Neo-Nazis in a Tolerant Society
One of the perfect categories for evaluating how discourses of tolerance are defined and delimited is through how white supremacists are dealt with in American popular culture and media. One of the classic beliefs of neo-Nazi individuals is the claim the Holocaust never happened because it is based on lies rather than documented facts. Holocaust denial is one of the largest challenges to liberal notions of tolerance and toleration because often even the tolerant individual is forced to accept some limits by not allowing for Holocaust denial. Catriona McKinnon points out one of the ways it is particularly troubling for the academic community: “[Holocaust denial] brings into particularly sharp focus many of the difficult questions faced by advocates of the reasonableness defense of toleration (and, indeed, defenders of toleration everywhere) insofar as it is predictably motivated and accompanied by anti-Semitism, causes profound offence and upset to Jews (and many others), and yet (in its most pernicious forms) imitates legitimate academic history” (154). One of the primary organizations that imitate valid, fact-based history is the Institute for Historical Review. The group claims to be an “independent educational research and publishing center that works to promote peace, understanding and justice through greater public awareness of the past” (“About the IHR”). This sounds both perfectly legitimate and in line with tolerance initiatives. Until 2002 they also put out the Journal of Historical Review, a publication that supported their revisionist history viewpoints. They refute claims that they are a Holocaust denial organization, yet nearly all of their materials that ostensibly promote understanding and justice are texts such as Innocent at Dachau, An Eye for an Eye: the Story of Jews Who Sought Revenge for the Holocaust, and After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation. All of these books promote a revisionist view of history where the German population was victimized by the Jews and the Allies in order to create a vast conspiracy that discredits the German people. They also publish and sell leaflets titled “Auschwitz: Myths and Facts,” “A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel,” and “Holocaust Remembrance: What's Behind the Campaign?” All of these publications use various forms of “evidence” to support the belief that the Holocaust never happened and there is some sort of vast Jewish conspiracy controlling the world. IHR is particularly troubling because they can come off as legitimate scholarship and they strive to offer the sorts of facts that support beliefs that the Holocaust never happened.While there are a variety of laws explicitly prohibiting Holocaust denial and the promotion of xenophobia in Europe, American free speech laws would never allow for that sort of legislation, often with good reason. The choice to combat Holocaust Denial with legislation does not always sit easily with a variety of scholars. Emory University Holocaust Studies Professor Deborah Lipstadt claims laws of this sort can do more harm than good as, “When you pass these kinds of laws it suggests to the uninformed bystander that you don't have the evidence to prove your case” (Waterfield). Holocaust denial laws, at the worst, can be interpreted as proof that the Holocaust did not actually happen as stated, limiting any discourse that encourages dialogues and questions about historical events. My concern here is not so much on limiting free speech, but more on discouraging the values that are espoused in hate speech. The issue here is not so much that people are allowed to make hateful materials or xenophobic speeches, but that an over-enthusiastic embrasure of tolerance often makes people unwilling to condemn such actions.[1]
A more concrete example of how neo-Nazism gets legitimated as a valid ideological choice comes from the city of Rialto in southern California. Rialto is a town of approximately 100,000 people, where approximately seventy percent of the population is Latino/a and African American, according to the 2000 census (“City of Rialto”). In the fall of 2010 Daniel B. Schruender, a former state president of the California chapter of the Aryan Nations, ran for school board (Santschi). The Aryan Nations “is one of the pre-eminent neo-Nazi, Christian Identity groups in the United States” according to Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino (Santschi). In fact, Levin claims, “It’s hard to understate the historical significance of Aryan Nations to the hate movement in this country over the last half century" (Santschi). While Schruender verbally tried to distance himself from the organization and explicit neo-Nazi beliefs during his campaign, his current blog is titled “Sense and Sensibility: Now Affiliated with the American Nazi Party,” clearly indicating that while he denied the importance of his position within Aryan Nation leadership his support of Nazi organizations is ongoing (I'm not linking to the blog, for various reasons, but you can easily google it).
My concern here, again, is not so much that Schruender publishes neo-Nazi views on his blog or tries to seek public office. He was defeated, and a large reason for that defeat was the public presence of his neo-Nazi views online and the candidates that rushed to fill the gap once it was publicized that he was running unopposed. What I find particularly interesting in terms of relativism and tolerance are the ways people discuss his campaign on news sites relaying the story of his background and political aspirations. As one would expect, there are some comments directly decrying Schruender’s beliefs, and some egregious racist support of his decision to run. However, there are multiple places in the ongoing discussion[2] where the comments directly reference the notion of tolerance in terms of his right to run. Sometimes they come in the form of claims of reverse racism, such as a “Rialto Resident’s” post:
Isn't freedom of speech a wonderful thing?
If we, as a society, tolerate [school board member] Gil Navarro and [congressman] Joe Baca, who admit they put the needs of their race first, then we also must tolerate those of other races, who say virtually the same thing.
He's got my vote, and also the votes from my very large, extended family. (Santschi)
Rialto Resident’s claims of reverse racism are underscored by the insistence that because he is forced to tolerate the views of Navarro and Baca in order to maintain a sense of seemliness and morality, that same tolerance will be willingly extended to someone like Schruender “who say[s] virtually the same thing.”[3] Rialto Resident uses the language of tolerance and concepts of cultural relativism to legitimate the hate speech and views of Schruender.[4] Another comment on a separate website posted on August 13 attempts to look on whatever bright side the situation might hold: “since schruender is a retired school teacher, why not do a survey asking students who were in his classes whether or not schruender in any way showed his racist side. people can always have a change of heart for better. we all have weaknesses” (elt). This commenter views Schruender’s ideologies as perhaps a past dalliance and minor character flaw. However, far from needing to survey his former students the author could have looked towards his blog entry from a week earlier, “Attacked in the Press” where he refers to both the “Jew Media” and “niggerball” (Schruender). While we can not necessarily know what views Schruender espoused in the classroom, he clearly shows he has not had any “change of heart for better” (elt).
Finally, there is the sentiment that I have seen expressed in a variety of different ways, here by commenter Janice Morris: “What difference what this man is as long as he is working for the best interest of the children” (Santschi). Naturally, there is no consideration of which children Schruender would be working in the best interest of here, which would seem to be a large concern in a district “in which 73 percent of students are Latino, 17 percent are African-American and less than 6 percent are white” (Santschi).[5] It is hard to imagine Schruender would be promoting any form of well-being for these kids that he publicly expresses hatred for. What Morris, elt, and Rialto Resident all express here, in varying ways, is an acceptance of neo-Nazi values as those worth living by, and views that should be tolerated as merely another perspective on contemporary life. However, Harris and Appiah would both require that instead of tolerating Schruender’s (or other neo-Nazi) views, individuals should consider how worthy those values are, and if they go towards promoting human well-being or human misery. One way to do examine values in the abstract, again, is through literature. Books for young adults with neo-Nazi characters can help illustrate why those values are not worth living by. The texts I'm referring to here are Stephen King's Apt Pupil, Carol Matas' The Freak, Mats Wahl's The Invisible, Laura E. Williams The Spider's Web, and Han Nolan's If I Should Die Before I Wake.
These texts deal with characters existing within the privileged position that should be tolerating difference, according to popular logic. Instead of a persecuted group, these texts illustrate embracing hate rather than accepting difference in ways that ultimately show how hatred is not a value worth living by. They do this in two distinct ways that I discuss in my book: first by showing neo-Nazi characters that readers are asked to identify with and second by highlighting the impact neo-Nazi violence has on others. I gave a talk on this subject in October for the Institute of Hate Studies and American University. You can find my powerpoint for that in my post on Hate Studies and the Holocaust Memorial Museum on this blog.
[1] The way that the conflicting laws on Holocaust Denial and free speech play out ultimately places the US in the unenviable position of producing a great deal of the literature on the subject. The Southern Poverty Law Center notes, “Many Europeans also have played an important part in [Holocaust Denial], but they have been hampered by laws that punish denial and other statements seen as inciting racial hatred. This has left the Americans, with their speech protected by the First Amendment, in a unique and important position to disseminate denial materials worldwide” (Beirich).
[2] There are literally hundreds of comments on various news articles covering the subject.
[3] Unlikely, since Baca’s voting record shows he supports a variety of civil rights initiatives, such as supporting ENDA, reintroducing the ERA, and establishing a national holiday honoring Native Americans. Schruender’s Neo-Nazi beliefs make him unlikely to support any of the varied categories that Baca stands up for (“Joe Baca on the Issues”).
[4] Schruender admits on his blog to publicly promoting hate speech by distributing Neo-Nazi and Aryan Nation leaflets around Rialto (Schruender).
[5] Not that it would be any less troubling if Schruender was running in a 99% white district, either way his notion of appropriate curriculum and policy would be deeply suspect.
