 |
| image above is from here |
[An earlier version of this has been deleted.]
An argument in opposition to First Amendment absolutists is that hate speech is
antithetical to free speech: the first exists to prevent or silence the
second. I agree. Speech acts seeking the continued oppression or
destruction of marginalized or subordinated peoples are oppressive and
destructive.
My issue in this post is with the terms such as "Hate Speech" and "Hate Crime". Specifically, what the terms imply about
how we understand and act to end oppression.
A crucial tool of White
Male Supremacy--the straight kind especially--is the use of
individualism to misname structural and systemic problems. One key
aspect of individualism, as you may well know, is that oppression is
reduced to how people feel about each other in the interpersonal realm.
So, if only we loved one another; if only we treated each other as we'd
have ourselves treated; if only there was no more hate... then we'd have
world peace, or lack of conflict, justice. The problem is presented as
"prejudice" or "lack of empathy": emotional or psychological
dysfunction, problems of upbringing. We were raised with the wrong
values. We had bigoted parents. Even if discussed in a more social way,
we hear the problem is "bias" and "intolerance". How watered down and
drowned is the language that far more accurately describes the
maintenance of oppression as essentially political?
It's
not that hate isn't present; it's that it is sometimes in service to
class-based subordination--and not always. To whatever absurd level
whites fear Black hatred aimed up, any speech used to communicate that
'hate' is not a systemic or institutional problem in the least.
Political translation: there is no such thing as Black supremacy in the
West. The same with an alleged preponderance of "man-hating" by women,
particularly feminists.
The co-called good Christian
whites who operated Boarding Schools thought they were being loving, as
do many white colonialist Christian proselytisers--however
ineffectively. Historically, so-called better treatment or a belief in
moral motive is one tool of white male supremacy. One way white male
supremacy thrives is by giving an appearance of treating people better
on the individual front. The perversely over-quoted passage by King
about children holding hands. In such a linguistic and social world, we
assume a problem is over--or getting better--if oppressors are treating
the oppressed in less overtly subordinating ways. In fact, looking at
the systemic problem of het husbands and boyfriends battering women,
when he moves into a stage of being remorseful and sorrowful, that is
the precursor to another period of physical and emotional violence.
Calling
someone a threatening and racist name ought not be framed only or
primarily as a hate crime. It is an act of white supremacist
subordination and destruction, rarely prosecuted as criminal. Rape is
also normal, not 'mean-spirited' in the sense that many men would argue
they have great affection for the women they rape. Missed is the
comprehension, let alone the alleviation, of the structural-political
nature of rape. And in fact, their committed rape(s), self-perceived and
self-named as "love-making" are not, strictly speaking, acts of 'hate'
as much as they are acts of subordination. This is to say, men lovingly
rape. That's only a contradiction in terms if we make emotional states a
prerequisite to or component of oppressive acts.
Even
terms like 'crime' are misleading. The State uses the
term 'crime' as an excuse to arrest and kill oppressed people
disproportionately. What the status quo has never adequately understood or
appreciated is how 'criminal' the criminal
justice system is. That is to say, the system is grievously attached to
political and economic hierarchies and won't function otherwise. 'Crime'
is a political term in
service to the status quo. Routinely, what is considered 'criminal' is
effectively 'by definition' in practice, 'regular everyday acts by Black
people' that wouldn't be 'criminal' if whites did them. Rape and men's
sexual violence against women is not even considered a hate crime!
Stopping
sexual harassment and other forms of work site threat and violence is
an endemic problem requiring a structural solution. Ending capitalism is
part of that. Some call it a need for 'culture change' and I'd agree it
is that too, but it is also and far more importantly a permanent
political rearrangement. The solution is not only an end to the
interpersonal abuse.
Even terms like 'misogyny' and
'homophobia' make it sound like hate, fear, and bigotry are the problem.
The corporate media will now occasionally use the term 'misogyny' but
avoid the term 'male supremacy.' That says it all. If 'white supremacy'
replaces 'racism' as the term used by such media, we may be that much
closer to eradicating it. Not that such media has any interest in moving
that effort along.
The heinous problems before us are
not individualistic, or necessarily hateful or criminal. I support using
language that reflects the systemic, historic, structural nature of
oppression as the foundation of law-making and efforts to radically
change society.
From here: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbpm9y/black-lives-matter-cofounder-patrisse-khan-cullors-is-only-getting-started
One
of the most striking things I read in the book was how your pre-teenage
brothers didn’t complain that it was unfair police had harassed and
abused them for doing absolutely nothing. You write, “By the time they
hit puberty, neither will my brothers have expected that things could be
another way.” They internalized the devaluation of their lives at such a
young age. Can you talk a bit about other ways in which young black
children receive this message?
For many
marginalized communities, we are told from birth that our lives are
valueless. We are told that we don’t deserve things. That poverty is our
fault. That our parents’ addictions and prison and inability to feed us
is our fault. So if you internalize that, if you internalize the ways
in which the world has literally shoved you out, then of course as you
get older, you’re not going to believe in yourself. And that translates
into not being able to do the things that are the most important and
most healthy. We have to talk about changing systems first. We
live in a culture that wants to talk about individual first, that tells
people they need to take personal responsibility for their hardships.
Let’s not do that. Let’s change the system that creates the hardships.
That’s the work of Black Lives Matter, that’s the work of #MeToo,
#TimesUp, the Women’s March, so many other important organizations that
have come together in the past few years. [emphasis mine] -- Co-founder
of BLM, Patrisse Khan-Cullors, in an interview about her brand new book,
When They Call You a Terrorist
