Damn it, I thought we were unique. Well, maybe not unique, but I certainly thought we were less ordinary.
You see, my wife and I have been married for thirteen years. I’m Latino, and she is white.
This combination is, according to a recent study, the most common form of interracial marriage. And now that I think of it, three of my cousins also have white spouses. How cliché can you get?
Recently, everyone’s most charismatic anti-Semitic homophobe, Mel Gibson, expanded his repertoire. According to widely distributed recordings, Gibson has gone beyond disliking just gays and Jews. He also despises women, blacks, and Latinos. I’m talking about those direct threats to his ex-girlfriend and his causal dropping of both the N-word and the W-word.
Now, a common question, besides the snide pondering of what his pals Danny Glover and Jodie Foster think of all this, is how could such a devoutly religious man be so filled with hatred? After all, Gibson directed The Passion of the Christ (a slice of hardcore propaganda for Christianity if ever there was one) and has been vocal about his faith.
As a brief aside, I may have mentioned – once or several hundred times – that I was raised Catholic, as many Hispanics are. I dropped out of the Church when I was a teenager.
One reason I left the Church was that I grew weary of being told I should feel guilty for every thought or action, no matter how innocuous. But I will give credit to my old parish for one thing: It at least told me that I should feel bad if I ignored Jesus Christ’s teachings.
To my surprise, many Americans don’t even have the self-respect to acknowledge when they are contradicting their spiritual foundation. I’m referring, of course, about the recent study that found a positive correlation between religion and racism.
We all know that most U.S. churches are racially homogenous (over 90 percent of them, by some estimates). But this study found that in these ethnically pure places of worship, “strong religious in-group identity was associated with derogation of racial out-groups.” This means that many Christians are looking at one of Christ’s great commands – “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39) – and amending it with the phrase “unless they look different than you.”
The researchers found that “religion is practiced largely within race” and as such, “religious in-group identity promotes general ethnocentrism.” This study focused on white Protestants, but the researchers believe that their findings apply to other groups because “all religions teach moral superiority.”
I’d like to say that all this surprises me, but it doesn’t. I’m sure we have all met religious people who struck us as somewhat less than holy. I still remember the older man who told anyone who would listen that he was saved, because he had accepted Jesus Christ as his savior. And then he dropped a few choice comments about minorities.
And my wife told me about the time she was stuck in a car with a group of well-to-do (and supposedly devout) Christians. To her surprise, her fellow passengers joked about running over African Americans on the way to their destination. They were going, of course, to a wedding… in church.
My wife is no longer friends with these people.
What amazes me is the overt contradiction that these feelings should create. Yet there seems to be little internal conflict.
Even religious homophobes who are secretly gay spend time praying to “cure” their supposed affliction. Their tragically wrongheaded approach at least causes them angst.
But many Christians apparently see nothing wrong with praising Jesus and then dismissing one of his central principles. Perhaps the more studious racists in the study can justify it with the ancient argument that all the other races are decedents of Ham, Noah’s ostracized son, and are therefore worthy of scorn. But somehow, I doubt this theological viewpoint comes up too much.
Regardless of how religious people justify it, the effect is real. The researchers “failed to find that racial tolerance arises from humanitarian values, consistent with the idea that religious humanitarianism is largely expressed to in-group members.”
In sum, I can say I’m a good person if I’m nice to people at my church. And it’s best if I don’t think about it too much beyond that.
As such, Mel Gibson has plenty of company.
Again, the study implies that every religion has this dirty little secret. One could argue, in fact, that modern religion demands a certain level of hatred for the mythical Other.
For example, the Amish are as religious as it gets, submitting their lives to a strict version of what they believe God wants. And yet, this very devotion to spiritual belief also requires a certain level of xenophobia. It’s necessary to maintain their theological (and theoretical) purity. Even if the Amish went looking for converts, I doubt they would be in a big hurry to accept a black person (by the way, if the Wayans brothers would like to develop this concept into a zany comedy, tell them to call me and we’ll do lunch).
So was there anything positive about this study? Did the researchers find any group that might offer some hope for the future?
Yes, there was. The researchers said, almost as an aside, that “only religious agnostics were racially tolerant.”
Well, that’s just great. How are we supposed to fit that into a sermon?
In a recent post, I referred to “that infamous tool of totalitarianism – the public-opinion poll.” My point was that many Americans seem to think that civil rights are subject to some kind of popularity contest.
I could have added that polls are notorious for presenting a myopic snapshot of an ever-fickle populace. As such, yesterday’s strong opinion becomes today’s “just kidding.” And of course, Americans are well known for adopting contradictory opinions.
Apparently, Little Brother is watching you.
I know we were supposed to be afraid of the surveillance powers of an out-of-control government. However, it seems that our fellow citizens have taken it upon themselves to create paranoia and fear among the populace.
Here’s a quick thanks to Mel for his comment on my most recent post.
Before that article, I wrote about how the words “racism” and “racist” are tossed around a little too freely in America. I’ve been on the receiving end a few times, and I’ve also noticed that my posts (here, on HuffPo, and at Change.org) sometimes provoke readers to unload the word at each other.
Really, some of the threads beneath my articles – despite people’s insistence of principled claims and frequent use of SAT vocabulary words – are really little more than back-and-forth versions of “I know you are, but what am I?”
For the most part, I’ve been pretty lucky when it comes to my neighbors. I’ve gotten along with the vast majority of them, and I’ve never had cross-yard feuds or open hostility toward the people who live near me.
Yes, there have been a few annoyances. In college, one of the other tenants in the ramshackle student housing where I lived was infamous for getting loaded, arguing with his girlfriend, and getting kicked out of the apartment. From there he would scream her name for hours until she let him back in. Her name was Jody (or more accurately, “Joooo-Deee!”), and I will never forget it because I heard him screech it so often.
When I lived in New York City, our downstairs neighbor was a cranky old woman who banged on the ceiling (our floor) if she thought we were getting too rambunctious. And when I lived on Hollywood Boulevard, I arrived home from work one day to see my neighbor being hauled out in a bodybag. He was a junkie and had OD’d… actually, I guess that’s less “annoyance” and more “freaky trauma.”
But you get the point. I’ve never agonized over who lives next door to me.
Many Americans, however, most certainly do.
A recent study found that, as of 2006, about a fifth of Americans would be upset if immigrants or foreign workers moved in next to them. This percentage has almost doubled since 1990.
Although the phrase “immigrants or foreign workers” is vague, one can safely assume that most Americans conjure images of Latinos when presented with this wording. It’s doubtful that many Americans would become enraged if, say, a British expat moved into the neighborhood. As such, the researchers’ terminology may not translate directly into antipathy for Hispanics, but it’s close.
For the sake of comparison, the researchers asked about two other despised groups in America – homosexuals and Muslims – to gauge social intolerance. I assume that asking about black people moving in next door was considered trite.
The report found that hostility toward Muslims has also increased and that they are even less popular than immigrants. A possible reason for this is the September 11 attacks, which provoked many Americans to think of Muslims as, you know, a bunch of crazed terrorists.
Interestingly, homosexuals were the group with which people had the biggest problem. More than a quarter of Americans said they would have issues if people “of that lifestyle” moved in next door. However, this was also the only group in for which tolerance has increased. Perhaps all those “Will & Grace” reruns are having an effect.
In any case, more Americans these days have trouble co-existing with immigrant neighbors, and as the report points out, we’re not even talking about “illegal immigrants.” That just covers people who happened to have committed the grievous sin of being born someplace other than the United States.
The reasons for this are numerous, but certainly are not complex. For many Americans, all immigrants are Latinos, all Latinos are illegals, and all illegals are murderous thieves hell-bent on destroying the nation. It’s basic math.
Add in an economic recession and right-wing paranoia broadcast 24/7, and it’s little wonder that so many people will consider slapping a “For Sale” sign on their lawn if the new neighbor speaks with a funny accent.
I have to wonder, of course, about the welcoming committee for a gay Muslim immigrant. Actually, let’s not dwell on that one too much… way too disturbing.
Recently, I wrote about the inaccuracies and myths surrounding the supposed crime wave that illegal immigrants have created in America.
I’m sure many readers said, “OK, Hispanic Fanatic, you displayed sound reasoning… even though you have a creepy way of referring to yourself in the third person, with an alias no less, and you remain obsessed with hourglass-shaped blonde women. But logically, you were correct.”
The Fanatic appreciates your vote of confidence.
As such, I will now address that other boogeyman of the illegal-immigration debate: the economic burden to our country.
By now, you’ve seen what happened to our old friend Dora the Explorer. No, it’s not pretty.
According to my pals at the Huffington Post, the doctored images of Dora “reveal some Americans’ attitudes about race, immigrants, and where some of immigration reform debate may be headed.”
I’ve officially lost count. For a while, I could tell you exactly how many times I’ve been called a racist, but now the number escapes me. I do know, however, that it’s quite a bit.
People on the right have hurled that term at me for saying that immigration reform is needed, or for pointing out that SB 1070 might make Latinos nervous, or for implying that ethnic minorities often have different perspectives than the majority culture does on some issues (that last one is a huge no-no).
However, people on the left have also tossed it my way (the term “imperialist” is also popular with them). Most recently, I got it for using the word “Hispanic” instead of “Latino”… or it may have been the other way around. I can’t recall.
In any case, whenever I am accused of being a racist, I wonder if I should ask the person to reconsider and choose another insult. I can supply a lengthy list, if they so desire.
You see, I’m concerned that we’ve watered down the terms “racism” and “racist.” Once upon a time, these words conjured up images of guys in KKK hoods, or of George Wallace in the doorway, or of old women shrieking slurs in public. This was hardcore stuff.
On this Independence Day, let’s acknowledge a truly patriotic viewpoint. Yes, regardless of our political orientation or cultural viewpoint, we can all agree on one thing: most Americans are stupid.
People on the left think that of people on the right, people on the right think it of people on the left, and we all have disdain for the wimps in the middle. Because most people don’t agree with us on a given subject, they are stupid.
Of course, if we really think about it, it could not possibly be true that a majority of our fellow citizens are mouth-breathing neo-Neanderthals. But even the most kind-hearted among us has, at one point or another, bemoaned the inability of the thick-headed masses to comprehend our opinion.
The exception to this rule is when we find, to our surprise and joy and even alarm, that the majority concurs with us. Then we’re quick to say, “Hey, most people agree with me, so back off.”
The fact that we so easily fluctuate between praising and rejecting other people’s opinions should tell us something. But all it really does is entrench our positions. I’m as guilty of this as anyone.
The reason I bring all this up is because that infamous tool of totalitarianism – the public-opinion poll – shows that more Americans support Arizona’s new anti-immigration law than oppose it. In Arizona itself, the law is popular with an overwhelming 70 percent of the population.
Well, that should do it then. The law stands. The debate is over. We live in a country of majority rule, after all.
There’s just one problem: We don’t vote on rights.
Either Arizona’s law is unconstitutional or it’s not (frontrunners for its eventual overturning are the Fourth and Sixth Amendments). In either case, it’s not left to a popularity contest.
The truth is that America is more about minority rights than majority rule. I know I tread on dangerous ground when I invoke “the Founders,” but I will do so now. The framers of the Constitution were pretty damned touchy about the tyranny of the majority. That’s why they came up with that pesky Bill of Rights.
As such, we can’t just deny rights to groups we dislike, be they Latinos, gays, or Nickleback fans (actually, that last one may pass Constitutional muster). This concept seems difficult for Americans to understand. So let’s go with a historical example.
No doubt, in 1950, most Americans would have voted against letting black people enjoy the privileges that the majority culture enjoyed. Change came about not only because people got educated and the younger generation took control, but because of things like Brown vs. Board of Education. The Supreme Court, in what can only be called an activist decision, said that basic rights are not dependent upon the generosity of the majority.
Again, we don’t vote on rights.
But setting aside that basic concept, let’s look at the reliability and immutability of public opinion itself. Remember that on the eve of the Iraq War, polls showed that upwards of 80 percent of Americans supported George W. Bush’s policy of “regime change.” Somehow, I doubt that decision garners this kind of enthusiasm today.
That was way back in 2003. What will Americans of, say, 2017 think of our opinion?
