(Part of the #10 essay is based on an article of the same name, written by the same author, that was published by History News Network on June 28, 2020.)
What is meant by the phrase, “those we abuse, we loathe”? At the outset, we have learned that various, consistent reminders of abuse one may have practiced or employed without thought cruelly and arbitrarily can be mortifying and agonizing for those who have perpetrated abuse against another human being. This abuse can also foster hatred, both for one’s own self as abuser but also toward the target of that abuse. While this self-hate for arbitrary acts of abuse will not normally remain permanent for most people, that is not the case for the continuation of the attitude toward the target of the abuse, which may, for many, habitually last a lifetime.
In the extreme, abusers can desire and seek the complete elimination of the object of one’s abuse in the belief that the strong urge behind the abuse is justified, and the urge will somehow simply disappear with the abject absence or elimination of the object or victim. Yet, this process rarely squelches the motive. The associated illusion that loathing only exists because the target deserves demonstrable hatred and abuse has led to violent outbursts reflected in lynchings and brutalizations over the years, such as the mutilation and murder of Emmett Till and, more recently, in the well-publicized killings of Black Americans, such as George Floyd.
When we hear the phrase, “those we abuse, we loathe”, we normally think of its relevance on a personal basis: if we harm someone intentionally, physically or otherwise, especially when it is done gratuitously and quite thoughtlessly, we will so often rationalize the reasons we have abused that person, and the expansion of that rationalization alone can often lead to loathing those we have harmed. We simply do not (and regularly, cannot) wish to think of ourselves as overtly cruel. We must manufacture a reason for the damage we have personally inflicted on someone else.
There are several manifestations that occur from thoughtless and consequential abuse. Let’s say the abuse has been exercised against a Black person for no other reason than he or she is Black. Then, that forces us, of course, to adopt our whiteness more completely. One might even speculate that the greater prejudice that is shown against Blacks, the greater the degree of closeness that will be felt in white-to-white friendships, relationships, and even governance. In other words, the greater the rejection of Black-white relations, the more significant white-to-white relations can be for participants, who then become even more committed to white-to-white constructs – the latter being one more path regrettably to filiopietism and damaged heritage.
For much of our country’s history, a white friendship or relationship simply could not tolerate one of the white parties also being engaged, at the same time, in a close Black-white friendship or relationship. Of course, in our new paradigm, as proposed by this “For Racial Healing” series, with the application and adoption of authentic passion being an essential part of Black-white racial healing, then we expect a disappearance of that reluctance to judge Blacks deserving of the same kind of friendship and relationship that has existed between whites (as viewed from the white perspective). The peculiarity and personal distance that have been and still are very frequently present in Black-white relations imply to many white people that Blacks cannot enjoy particular parts of life that have been inhabited and enjoyed by whites.
Personal relations are hardly the only manifestation of “those we abuse, we loathe”, which have been routinely reflected in institutional ways as well with features that are different from but which are essentially incited by the same motivation felt by an individual, white perpetrator of abuse against a Black person. The institutionalization of “those we abuse, we loathe” has been illustrated in the United States by the qualitative treatment of Black lives being less valued than white lives. This undervaluation of Black lives has been regularly demonstrated in the nation’s incarceration policies and by an underrepresentation of Blacks in positions of power and consequence institutionally.
Frequently, in response to this personal and institutional conduct against Black Americans, the anger and frustration by the recipients of this anti-Black behavior have occasionally combusted on the streets of American cities; in response to a belief that Black lives mattered less in the racial practices of the nation, both private and public, an organized effort in the form of the Black Lives Movement was created to react against white-priority practices. One of the goals of initiatives, such as “For Racial Healing”, consists of the necessity to eliminate the disparity in the value of Black and white lives by enhancing the worthiness of Black participation in and contributions to American life.
It is necessary therefore to return to the University of Michigan study to observe a relevance between the view that “those we abuse, we loathe” and the conclusion that white men show a greater prejudice than white women do against Blacks. As enforcers of “in-group” behavior and practices, enunciated by the study, a large portion of white men could easily find consistency between their own conduct and actions and the premise of “those we abuse, we loathe”. Similarly, we can return once more to the question of why so many American white men, more so than white women, have apparently chosen to demur at the prospect of addressing the country’s racial problems.
Should we then speculate that those who have been the normal, physical enforcers of white racism against Blacks over generations – namely, white men – would have generally recognized the role that their male forebears played in effectuating the phrase of “those we abuse, we loathe” against Blacks? Maybe, the lack of white male participation in anti-racism programs that many of us have witnessed can be explained, in part, as a result of not only the broader, less physically violent, racial prejudice against Blacks that white men have demonstrated, but also the related violence and brutality that American white men have exercised against Blacks in the past – so that many white men of today simply do not wish to be reminded of that grim, gender heritage.
So, let us proceed to endorse racial healing. It is only prudent and necessary to do so as a country. However, at the same time, let us recognize that this long, sought effort will be futile from the outset in the absence of an initial step that leads to an admission by the nation, through an embracement of authentic passion and racial healing protocols, acknowledging that Black lives have been systemically valued less than white lives, both personally and publicly. Only on a foundation of a realistic appreciation of the past and current status for Black lives in this country can we expect that such adverse behavior, as individual and institutional employment of “those we abuse, we loathe” practices, will not be repeated and that Black lives can be viewed by all Americans as equal in value to white lives.
Next Time: Reflections on Filiopietism and Damaged Heritage