Why The New York Times Dun Nuthin’ Wrong And The Problems Of Othering
The New York Times is under fire for their recent article A Voice of Hate In America's Heartland. The article follows Tony Hovater, a white nationalist, around and exposes his day to day life. Why has this sent people into a frenzy? Well, mainly because Tony didn't behave like the monster that we expect Nazis to be. He wasn't drowning baby kittens while drinking a glass of milk and screaming KEK while listening to Shadilay. In fact, he wouldn't be out of place at a Walmart or at your friend's wedding. At worst, he seems akin to that mildly racist uncle that visits at Christmas and uses all the cranberry sauce. In the words of The New York Times: "We understand that some readers wanted more pushback, and we hear that loud and clear." but did The New York Times do anything wrong? Or did they spotlight on an uncomfortable truth?
To any reader, or at least you would think, it is clear The New York Times is not endorsing Nazism. The tone makes that cripplingly obvious without the writer needing to say anything in particular at all to make that clear. The piece lets Hovater speak and hang himself with his own words, no rebuttal needed.
After he attended the Charlottesville rally, in which a white nationalist ploughed his car into a group of left-wing protesters, killing one of them, Mr.Hovater wrote that he was proud of the comrades who joined him there: "We made history. Hail victory."
The lack of the author's direct juxtapose to Hovater in the piece is something the readers found abhorrent. Some apparently feeling like the author should have taken out a sock puppet and some brightly coloured flashcards and explained in detail why Nazis are scary bad people just in case someone hadn't heard already. The perceived neutrality on the subject is almost acting like an endorsement in the eyes of some. One Washington Post Editor snarkily adding:
"Instead of long, glowing profiles of Nazis/White nationalists, why don't we profile the victims of their ideologies?"
Why indeed? Well, perhaps because it is a subject so done to death that most modern day youths are entirely numb to the concept. That the horror of the Holocaust is completely lost on most because they've heard the stories all their life. It is nothing more than a meme, even school kids will make an ‘I did Nazi that coming' joke. It's just such a big a pervasive part of modern day culture, especially in Europe. I mean, let's face it, this is the better story and is pulling in way more views than the standard ‘Nazis are bad, let's all pat ourselves on the back for not liking Nazis' kind of piece. It accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do; it shows how normal a Nazi can be.
It's not normalizing Nazism in the sense that it is endorsing it and calling it normal. It is normalizing in the respect that Nazis are normal people who go to book club and pay taxes and cry when Wilson floats away in Castaway. Not the 2D Nazi character slash insert villain we can all agree on and have no reason to second guess killing in any fiction. If it were a fantasy setting they'd simply be swapped out for orcs. The idea that you might have something in common with a Nazi, that you might agree with something a Nazi said, isn't that far scarier? It certainly is if you have grown up with the comforting idea that Adolf Hitler was the worst human to grace this planet. It is almost like Hitler is what we measure evil in. A Richter scale for bad things as it were.
By letting Hitler be the worst possible human, we can delude ourselves into thinking we are always doing better. That something like World War 2 could never happen again because we are so much better than our predecessors. It must be nice to be able to buy into that idea. While I believe in the underlying goodness of humanity I accept that we are capable of visiting great evil upon anyone we other. Especially, when we think we are doing the right thing or acting on behalf of the greater good. It's like Hovater says:
"I think he was a guy who really believed in his cause" when talking about Hitler "He really believed he was fighting for his people and doing what he thought was right." and I have no doubt that is true. I sincerely doubt Hitler was sitting in his armchair stroking a cat saying "I've been expecting you mister Churchill" with his pinkie to the corner of his mouth. He probably thought he was making a noble sacrifice for the greater good of humanity.
The Nazis or Neo-Nazis are our modern day barbarians. Just like in the Greek poem Waiting for the Barbarians. We all unite and look past the other societal problem because oh no the Nazis are coming. That Other, is an almost fundamental part of human culture. There's always someone, The Feminists, The Alt-Right, The Jews, The Mexicans, The Government, The Shape Shifting Lizard People Disguised As Obama, The Chemicals In The Water Turning The Frogs Gay. Remove that other and another will fall into its place. It's a beautiful never-ending cycle of finger pointing where we never pay attention to the three fingers pointing right back at us.
When it comes to Nazis, the modern world has a bit of a troubling disconnect. We have this mental image that largely doesn't line up with reality. The image is so scary and wrong that it cripples us in trying to communicate with our other, the Neo-Nazis. And without communication, there can only be violence. The trouble is the idea that Nazis or any nebulous big bad are monsters doesn't do much good for actually solving the conflict. In fact, the best way is usually understanding your opponent and gently and empathetically bringing them round to your point of view when their defences aren't up. Doesn't really work when you are attacking them now, does it? Really what we need are more people like Daryl Davis.
Daryl Davis is a black man who has spent 30 years befriending Ku Klux Klan members. Over the course of his career, he has convinced around 200 Klansman to hang up their hoods. That is more of an impact against Nazism than the whole of Antifa will ever make. He didn't do it by yelling "You're a fucking white male" but by stepping up, being the bigger man and leading by example. Without the basic understanding that Nazis are indeed people would Daryl have been able to accomplish this feat? No, and this is why the constant demonisation of the enemy is dangerous. As long as we see the enemy as irredeemable there will be no peaceful way forward. Not only that, but hate is a hydra. You lop off its head and it'll grow two and have all the more reason not to like you.
I think those vocal contenders in the fight against Nazism often forget one key principal from The Art of War; Know your enemy and know yourself. Daryl Davis did not go into these places without research. He worked hard to know his targets
"When they see that you know about their organization, their belief system, they respect you. Whether they like you or not, they respect the fact that you've done your homework."
If the goal really is an end to Nazism it will not be achieved through violent means. You can't kill an idea with bullets or gas, you can only counteract it with a better one. "when two enemies are talking, they're not fighting." is how Davis puts it and it is entirely true.
Now before I give them too much credit, I'm fairly sure The New York Times were not telling their readership to grow a spine and use their words to debate Nazis. In their own words:
"The point of the story was not to normalize anything but to describe the degree to which hate and extremism have become far more normal in American life than many of us want to think."
Yet, I still feel the tidal wave of backlash against them is completely unwarranted. In fact, it reminded me of another event earlier this month in relation to Wilfred Laurier University. A teaching assistant had been called in for what could best be described as an interrogation. Why? Well because she had shown a clip of a debate on sexual identity featuring Jordan Peterson while remaining neutral. In fact, her neutrality is cited as "kinda the problem" and ‘problematic'. Personally, I find this fear of a neutral standpoint fairly troubling.
When did neutrality on such subjects become an endorsement of them?