingback: cheap auto insurance in phoenix az

  • Pingback: affordable car insurance nj

  • Pingback: Tipp City

  • Pingback: car insurance instant quote

  • Pingback: online auto insurance quotes