I Hate To Say It
So I've been thinking about the idea of hatred, and it seems like a surprisingly elusive concept. Clearly, some of my understanding stems from the Judeo-Christian tradition (Rule #2: Love your neighbor as yourself) then tempered much more by liberal tolerance than by high-religious righteousness. I'm not saying I have the best perspective, but I'm just saying that in terms of exploring this emotion, I haven't had a lot of experience with it.
It seems like hatred must exist in direct relation to the other emotions tangled up in a relationship. I used to think that there must be some love to build hate upon, but now I'm not so sure. In thinking about it, it may be good to separate things like racist slurs (eg "jewed," "gypped,") from intentionally hurtful actions/words. It's probably not a good thing that people go around using the word "gyp" as a verb without knowing its racist origins, but that's ignorant, not hateful.
Hatred could stem from feelings of fear or inadequacy, which makes sense when you consider social hate movements (KKK and such). However, there needs to be a correlary sense of entitlement or primacy. If you are to stand in righteous judgment of someone, you must feel some justification for being able to make that judgment.
It seems like a delicate balance. Hitler (or Bush) had to convince the Nazis (Americans) that there was a threat to their lives. He also had to convince them that the threat was potent and that their lifestyle was worth defending at all costs. To me it's hard to imagine a hatred that springs up organically with no system of authority or risk of political loss. Can you imagine the Germans spontaneously and unanimously deciding to destroy the Jews and Gypsies and other cultural subsets unless there were fascists were involved?
It may be useful even to consider countries like Iran. While Arabs are a gigantic target of Western hatred, especially right now, some Arab groups also foster hatred for the West. It has much more religious overtones (partly because the Arab tradition makes no attempt to differentiate between religious and secular power), but it seems awfully similar. Groups in power construct a threat (America and the hedonistic lifestyle it exports), secure a justification for judgment (the Truth of Islam), and use the hatred as a reason to maintain political control. In truth, the prevalence of Muslims in America would suggest that the teachings of Muhammed are not so strict that Muslims must kill every American they meet.
Consider attempts to foster hatred in other forms. I recall (though I have been unable to re-locate) Nate's attempt to join a LiveJournal group about music. They ask about songs you love and songs you hate. It's easy to name songs that I love; I could name one hundred in about a minute. It's much harder to name songs I hate, though. Why? If I don't love a song, I'm mostly ambivalent about it. It's difficult to generate intense feelings about a song I don't care for. I don't have to listen to it, and even if I do, I am simply put off by its crappiness without really wishing any harm upon the song (however that would be accomplished) or its artist. It seems like hatred is difficult to maintain without someone with a lot to gain spurring it on.
It seems like hatred must exist in direct relation to the other emotions tangled up in a relationship. I used to think that there must be some love to build hate upon, but now I'm not so sure. In thinking about it, it may be good to separate things like racist slurs (eg "jewed," "gypped,") from intentionally hurtful actions/words. It's probably not a good thing that people go around using the word "gyp" as a verb without knowing its racist origins, but that's ignorant, not hateful.
Hatred could stem from feelings of fear or inadequacy, which makes sense when you consider social hate movements (KKK and such). However, there needs to be a correlary sense of entitlement or primacy. If you are to stand in righteous judgment of someone, you must feel some justification for being able to make that judgment.
It seems like a delicate balance. Hitler (or Bush) had to convince the Nazis (Americans) that there was a threat to their lives. He also had to convince them that the threat was potent and that their lifestyle was worth defending at all costs. To me it's hard to imagine a hatred that springs up organically with no system of authority or risk of political loss. Can you imagine the Germans spontaneously and unanimously deciding to destroy the Jews and Gypsies and other cultural subsets unless there were fascists were involved?
It may be useful even to consider countries like Iran. While Arabs are a gigantic target of Western hatred, especially right now, some Arab groups also foster hatred for the West. It has much more religious overtones (partly because the Arab tradition makes no attempt to differentiate between religious and secular power), but it seems awfully similar. Groups in power construct a threat (America and the hedonistic lifestyle it exports), secure a justification for judgment (the Truth of Islam), and use the hatred as a reason to maintain political control. In truth, the prevalence of Muslims in America would suggest that the teachings of Muhammed are not so strict that Muslims must kill every American they meet.
Consider attempts to foster hatred in other forms. I recall (though I have been unable to re-locate) Nate's attempt to join a LiveJournal group about music. They ask about songs you love and songs you hate. It's easy to name songs that I love; I could name one hundred in about a minute. It's much harder to name songs I hate, though. Why? If I don't love a song, I'm mostly ambivalent about it. It's difficult to generate intense feelings about a song I don't care for. I don't have to listen to it, and even if I do, I am simply put off by its crappiness without really wishing any harm upon the song (however that would be accomplished) or its artist. It seems like hatred is difficult to maintain without someone with a lot to gain spurring it on.