Hatred or Prejudice, who benefits?

This article was written jointly by Roger Froikin and Bat-Zion Susskind-Sacks

Both hatred, and prejudice have plagued humanity since early days. Unfortunately, they still do.

Since we all have our own different conception of what they mean, we decided, for the sake of this article, its clarity and its endeavor to share our opinion and view on its subject, to provide an objective definition of the two terms.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines Hatred as: “an extremely strong feeling of dislike.” “Prejudice” is defined by it as: “an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling when formed without enough thought or knowledge.” 

The common denominator these two terms share, as we believe the readers will agree with us, is that they both reside in the domain of emotions, not the rational one in us, humans.

 We also believe that almost everyone today acknowledges that these are sentiments that tend to be destructive and should, therefore, be put in the past in favor of fact, objectivity and rationality. Yet they are not. They are with us. It is a shame that, in this day and age, we need to discuss “hatred” or “prejudice.”

Moreover, we both feel that the problems they present are growing, not diminishing.  All one needs to do is look around the world. And while looking, one should try to understand why there is prejudice and why there is hatred, and maybe most of all ask, who benefits from both?

We all have our preferences, some rational, some not. So long as none of these preferences are imposed on others to their disadvantage, we could all live with it and practice the dignity of difference. Prejudice and hatred, as we suggested above, operate on an irrational plane. They motivate through unthinking emotions, no matter how well rationalized by those employing them or the damaging behaviours they produce.

Many studies have shown that prejudice is learned. Others have suggested that prejudice is innate. Whatever its source is, one fact remains clear, however. It is the taking of natural affinities and worries, and turning them into methods humans adopt to defend what we perceive as our interests or feed our egos irrationally where there is really no advantage for us.

Hatred, on the other hand, is something a bit simpler. Hate is the response to loss and to fear. People hate those that take something from them, those that injure them and those that hurt their interests. People hate anyone or anything that causes them to lose something.

Unfortunately, too often people hate what they have been taught to hate. In some cases, hatred is acquired and built upon our innate prejudices which some elements outside of us capitalize upon, stoke and simmer to the full fire of hatred. Those who fall prey to such destructive influences are oblivious to them, and are involuntarily fulfilling some socially demanded rule. By doing so, they become part of something bigger than themselves. Hatred, in these cases, gets the victims of such antics nothing, neither compensation for loss, nor justice, nor any reward.

The big question one should ask them is, WHO IS THE BENEFICIARY? WHO BENEFITS FROM PREJUDICE? WHO BENEFITS FROM HATRED?

Whatever and wherever the trigger for hatred is or rests, whether it’s racial bigotry, Anti-Semitism, Xenophobia, or hate against a political figure, one needs to study the source of the force, outside of oneself, that exploits and utilizes these emotions.

Unfortunately, in many cases, one will eventually find out that they fell victims to one’s twisted agenda. It can be the agenda of a ruling group which refuses to change the comforts of its status quo, or of an interest faction which feels threatened by an outsider, or perhaps even by a biased media that fails to differentiate facts from opinion.

One should never underestimate that interesting question, who stands to benefit from fanning the flames of prejudice and hatred?

The odds are, dear readers, that it is not the average person on the street, you or anyone of us! 

The Reign of Dishonesty

Written jointly by Roger Froikin and Bat-Zion Susskind-Sacks

The Ten Commandments are universally taken as a good list of rules for a fair and moral society.  We all seem to agree that “Thou shall not steal” is a good policy.  We all concur that not murdering is a necessary basic rule of any moral and stable society, that coveting leads to all sorts of problems and so on.

But less specifically stated is that all these rules hinge on honesty and are undermined by dishonesty.  We all hear that “honesty is the best policy” and that dishonesty leads to problems we do not want.  We all want our children to tell us the truth, businesses to treat us honestly and fairly, and friends and neighbours to never cheat us.

Everyone has been guilty of holding back on the truth so as not to hurt the feelings of a relative or friend, one’s wife or husband.  Half-truths to protect feelings are not uncommon.  Lies to protect against evil are justified at times.   The simple fact is whether one is honest or dishonest affects more than that person.  It affects others who depend on that person.

One fact, however, remains clear. Whether someone is honest or dishonest directly or indirectly touches the lives and choices of others.  

Another fact that remains uncontested is that, there are circumstances when honesty needs to be expected from those who affect our daily lives. Their honesty is something that we depend on for our decision-making processes and our choices.  Their honesty, or lack of it, determines what we must do, or not do.  

Honesty has rarely, if ever, been the governing principle on the timeline of history. For one to be honest, one needs to be courageous, be free of agenda and have a strong desire to bring about a change for the better in one’s world. In a way being honest is, to use Gandhi’s words, being the change that one wants to see in the world.

The honesty-dishonesty conundrum begins with childhood.  Children lie to protect themselves when they believe that they have done something wrong or disappointed someone close to them.  We teach them to develop trust and that being honest is best in the long run. 

Later in life, many use dishonesty in order to take advantage of others.  Businessmen who cut corners in order to sell faulty merchandise or who charge high prices in times of tragedy to profit from the hurt of others, come to mind. Politicians are another example of those who sometimes use lies, distraction, or evasion of truth as their compass to attract supporters and voters to gain power or push a policy that they believe might have opposition if people knew the facts.

Dishonesty, unfortunately, has become the rule rather than the exception in today’s world, today, more than ever before.  

Everyday people, sadly enough, also, play the same game in the hope of bringing about a change that will improve their status and advance their own personal agenda, gain friendships and buy love.

What is even more concerning is that we have learned to accept dishonesty and live with it. We may get momentarily upset when witnessing it, mumble our discontent with those that employ it, shake our head in disbelief yet we move on with our daily chores. We have all seen people who would excuse dishonest behavior and wonder why.   Some do wonder about the guy that shrugs off dishonesty by saying “everyone steals” or the politician who wants us to believe him but says “everyone lies”.   And what is worse is when people excuse dishonesty to protect their favorite friend or store or politician or political party,  strangely even when it might be against their own best interests.

Honesty, on the other hand and strangely enough has become a dirty word and is almost akin to a four-letter word.  In some countries today, the honest man is considered “naïve” or a fool.  The guy who shakes hands on a deal without paying a lawyer is called a “sucker”, assuming everyone is going to cheat him.  The honest man is scorned by many.

Likewise, in this Politically Correct world where opinions that do not conform  are censored, those that strive to express their opinions genuinely and sincerely amount to no more than “cyber bullies” and accused of promoting strife, hatred, lack of PC and warding off friendships merely for dissenting from current popular clichés. They are even considered by some, “the enemy.” What follows then is that the “enemy”, the “cyber bully” should be attacked, sanctioned and occasionally even threatened,  no different than the intolerance that led to pogroms against Jews in Europe.

The legitimization of dishonesty is alive and well and continues to pose danger to liberty.