1 of 5

The Realities of Homegrown Hate

Jessie Daniels, Cyber : Online and the New Attack on Civil Rights (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009), 274 pp.

Robert Futrell and Pete Simi, American Swastika: Inside the White Power Movement’s Hidden Spaces of Hate (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010), 184 pp.

Reviewer: Robin Gorsline [email protected]

A few months ago, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Snyder v. Phelps. By an 8-1 vote, the court ringingly reaffirmed freedom of speech for a . The case and the decision elicited great interest for at least two reasons: the hate group identifies itself as a Christian church—Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS—and the speech at issue was a protest at the funeral for a soldier killed in the line of duty in Iraq.

An observer from another planet might think, based on news coverage of the group and the event, that such speech is unusual. Admittedly, there are few, if any, other groups protesting at military funerals, but the fact of —and specifically speech spewing forth hate toward Jews, African Americans, and LGBT people—is real in the United States.

Two books—Cyber Racism: White Supremacy Online and the New Attack on Civil Rights and American Swastika: Inside the White Power Movement’s Hidden Spaces of Hate—remind us of this reality in powerful ways. They also raise real issues about free speech and community life, particularly as the United States seems to uphold markedly different values from much of the rest of the world. This has implications for post-colonial worldviews and theologies.

Daniels, a frequent contributor to literature about white supremacy in the United States, focuses on the utility of the to spread racialized (and other) hate speech, arguing that newer media are not immune to the social constructs of American life. In fact, Daniels argues

Journal of Religion, Media and Digital Culture Volume 1, Issue 1 (January 2012) www.jrmdc.com

Downloaded from Brill.com10/03/2021 03:07:16AM via free access 2 of 5 that the ability to “cloak” hate language on the internet increases opportunities to draw unsuspecting young people into the orbit of racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic worldviews.

As more and more people, especially among the young, use cyber-based resources to gain basic information, the opportunity to distort the historical record to promote a particular ideological lens grows. Many see the diffusion of social conversation made possible through the

Internet as entirely a social good, but Daniels warns that groups that thrive on secrecy and distortion can use it to promote profound evil.

None of this is particularly surprising to those who are aware of Aryan and other hate groups and their ways of life: to believe “the other” is the source of all their troubles and the social diseases they see in society, to feel like victims of “the other,” to see incessant and ubiquitous plots by “the other” and their allies to wipe out the “true Americans/white people/non-Jewish, non LGBT people,” and to promote radical and violent upheaval in the culture to eradicate “the other” and thereby end the danger, etc.

Those not familiar with this pathological world would do well to read the “inside” look by Simi and Futrell. They are a criminologist and sociologist, respectively, who have used their research skills to see deeper than most of us will ever go into the reality of white supremacist groups.

Their on-scene investigation shows us some of the rawness of life within actual white supremacist communities. Much that they report made me ill—I could not read much of this relatively short book at any one time—but at the same time they show us how these communities, in ways that at times are like other communities of identity and activism, become central to the lives of their members. They also show us that these communities, again like others, are filled with tensions and arguments about basic interaction with the wider world as

Journal of Religion, Media and Digital Culture Volume 1, Issue 1 (January 2012) www.jrmdc.com

Downloaded from Brill.com10/03/2021 03:07:16AM via free access 3 of 5 well as strategy and tactics to promote their views. There is no monolithic movement, but a collection of groups with overlapping and complementary agendas.

Among a number of facets of hate community life that come vividly to life in both books is the centrality of male supremacy, the belief that the male of the human species is by nature dominant and to be obeyed. This ties in well with another shared observation: hate speech thrives when it is unchallenged—whether on the internet or at in-person gatherings, the ability to spew forth hate speech unchallenged is critical to maintaining individual loyalty and group cohesion.

This is one reason that white supremacist parents try to limit the exposure of their children to socialization through public schools and other groups. The effort of white supremacist parents to indoctrinate their young is one of the most frightening aspects reported by Simi and Futrell.

These books also raise issues for those engaged in post-colonial investigation and theorizing. Daniels, who focuses on the internet, “lurked,” that is, observed from a distance as a visitor. He did not sign up as a member or follower at any site, not wanting to be counted, even if anonymously, as a supporter. He makes his oppositional stance clear throughout the book.

Simi, on the other hand, directly engaged individuals and communities by serving as a participant observer. He, too, is clear, throughout the book, about his personal opposition to what various individuals and groups espouse, but at the same time he was more or less immersed—at special events and other gatherings—in the life of white supremacists. He was not clear, in those interactions with white supremacists, about his personal views, and he writes that at times “I outwardly portrayed myself as sympathetic to the Aryan cause” (p. 129). Even so, he found himself threatened with bodily harm or death, although he never was attacked.

Simi and Futrell are engaged in ethnographic observation which, given how little is known about these particular communities, provides helpful information. They certainly do not

Journal of Religion, Media and Digital Culture Volume 1, Issue 1 (January 2012) www.jrmdc.com

Downloaded from Brill.com10/03/2021 03:07:16AM via free access 4 of 5 promote white supremacy. At the same time, I came away from their book with a new care for individuals who hold these views.

Some may see this as a disservice, given the odious nature of Aryanism. I do not. Rather, they have brought us closer to some of the human side of these groups and individuals. As a result, I believe I am better prepared to combat Aryanism and possibly even to help some of the haters escape. At the same time, Daniels’ detachment and engagement with theory helps me see how best to uncover and engage these groups in cyberspace.

Then, there is the matter of speech. Daniels draws an important contrast between the

United States and much of the rest of the world in regard to hate speech. She questions whether the tendency toward “absolutism” in protecting all speech (there is no absolute right, ever since the court decided that it was unconstitutional to cry “fire” in a crowded theater) serves the United

States well.

I was reading Daniels’ book as the Supreme Court announced its decision in Snyder v.

Phelps. I read both the majority opinion by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts (joined by six others with Justice Breyer concurring), and the dissenting opinion by conservative Justice

Samuel Alito. Alito does not deny a fundamental need to protect public speech, but at the same time he suggests that “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.”

Alito is a jurist, so he does not go beyond the case before him and he is clear to stay focused on the injury to the individual soldier and his family. Even so, he indirectly raises for me the issue of community. How much brutalization can we stand? How much hate can a society tolerate, or perhaps it is better to say, “How much hate can a society protect?”

Journal of Religion, Media and Digital Culture Volume 1, Issue 1 (January 2012) www.jrmdc.com

Downloaded from Brill.com10/03/2021 03:07:16AM via free access 5 of 5

Daniels, and Simi and Futrell, show us that hate—the extremes of racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic hate—in the United States. In other parts of the world, these hates, or ones like them, are alive and well. Our government often condemns the haters elsewhere; many think the haters and the societies in which they thrive are less humane or civilized.

And yet, if the United States does not want others to hate, do we not need to think about how much hate we protect? Do we not need some national strategies that directly engage and overcome the hate? A post-colonial world of inclusion, justice and peace begins at home.

Aryan groups continue to construct hidden spaces of hate—online and on the ground— that make it possible for many to ignore the presence of lethal hate among us. However, the sale of guns continues unabated—indeed the rate rises, seemingly in response to the election of a

Black man as President of the United States.

The world looks more and more threatening to those who believe in the supremacy of their white group over all others. These two books may not show us how to respond, but they surely show us the need to do so.

Journal of Religion, Media and Digital Culture Volume 1, Issue 1 (January 2012) www.jrmdc.com

Downloaded from Brill.com10/03/2021 03:07:16AM via free access