Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
The state of hate
After Saturday's tragic shooting in Tucson, some have pointed the finger at inflammatory political rhetoric.
Many singled out Sarah Palin's now-infamous "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" tweet and her 'Crosshairs' campaign map, which included Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' district, as a sign that some politicians have gone too far in stoking vitriol against their political opponents. (Since the shooting, Palin reportedly emphasized in an email that she "hates violence.") Others reject any connection between the shooter, who does not appear to espouse any coherent ideology, and our current political climate.
What are the ethical and moral implications of incendiary political language?
Looking for links between right-wing hate speech and senseless shootings like the Tucson tragedy involves two different questions. One: "Do hateful words spawn violent actions?" and Two: "Whose hateful words might have spawned THIS violent action?" Given the mental illness of the shooter, we may never be able to answer the second question. However, radio talk hosts are wasting their breath and our time in challenging the first question. We know that "hateful words" induce conflict as a consequence because the Republican-controlled legislature of Arizona and the state's embattled governor have verified this connection. They have declared that henceforth it is illegal in Arizona to offer classes in Mexican-American Studies.
Arizona State Attorney, Republican Tom Horne is to the virtual author and principal defender of this new law, A.R.S. ยง 15-112. According to its provisions, courses that result in "resentment toward a race" are illegal. Also banned are educational programs that "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." Specifically exempted from this law are classes in Native American Studies or Holocaust Studies, and, by implication, African-American Studies or White Ethnic Studies, Catholic Studies, etc. Mexican-American Studies alone are the target, plain and simple. The reason? Because these courses result in Mexican-American resistance to how our people are presently treated in Arizona.
Nothing can be clearer in Arizona but that the legislature and its governor believe that "words have consequences." To intervene in curriculum preparation, to censure thought, ban books, and deny to Mexican-Americans the rights that are given to other groups are just some of the extreme measures now enforced in the State of Arizona. These measures have reintroduced a sad precedent from Europe in the past century.
The supporters of these unfair laws clearly assert that such measures are necessary because there is a link between what is said and resulting behavior. "On the first day of school, they (Mexican-American young persons) are no different than students in any other classes, but once they get told day after day that they are being victimized, they become angry and resentful."
I believe this law is seriously flawed. Sole judgment as to whether a Mexican-American class is illegal is left to the decision of non-Mexican-Americans. There is no discussion as to whether or not the historical facts being taught are true, only if they result in resentment against injustice. I wonder if the rhetoric of the Tea Party and extremists will be covered under this law? After all, it is now fashionable in some circles to call the succession by the Confederate States "the Second War of Independence" and to glorify leaders who were traitors to the nation.
It is also illegal to review history in any way that might promote one to "overthrow of the government of the United States" - except, of course, if the people so advocating are wearing those silly hats donned by the Tea Party and the person they want to overthrow is a Democratic president and man of color who --they say-- is identified with tyranny. So if a Mexican-American (or a Puerto Rican) says: "You can't take away our guns or our freedom: we are going to take our country back," it is illegal in Arizona. If a Tea-Partier says the same thing, he or she is a patriot? And perhaps if the state attorney took a course in Mexican American Studies, he would know which races were in Arizona first and which came in as undocumented immigrants.
Speaking the truth to power will always generate resentment against injustice, but the United States public has generally recognized the Christian notion that "the Truth will set you free." Lies, falsehoods and hate are another matter. Telling the truth has good consequences; spreading hate has negative ones. My question is why Arizona uses anti-Latino double-standard in deciding what is truth and what is hate.
By
Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo
|
January 11, 2011; 3:22 PM ET
| Category:
Religious Freedom
,
politics
,
social justice
Save & Share:
Previous: This is a moment for courage, reflection |
Next: Existential rhetoric not new in American politics
Posted by: rickshawjim | January 16, 2011 9:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"So if a Mexican-American (or a Puerto Rican) says: "You can't take away our guns or our freedom: we are going to take our country back," it is illegal in Arizona. If a Tea-Partier says the same thing, he or she is a patriot?"
How about if Howard Dean wrote a book called "You Have the Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America"?
http://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Power-Country-Democracy/dp/0743270134
Your partisan hypocrisy is laughable.
Posted by: clydle | January 16, 2011 1:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"They want to keep the idea that Mexican Americans are somehow an enemy, somehow a danger, somehow a cause of the problems we have."
Not true.
The problem isn't with people who want to come to this country and assimilate with our multi-ethnic American culture.
That's not what Arroyo advocates.
That's not what any of the active Latino movements in this country advocates.
The complaint this guy is making is confirmation of that.
What else can be discerned from his statement
" So if a Mexican-American (or a Puerto Rican) says: "You can't take away our guns or our freedom: we are going to take our country back," it is illegal in Arizona. If a Tea-Partier says the same thing, he or she is a patriot? "
Either this guy is in favor of allowing Mexican Americans the freedom to arm and conspire against the US government, or he is saying that Mexican citizens aren't allowed to bear arms and protest against their government, along with everyone else.
I don't want to call him a liar.
I don't want to call him an idiot.
But I'm not seeing much wiggle-room here
Posted by: MrMeaner | January 14, 2011 8:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, I certainly agree that what is happening in Arizona is bizaar. They have, of course, picked out Mexican American studies as somehow dangerous but not African-American studies, or Native american studies, both of which "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." But, right now, the other item on their agenda is not to send 11 million of them back to whereever they came from. (Where would they send the Native Americans?)
They want to keep the idea that Mexican Americans are somehow an enemy, somehow a danger, somehow a cause of the problems we have. It is a sick manipulation of public sentiment - and it is working.
It is a sick as Palin suggesting that those she opposes should be killed by displaying them under a gun-sight. She doesn't pull the trigger. She just suggests the target.
Posted by: amelia45 | January 14, 2011 4:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Native American Studies or Holocaust Studies, and, by implication, African-American Studies or White Ethnic Studies, Catholic Studies, etc."
White ethnic studies?
There are no white ethnic study courses, and you know it.
There are no Catholic Studies course, outside of Catholic school systems, and you know it.
The AZ law is needed largely because of professors like you.
You don't see this country as anything but stolen land, do you?
How many Nation of Aztlan meetings have you attended lately?
Been to any good La Raza rallys?
How's that reconquista movement going?
Posted by: MrMeaner | January 12, 2011 7:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is a sick as Palin suggesting that those she opposes should be killed by displaying them under a gun-sight. She doesn't pull the trigger. She just suggests the target.
amelia45
Yes, many singled out Palin as the inciter of a massacre. This is exactly the kind of speech that is illegal and preceeds the 1st amendment. It's called libel, slander, and defamation laws. That kind of speech is illegal and is criminal. Not all speech is equal. Equating a public figure, with acutal malicious intent (not knowing the facts but stating it anyway) and libelous printing that Palin was responsible or implying she is responsible is not covered under free speech. It is a crime, and rightfully so.
This is why libel laws need to be enforced, people like amelia45 have read the articles and believed them, all based on actual malicious intent to libel Palin.