“No society has ever gotten more tolerant. They just change targets.”
Is that a call for more tolerance? It seems defeatist, but realistic. Tolerance doesn’t exist. Tolerance is only the lack of motivation to act on prejudices or the fear of backlash. Acceptance should be the goal of any society, but we’ve never had that. We “tolerate” other races because most of us, the white folk, in a Christian country, the most powerful on earth, don’t see the point in throwing hate speech at the minorities.
We don’t hate black people. It’s impolite. We economically exclude them from the better parts of our cities and send the lowest paid, least motivated teachers to their schools. Educated black men and women are still seen as the exception. We don’t hate the American Indian. They’re mentioned in passing as alcoholics and greedy casino owners, but why toss hate speech at them when we’ve already destroyed their culture and stolen their lands? It seems rude. Asians Americans aren’t seen through contemptuous eyes because China is still too small a global player and the Japanese were herded into camps only sixty years ago. It’s too soon.
Mexicans and various other races are no threat to us or have similar enough cultures to the point we don’t notice a difference. We live together without, generally, major issues. The isolated noose hanging in trees is passed off as a prank and slurs are dismissed. Racism has been reduced to economic ceilings, residential zoning and educational rifts for these cultures. In this great melting pot nation of ours, we have a new target.
That quote comes from a transcript of Glenn Beck’s program. It is one of hundreds of examples of how our country’s racism now points to the Muslim population. More precisely, the minuscule fraction of their population that is “radical Islam.” We don’t attack the population as a whole, but their extremists, because we avoid being racist. What we say and what we mean are two different things. Christians are not separated into factions. Whether extreme or progressive, he or she is a Christian. We speak of a Muslim division, but they’re still seen as a united, opposing front. The linguistic gymnastics have little effect on the intended meaning.
The commentary within that transcript defends the advertising of an anti-Muslim film as free speech. The “truth” of radical Islam’s quest to kill us—meaning the American, white people—is affirmed numerous times. The host and guest have no doubt in this fact. They don’t take time to acknowledge the opposite perspective. If that poster, or that advertising, or that film, were trumpeting the “truism” that republican extremists meant to kill liberals or if it, shown at conservative Princeton, called for the killing of Republican party members, it would immediately be labeled hate speech. There would be dozens of uproarious calls for removing the film and its advertising.
It’s not attacking the Republicans, the Christians or the conservatives. It’s attacking a demonized and poorly-understood sect, Muslims, so advertising can be as intense and grotesque as deemed persuasive. It furthers the divide between cultures. It segregates a community. It is derogatory and mean-spirited while ignoring the views or opinions of those mentioned. Thus, any backlash to it’s promotion is an obvious attack on free speech. When a homosexual group complains about a slanderous or derogatory remark in the media, the same argument is generated. Why is it that a host can, rightly, be suspended for a racial comment, but those opposing a racist, unrealistic, generalized advertisement are immediately trying to strip us of our rights?
Those that call for open dialog here, don’t intend to have one. They crave their minority, extremist views be heard. They feel that, though most of the thoughtful population disagrees with them and finds their beliefs distasteful, they are being smothered. They use ridiculous examples of how campuses are being controlled, as if they haven’t been for centuries. The “don’t tase me, bro” guy and an incident with Alberto Gonzales are referenced.
The tased guy was disruptive and disrespectful. He resisted the calm attempts to quiet him. He was shutting down the open forum and preaching his views. When he was, finally, taken by force out of the room, he resisted again. He fought with the guards and they were forced to subdue him. His video was posted and now he sells t-shirts emblazoned with his infamous catch-phrase. He should have been maced, clubbed, and dragged out. Then those in charge should have announced the reopened discussion to boisterous applause.
Alberto Ganzales is a war criminal and an enemy of the state. His ambiguous definitions of torture and reinterpretation of clear laws are in direct defiance of what this country stands for. He has opened the doors to a fascist shift that may or may not take place. The incident at the University of Florida could have been troublesome, but if he wasn’t assassinated, he wasn’t adequately punished.
Every generation has had their ambiguous, inflated enemies. The Greeks had the Persians, the Romans had the Barbarians, and the American colonists had the Indians. F.D.R. had the Japanese, Johnson had the Vietnamese, Reagan had the Russians and now Bush has the Islamists. If we continue this polarized and inflammatory dialog, the rest of the world will have the Americans.