So I was watching “Reconstruction” on PBS the other night, and was pretty shocked at the level of violence described toward newly freed blacks of the era both from private citizens and from actual governments of the day. Then I thought about it, and realized that it’s continued forward until the present day against blacks, although in an arguably less violent form.
I don’t get it. By that, I mean I don’t get the hateful angry part. Similarly, I can’t quite understand the virulent hate that’s been around in Europe for centuries toward Jews.
While I don’t agree with it at all, I can at least understand how white America might have had a patronizing, superior attitude. Or how medieval Europeans might resent Jews for being the chief moneylenders of their era (despite having been forced into it by Christian governments), and having a certain irritation toward them for being part of the group that crucified Jesus (despite Jesus himself having been a Jew).
But neither of those attitudes really lends themselves to being quite so angry, hateful and willing to do such horrible things. That’s what I don’t get. At all.
I agree that it makes them feel better if they can abuse or keep down others.
Also, keep in mind that even if most people in those populations had hate toward the “other” group, most of them did not actually do horrible and violent things. Most people just looked on approvingly or turned a blind eye (because bucking the system would just bring the violence to them).
There is always a certain percentage of the population who are messed up in the head and it takes little for them to react violently. If they are able to be violent and hateful to a group of others and suffer effectively no consequence, they they will do it way more.
Because inflaming hatred against other groups is a tried-and-true successful political tactic that dishonest and immoral politicians and other leaders have been using to gain and use power for millennia.
I was actually thinking about Reconstruction-era violence yesterday, and it makes sense on a psychological level.
In order to justify treating people like dirt, you have to convince yourself that they’re not really people. For centuries, white slave-owners and their apologists would talk about how Africans were really too childlike and/or brutish to be allowed free- it was for their own good, really. The slave-owners could get away with painting a picture of the chaos and horror that would result from a hypothetical society of free blacks, because it was hypothetical.
Then came the Civil War and Reconstruction, and it was about to stop being hypothetical. Black people were trying to work and vote and become members of the community, like real people. And if black people were successfully able to do real people stuff, then that would mean that they were real people, too. Which would mean the rationalizations for slavery were nonsense, which would make you, former slave owner or supporter of slavery, party to a monstrous evil.
Most people don’t have the guts to face that they’ve done something evil. Much easier to burn everything down when the not-people are in danger of becoming not-not-people.
People are tribal. That is in our DNA. They are not born antisemitic. They are not born anti-black or anti-whatever. But we are born tribal, and we’re born looking for tribes to join. Civilization ended tribalism the way that we’ve known it for eons, so tribalism now is based on other things, like race and religion.
Dont blame America. Plenty of racism world-wide. Brexit? Japan is pretty damn racist. Ect.
But it is hatred of people different than you and some people have to blame someone. There was hatred in America (and England) against the irish, who are pretty damn white. Anti-semitism is still very strong.
Sadly yes. People divide themselves into groups. Usually along national, religious, ethnic, racial or ideological lines.
And it can be very irrational. A racist may hate Jews for being too successful and wealthy, then turn around and hate blacks for not being successful or wealthy enough. Immigrants are on one hand very lazy and want to collect welfare, and on the other hand they are willing to work hard for pennies and push natural born citizens out of jobs.
You think Jesus being called King would have no impact on the Roman occupation? Who was really responsible - and what really happened - is a bit unclear.
I think a big reason was that it was embarrassing that the people around at the time of the supposed advent of the new Messiah mostly didn’t give a shit. Was the cause of this that nothing really interesting happened, or that Jews were evil people who rejected Jesus? I think the latter worked much better for the Church.