Why Are Americans Filled With So Much Hate and Intolerance?

Yeah, PiK -

You end your article with "...ponder the mentality of humans.", yet you title your article "Why are Americans filled with so much hate and violence". Do you believe that (or are you asking if) Americans should somehow be different? Or, are you asking why humans (in general) seem to be filled with hate and violence?

If it's the latter - I don't think that they (we) are filled with hate and violence. It may seem so from news coverage. Perhaps humans are simply 'fascinated' with hate and violence for some reason. Perhaps hate and violence is covered because the great majority of folks are interested in where and why hate and violence springs up so that we can avoid those places, and address the issues that prompted it.

As I move through life, I don't generally meet folks consumed with hate and volence. I know that neither I, nor anyone I knew (or now know) actually 'hated' those groups that you mention.

I would rather make the assumption that my friends, personal associates, acquaintances, business associates, etc., are closer to the 'norm' than otherwise. I'd rather assume that those showing 'hate and violence' are the exceptions (and therefore somewhat novel, which is why the news focuses on them) and that my experience (however small that sample size) is the norm. I guess I'm just a 'glass is half-full' kinda guy.

Who brings only hate and violence into their home? You mean by newspapers and newscasts? If so - I'd be interested to see what proportion of the news (of all types) is devoted to hate and violence. Perhaps it only seems that hate and violence comprises a large proportion of the news since hate and violence are strong emotions.

Anyway - it seems that you have your mind set on hate and violence being a key characteristic of a large majority (if not the entirety) of humans. I'll just have to disagree and leave it at that.

Merry Christmas!

Americans only have problem with being exceptional if that exceptionality some how implies there is something wrong with their nations. The level of hatred in America is unusual.

In some sense it is the product of Individualism. A society which views itself as in a state of constant competition can easily break out into social warfare. In some sense it is the product of misplaced anger. Americans hold a particularly strong belief in Capitalism and the Constitution, yet both these things continue to scar them in such a away that they look for other outlets to express their pain in. Whether this be at Christian, Foreigners, people of different political perspectives, the poor or any of the other groups of hated in the United States, we have built an entire lifestyle around blaming everything and anything on anything but the fundamentals of our nation. To scapegoat is easy, to look inward and realize that your nation is a lie and you must change it is not. When one "enemy" falls, we look to another. It drives us. Without someone to hate our nation would come apart at the seams.

In light of the fact that violent crime has been on a downward trajectory for the last twenty-five years. That the rancorous debate over the ongoing wars hasn't resulted in a rise of a new Weather Underground, SLA, or resulted in another Kent State type event; the last good American vs American riot came with the aquital of the officers charged with beating Rodney King, which has to have been at least 15 years ago. (I know there was the Battle for Seattle, but that seems to me to fit more into a global hatred conversation.) The much feared post 9/11 backlash against Muslims never happened. States and cities are falling over themselves to extend marriage rights, or at least the privileges of marriage to gays and lesbians. Even sides in the hotly contested gay-marriage vote in California managed to avoid committing overt violence on each other. I'd have to question your thesis.

Add to that my personal experience as a libertarian in a mostly conservative family who have friends that are gay, lesbian, immigrant and of color, and multiple religions; who carry political views varying from socialism to my aforementioned libertarianism then you're going to have to pardon me if I disagree about hatred in America. Not only that but I would argue that the reason I am blessed with this lack of hatred in my life is because of the very things Mr. Thorn mentioned, Individualism, Capitalism, and the Constitution. I would also argue that when hatred and violence have arisen in US history it has been because we deviated from the values represented by Individualism, Capitalism, and the Constitution.

From what I've seen and heard I would have to say the biggest driving force is Fear.

And with that fear a need to blame someone.

"In light of the fact that violent crime has been on a downward trajectory for the last twenty-five years."

While prison populations, already greater than that of the Soviet Gulags, have sky rocketed. What does it say when a supposedly free nations incarcerate more of its civilian population than a repressive police state? Some nations allow their poor to walk freely - and therefore they commit crimes. But in America as people fall through the cracks, we simply lock them up.

"That the rancorous debate over the ongoing wars hasn't resulted in a rise of a new Weather Underground, SLA, or resulted in another Kent State type event"

There are multiple points to be addressed here. First and foremost, the fact that American discontent is not at unprecedented levels. There is scarcely a decade without an obvious expression of the American's miserable anger. We are living in a nation that convinces itself everything is fine and proper even as people of every walk of life breakdown and lash out. Proclaiming "we're not as bad as we have been before" is but a symptom of this terrible habit. It neither demonstrates social progress nor assures us that future violence is not right around the corner.

You make a point of looking towards anti-war activities, as examples of wrong but what you've inadvertently demonstrated is the greater consciousness of earlier incarnations of our society. Our predecessors acted while we have become pacified and complacent. This is not to condone political violence but rather to emphasize the fact that blowing up a statue to protest a war is far different than killing for the sake of killing. It demonstrates that something can be done to address the anger of the people and to the violence. Let us not forget that second most destructive act of political terrorism in the United States occurred within the last few decades and was conducted by an American. The anger is there but the reaction has changed. Over the last 10 years there have been numerous shootings and bombings all of which have had political connotations without overt political organization. Americans have been stock piling weapons, gathering supplies, that is not indicative of a reduction in hostilities or discontent. You're forwarding that the absence of radical organizations is the absence of radical sentiments. Its not. The absence of identifiable radical organizations is not a good thing, it is a bad thing. It only means violence will be violence for the sake of violence, that it will have a faceless and uncontrollable manifestation.

"the last good American vs American riot came with the aquital of the officers charged with beating Rodney King, which has to have been at least 15 years ago."

1992 wasn't exactly ancient history. That being said there have been several significant riots since then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Cincinnati_riots

"(I know there was the Battle for Seattle, but that seems to me to fit more into a global hatred conversation.)"

As someone who participated in the Battle for Seattle, I can assure you it had plenty to do with America and nothing to do with a hatred of foreign nations.

"The much feared post 9/11 backlash against Muslims never happened."

When you've got famous pundits trying to mask their bigotry on national television, delicately pushing their audiences to think the very worst about Muslims I'd tend to disagree.

Some books regarding that backlash that never happened:

http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Victims-Plight-Americans-America/dp/1418410551/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1261939678&sr=8-2-spell

http://www.amazon.com/New-Crusades-Constructing-Muslim-Enemy/dp/0231126662/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261939678&sr=8-5

Or, if you'd prefer, something on the other side of the fence:

http://www.amazon.com/Infiltration-Muslim-Subversives-Penetrated-Washington/dp/1595550038/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261939678&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/They-Must-Be-Stopped-Radical/dp/0312383630/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261939678&sr=8-9

"States and cities are falling over themselves to extend marriage rights, or at least the privileges of marriage to gays and lesbians."

Sort of like how states and cities fell over themselves to extend "rights", or atleast privileges to blacks earlier in our history? You are taking the progressive push of some and conflating it with the progress of the many. In reality huge sections of the population are working to not only prevent the very things you would point out as progress but also to roll back other achievements we have made. Locating people and examples of progress is easy, it can be done during any century. That doesn't change the overwhelming direction of a society at large.

"Even sides in the hotly contested gay-marriage vote in California managed to avoid committing overt violence on each other"

Mmmmmhmmm

"Add to that my personal experience"

Personal experience does not constitute the valid basis of an argument. It can be misleading, unusual, or even false.

"I would also argue that when hatred and violence have arisen in US history it has been because we deviated from the values represented by Individualism, Capitalism, and the Constitution."

Because the mass exploitation and profiteering that brought our economy to a depression was not done under the pursuit of individual self-interest.

Because the beatings of union men looking for a decent wage was not the product of Capitalism.

Because the enslavement of African Americans was not protected by the Constitution.

Ok, went home for Christmas and forgot to check up on this discussion...

I grew up in the southern US, Texas to be exact and I have experienced first hand the hate and prejudice shown against black Americans in particular. Without going into too much detail, I can tell you I have seen and heard pure, unadulterated hate, even today. There are certain towns that you better not be found in after dark. Despite what I have seen, I would not consider white Amercans hateful or Americans in general hateful. I don't believe that we emerge from the womb hateful and I believe that we are for the most part caring, loving and sensitive beings. Maybe I have a little more faith in mankind than you do, sir, but I won't apologize for that. I believe that giving up that faith would only contribute to the hate that you claim is such a problem with us. As much as I know that there are whites who hate me simply because I'm darker than they are, knowing they are the minority, I will absolutely stand up and defend the majority of Americans I know feel exactly the way I do. I resent (not hate) the fact that you think we are so hateful and intolerant.

Personal experience does not constitute the valid basis of an argument. It can be misleading, unusual, or even false.

and in those words lies the gem that can truly enlighten.

good on ya... Adrian.

PowerisKnowledge

Read the book The Family by Jeff Sharlett

I read that book and did not take away that idea at all.

Rather than the government learning to control the religous right, he shows how that religious group worked in the back ground to covertly drive government policy at home and abroad.

I would say the main target of animosity in the 90s (if we need to find one per decade) was government itself as a spent force and so-called "Nanny state" standing in the way of triumphant globalism.

David, well quoted. Our hatred and prejudices say less about how we feel about others and more how we feel about ourselves.

I don't hate anyone, life is too short for hate.

I don't think that we should hate people because they disagree with us. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

It is too bad that people have to spread hateful words because people disagree with them.

Why they do it, is beyond me. It accomplishes little more than making people angry.

I agree with 3rdtime. It does say more about our own inadequacies than how we feel about others.

I would like to think that these people fall into the category of low intelligence, although you could very well be correct as for the most part mediocrity seems to be the norm these days. I still feel that these people are the minority, they just happen to have larger mouths than the rest of us.

PowerisKnowledge:

I agree with you, unfortunately, these people are too easily manipulated, and to the extremes.

Also, unfortunately, the loudest usually get the most attention.

Just a for instance:

Bill O'Reilly spent an inordinate, in my opinion, amount of time showing pictures of Dr. Tiller saying that he was a mass murderer, and showing pictures of his clinic saying that here is where he commits mass murder. Look what happened to Dr. Tiller. Not that the act itself was O'Reilly's fault, but he contributed to some, I hope minority, people who condone this act of cold blooded murder(of Dr. Tiller).

I really wish they, Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly, among others would tone down the rhetoric.

On the contrary, I believe it's those of moderate to low intelligence that are easily manipulated thus the teabaggers, the birthers, the religious, and the Limbaugh, Cheney, Beck, etc., followers who follow them with glee and confidence and anticipation.

Hard to find anything hateful in that statement. Get hypocritical much?

Those are pretty disparaging remarks. In my opinion to make such remarks is a hateful and intolerant practice.

PIK - I agree that the US has a long history of intolerance in many respects. And unfortunately there are some intolerant individuals still around.

What is disturbing to me is this stance: "I am squeaky clean with no intolerance or prejudices myself, it's only those "others" who are intolerant/hateful". But then you see comments like these:

these people fall into the category of low intelligence
it's those of moderate to low intelligence that are easily manipulated
neanderthal traits
dilusions of grandeaur or low self esteem manifestations

That shines a light on the hypocrisy of the "I have no intolerance myself" stance.

Calling people hateful and intolerant is a cop-out. Let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone. (Plenty of 1st-stoners on this thread).

It is too bad that people have to spread hateful words because people disagree with them

That statement should be applied to ourselves as well as others.

What would be helpful is to take on the issues one by one, and find out exactly what the disagreements are. I disagree with "those people" on most of the same things you do. But they truly disagree with "us." The fact that their IQs are low, they have low-self-esteem, or act like neanderthals has no bearing on the validity (or lack thereof) of their arguments. There are serious disagreements in this country. There always have been. I count my blessings that we aren't killing each other en masse.

most people of even moderate intelligence are beyond this type of manipulation.

in my honest opinion........... this is a misfire in your thinking.

Are we really not slaves here?

The line "and that's why poor whites think they're better off than their non - white equals" sounds a bit like trolling Tyler. I understand that you're name is a reference from Chuck Pahlaniuk's (who is a personal favorite of mine) first book fight club, but causing people to fight over things like this is not going to help the discussion at all.

Knowledge is Power.. Each person is 'suppose' to be Responsible, somewhat rational, and most of all respectful.

Shouldn't we take responsibility for their failures since their failures are our failures?

The tail does not wag the dog. The power of the individual can only extend as far as their sphere of influence. Jefferson warned us about the centralized banking system. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex. We didn't listen. Reagen sold us on trickle down economics. We jumped on the bandwagon.

Yes, we are responsible for ourselves as individuals, but no more so than our leaders are responsible for leading. As an electorate, we have failed. We were deceived, we were used, and we were manipulated and so we lost what we treasured. It was done by design and purpose to enrich the wealthiest under the false premise that the wealth would be shared. We were fools for believing such an obvious transgression and for that we are responsible, not as individuals, but as a body politic.

It is now our duty to right the wrong with the only tool that we have left - our vote. We have been beaten down and subjugated by our economic plight, we have become ignorant of politics by our lack of education, we have become prisoners to our own self consumption, and we have become indifferent from the futility of life. In effect we have become too irresponsible to be responsible for ourselves. We lost control of our own lives and that made us dependent. That is why we are so angry.

I have to disagree when you say we are not responsible for the people we elected to office.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said we weren't responsible or that we are not accountable for the people whom we elect. In a world of infinite possibilities, we might be responsible for every decision we make, but that is not reality; that is not the world we live in. If you live in a town with with only two mechanics and one of them is a known to scam his customers while the other has a good reputation, you are not personally responsible if you take your car to the good mechanic and he rips you off. Your perception of personal responsibility denies the existence of random possibilities and opposing forces which tend to supplant free will.

indoctrination and the bombardment of manipulation via the boob tube and other media forms is all inclusive............ it is a very personal decision to turn it off and begin the process of returning to critical thought and thinking.

we get what we pay for:) and we have been sold on this product for so long we expect it just as it is produced, we, meaning american citizens who have all this 'free will', lmao

not every person born is born a component of the watch dog club, some are here merely to live, some to create, some to amuse, some to teach, some to suffer.......... so it is now returned to the day of the fighter.

calling all organizers, planners, revisionists, thinkers, ..... to fight for our foundational proclamation of being a republic, held fast through democracy. time to practice that again.... to live it.

"If political science, law, especially constitution law, economics, anthropology, sociology, psychiatry and the likes are taught starting at first grade, it wouldn't be so easy for our political parties to pull the wool over our eyes."

And just who is it that gets to determine our education curriculum.... hmm... politicians. They have spent decades setting up the perfect control system. Even voting is really a farce. They let us 'believe' we have the power to choose our leaders, when in fact you are usually simply voting for 1 of 2 people who BOTH have been selected by their political party leadership. It doesn't matter which one of the 2 get elected when they are BOTH corrupted to the core.

You watch as BOTH political parties try to smear the current tea party movement, because it is probably the biggest threat to their control scheme that has come along in a very long time.

calm down Francis

Um... he is right, you know. The left is particularly guilty of employing this tactic. They are the ones to claim that everyone else is intolerant, yet the intolerance they show is the strongest of them all. Tolerance means to be accepting of belief systems that are DIFFERENT then your own. Since when have you ever seen the left accept someones opinion that is different from theirs? They simply admonish those as heathens, stupid, or angry and dismiss their opinion entirely. THAT is the very definition of intolerance.

Try it sometime... Find a liberal friend and then play devil's advocate and disagree with their opinion. You will be shouted down, ridiculed and harassed. The very epitome of intolerance.

Since when have you ever seen the left accept someones opinion that is different from theirs? They simply admonish those as heathens, stupid, or angry and dismiss their opinion entirely. THAT is the very definition of intolerance.

Pretty much missing a sense of irony WTOH? Or I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you don't always pronounce such sweeping generalizations as this. From my lived observation, the left is continually accused of being too tolerant by those on the right - only the code words "politically correct" are used - when we accept and listen to the opposing views of others.

No doubt we all have our faults including me. If someone quotes some talking head from FOX at me, I grant you I'll assume they are not terribly well-informed and may possibly more ideological than is good for the intelligence or for our future conversations. But it won't stop me from talking with them.

And I think actually, it's a mistake to assume all such people have a low-IQ. I believe there is simply a severe shortage of factual information especially on television so anyone who gets their news primarily off tv will tend to have their heads a bit full of the latest scandals and fear-mongering headlines.

here! here!

I agree with you, not over it.

We have to remember why the people who came here from England, did so.

It was because of religious intolerance.

I am a Roman Catholic. I believe in my religious choice.

I also believe that God gave everyone Free Will.

They have a right to agree with me or disagree with me. As they cannot force me to reject my religious beliefs, neither can I force them to reject theirs. Nor should we try.

The same applies to political and other beliefs, and choices we make.

Diversity of people and beliefs are what make this country great. It's the big reason most people want to live here.

Life is to short to hate. It takes up too much precious time and energy.

I won't do it.

The take over of a bankrupt car company and a fistful of banks does not make a communist coup.

Maybe not to you but taking over the auto industry is a coup. A fistful of banks heavens for heavens sake ? Now its the takeover of the insurance industry they want.

There is no difference between a Democrat and a Communist.

They don't want to take over the insurance companies.

They want to provide some competition for an industry that is exempt from price fixing and creating monopolies. To bring the cost down and to let the "Free Market" decide the price of coverage.

That's Communism?????

The same old scare tactic that has been going on since the 40's. Does this sound familiar?

“It is entirely possible that the coming election may be the last free one that the United States of America will see. Certainly, if there are to be four more years of blind spending and the further broadening of a deficit which already has us on the very brink of financial disaster, will that not mean ruination for every man, woman and child within our borders, carrying down banks, life insurance companies, securities of all kinds and result in the eventual confiscation of all private property…The mob will even take the capital assets of industry and individuals. Nothing will be safe and the goal of Communism will have been reached. There will be no more free elections, no congress, and no courts of justice, as we formerly knew them. Our great factories will be in control of such men as Earl Browder, Harry Bridges, Leon Henderson and John Lewis…When this day arrives it is not impossible that Mrs. Roosevelt will be traveling around the country compelling white people to do washing for negroes so as to eliminate all traces of racial inequality…Roosevelt will stoop to anything this year to get re-elected. We are on the very threshold of Communism. Whether we are dragged through for a return to paganism and Christianity’s greatest setback of all time depends entirely upon the individual effort that is put into this, our last chance, by patriotic citizens who still revere the Stars and Stripes.”

This was written in “The Last Chance To Save Our Country” by C.C. Crow in the 2/15/44 issue of “Crow’s Pacific Coast Lumber Digest” .

1944.

And people are still saying the commies are at the door and will be taking over any minute now.

The people in this country need to take the initiative to educate themselves on the issues. I've been out of school for awhile now, so am not even sure is critical thinking is even taught in schools anymore. From talking with friends that have kids, no it isn't. Kids are taught to memorize facts and take a test. The kids are not taught to read, understand, and question what they are taught.

Very few think critically anymore.

Uh... drug abuse costs? So, to you, the health care crisis is because of drug abusers? Wow, how wrong you are. Where do you get this stuff?

Yes we have millions upon millions who work for small companies who cannot be insured or it raises the cost of the group plan due to drug abuse.

The economic cost to U.S. society of drug abuse was an estimated $97.7 billion in 1992, according to recent calculations. The new cost estimate continues a pattern of strong and steady increase since 1975, when the first of five previous cost estimates was made. The current estimate is 50 percent higher than the most recent previous estimate - which was made for 1985 - even after adjustment for population growth and inflation.

The parallel cost to society for alcohol abuse was estimated at $148 billion, bringing the total cost for substance abuse in 1992 to $246 billion. This total represents a cost of $965 for every person in the United States in 1992. The per-person cost for drug abuse alone was $383.

These estimates were calculated for NIDA and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism by The Lewin Group, a private health care research and consulting company in Fairfax, Virginia. The results were prepared by analysts using data from a variety of public and private sources and were released in May 1998 in a 220-page report, The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992.

Seems to me that might pay for National Health Care

Power

Actually all I did was a google search. I just know from personal experience with my clients I have seen so much financial ruin with drugs. I have seen loads of employers go through dozens of applications trying to find somebody who does not have a drug history. I know a tremendous amount of insurance theft claims are drug related as well.

Yes, far be it from us to allow our women to have... you know... rights and stuff.

I find your comment inflammatory. I never said one word about denying women rights in any form. I do believe you would be hard pressed to deny the breakdown of the family is not an epidemic crisis and that feminism did not help build the family.

I'm still working on how the drug abuse of the sixties is causing the Health Care Crisis we are facing today.

The breakdown of the family, it seems to me, was caused by the need for both parents to work full time jobs to provide for their families. Of course, I could be wrong, but then I'm a product of the fifties and sixties, although I never' abused drugs.

It did not become a necessity for both parents to work to pay for their home and higher education.

Most kids are given more for toys and entertainment in one year than I had my entire life.

This might sound like an crazy idea but I paid for my own college education.

Another thing that hurt parents in our city was forced integration. It created white flight and ruined the values of loads of homes while creating artificial values in the bedroom communities. It did nothing to raise the education level of blacks.

WILDWONDERFUL:

My parents both worked, in order to be able to own our own home and to keep five children fed and clothed.

I went to college later on, after high school I enlisted in the Air Force. Didn't have the money to go to college.

Today it's even worse. Both parents have to work one or two full time jobs, or a full time job and a part time job to keep their families together.

Every parent I know, wants their children to have it a little easier and a lot better than they did.

The reason for more than half of the divorces in this country is financial problems, the pressure just becomes too much.

As for your comments on forced integration of schools, I don't really care to comment.

I find your comment inflammatory.

You just got through linking all democrats to communists. Since I am a liberal/democrat and not a communist, I think your comment is inflammatory.

I never said one word about denying women rights in any form. I do believe you would be hard pressed to deny the breakdown of the family is not an epidemic crisis and that feminism did not help build the family.

I think tank59850 was right when he said

The breakdown of the family, it seems to me, was caused by the need for both parents to work full time jobs to provide for their families.

Of course, I lived out in the country with a shoddy education and no jobs, and only my father worked and didn't make very much.

I will agree that the breakdown of the family is an epidemic, but you have to look at what the parents have to deal with, and go with a bigger picture view. We are so stressed out these days working and trying to pay bills, that we have little time for family or children. We spend more time worrying about the guy on the road or the money in our pockets to remember what is right, or that we have to maintain a spousal relationship. Our kids spend more time in video games and television than schoolwork or family time, and the parent/child relationship is falling apart.

My current partner is a woman who was left by her husband with four children, two in diapers, because he suddenly decided that he wanted adventure, and didn't want to be a family man. She worked her ass off for those kids, and spent every waking moment she could with them. And she nurtured them into very intelligent, family oriented adults. They are great students, and great at what they do for a living, and I'm very proud of them. So, your example of feminism as the blame for the family breakdown isn't an absolute.

People are using topics like feminism or lack of religion to blame for the breakdown of the nuclear family. I say that we don't spend enough quality time with the family, and that is the real problem.

And conservatives are anything but ... well, conservative.

Ha Ha