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! 

Should we allow Globalization in its present form remain that way?

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

“Globalization is here to stay.” This is the latest joint declaration of Obama and Merkel.

An objective dictionary definition of the term suggests that the term means “The process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale.” Apparently, a decent idea aimed at removing barriers, economic and cultural, between nations and bringing people and societies together. It has been suggested that it is, according to Jean Monnet, one of the European Union founders, a way to make war a thing of the past by creating co-dependency and cooperation. It has been experimented with in various forms for a long time.

Our question then is, has it proved successful? If Obama and Merkel mean that the process once begun cannot be stopped, maybe they have a point. But if they meant that “Globalization” is a process so important and so powerful so that it must ignore its negative consequences in the interest of some higher goal, they are wrong.

For Roger and myself and for many others, the term “Globalization” evokes the unavoidable association and recollection of the biblical story of Babylon. Babylon in turn, conjures anything that goes against G-d and humanity’s code of moral conduct. We have heard of the “harlot of Babylon,” the lascivious and immoral conduct of its inhabitants which, we believe is also hinted at on Leonard Cohen’s song “Dance Me to the End of Love,” where he says. “Let me feel you moving like they do in Babylon.” Babylon, as many know, is also the cradle of some of the pagan religions that sought to compete and destroy Judaism. What “Babylon” was, was a centralization of all power and influence in a small elite who saw it in their interest to squash all who dissented - cultures, religions, languages – all had either to be in the interests of those in control, or had to disappear. A world of diversity had to become a world of uniformity serving the new order imposed by those at the top - for the good of all. The problem then – and now, is that when uniformity is imposed, whose culture, whose rules, whose choices will be imposed on everyone for the benefit usually of those who are running the game or have access to those running the game.

The Biblical story of Babylon as recounted in Genesis, like the idea of modern day concept of globalization, was a counter reaction to certain realities that needed to be addressed. Prior to the Flood, per Chabbad.org, people “had been interested only in themselves; they thought of themselves as supermen and lived each one for himself alone; they used violence and force against their weaker neighbors, paying no attention to laws and rules.”

We witness the same phenomenon unfolding itself in front of us nowadays. Borders are crumbling, economies with different outlooks and different work ethics are forced to work together removing the rewards from the hardworking ones and benefiting the less ambitious ones. Individuals who are yearning for self-expression and practicing their rights for individualism are silenced and reduced to becoming mere sheep, all for the benefit of a global society. Individuality and the integrity of one’s own mind lost its inviolability. The ‘we’ has replaced the ‘I’ leaving us with neither being capable of guiding humanity anymore.

In theory, Globalization is fine. It has the potential of being more opportunity and a better life to everyone. In practice, it has been much less so historically. Somewhere, some place there is the golden mean, the course of combining the two, enhancing one’s ability for self-expression and directing it towards benefiting us all. And that “golden mean” can best be reached by encouraging free and fair trade, allowing market forces, not bureaucrats and making the decisions balanced by a moral approach that requires fairness to all.