"Hate" And Its Complexities: A Definition Of Terms

The Use Of The Term "Hate" Is Problematic.

Is It “Hate” Or Something Else?

As we watch society and, verily, the world both implode and explode we are bombarded with a mantra of terms: oligarchs, autocrats, fascists, dictators, democracy and the word “hate.” The vast majority of the U.S. populace is not very literate and, thusly, incapable of critical thinking in the classic sense of the term. For instance, while most have an opinion on the military conflict between Ukraine and Russia, most have no idea where either is on a map or globe. In fact, many cannot name half of the states in the United States.

Of the nine justices on the U.S. supreme court (the branch that, arguably, runs the country), 85 percent of “Americans” cannot name three of them and two-thirds of them cannot name a single one. Of the three branches of government fewer than half of “Americans” are able to name them. And while you might think that the United States is at the forefront of literacy and education, it ranks 125th for literacy rate among all countries.

To those that might take exception and umbrage to my preamble, don’t go pouting and getting upset with me. I learned, long ago, as a child, to use your statistics and your words to prove my arguments. Is that not what you do? I mean, we have a Miranda Warning (which I know by rote) and its most powerful tenet is not your fifth amendment so-called privilege or “right to remain silent,” shut your goddamned mouth and not incriminate yourself. It is not the tenet that you “have the right to an attorney.” No, no. Miranda’s most dangerous and potent tenet is that “anything you say can, and will, be used against you.”

I was trained by the best; the enemy.

If you wish to be angry at someone be angry at yourselves, as a nation, for not only allowing the atrophy of your minds and spirits but encouraging it. The proof that it is working is in the fact that you are completely unaware that you have encouraged it. A society based upon the pursuit of material things, instant gratification and the soulless greed that comes with it erodes the person and, thusly, the mind and spirit. Even if one were to entertain the remote madness that you were to have some type of societal epiphany and decide to discourage that which you have collectively encouraged, I fear that providence has written.

This erosion of the mind has caused the public to suffer from what I call ‘linguistic tics’ and there are all manner of them. Essentially, a linguistic tic is the language equivalent of “monkey see, monkey do.” Or, perhaps, better described as ‘monkey hear, monkey say.’ For instance, have you noticed that suddenly in the last couple of years people have started to answer a question with the word “so?” That is a new linguistic manifestation; a linguistic tic. These tics are highly contagious, especially for those incapable of critical thought.

The word “hate” is another linguistic tic that no one questions. I decided to write about this because of the multiple “hate” crimes directed at Black People in the United States in recent years. White supremacist mob violence in Montgomery, Alabama, a mass shooting in Jacksonville, Florida in which the assailant stated he wanted “to kill niggers,” the subway murder of Jordan Neeley and a 21 year old pregnant woman shot and killed (including her unborn child) by police in Ohio.

These “hate” crimes against Black People in the United States have existed since the United States began. In fact, it began, and flourished, as a result of “hate” crimes against those people. However, they were not always called “hate” though one would be hard-pressed to not accept that they are hateful. Nonetheless, I think using a blanket, and nebulous, term such as “hate” is indicative of societal cowardice and an unwillingness to truly confront the issue. It is intellectual dishonesty.

It was Socrates that said “the beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms.” Oxford defines “hate” as: intense or passionate dislike. This is a slippery slope in terms of everyday parlance for several reasons. Are there degrees of “hate?” If so, how are they delineated? If I dislike country music or “rap” (and I do) do I “hate” them?

I dislike broccoli, but I will eat it (twice a year, at best). I also dislike collard greens (I am sure to the surprise of many) and I refuse to eat them, ever, for I tend to not like foods that result in an olfactory assault. I love fish but am not fond of catfish because depending on where it comes from it tastes different; if I am in New Orleans I will eat it until I puke. Which of these do I “hate?”

Each and every year in June, I relive the bombing and anniversary of four Black Children in the United States; little girls attending Sunday school. An event unparalleled in history; a most heinous crime. Even though I was just being born and have no memory of the event at the time it occurred, I relive it. It made, and makes, me dislike the group of people that consistently commit these acts towards those that look like me.

The same feeling I had when USAF Airman Roger Fortson was murdered two months ago, when Trayvon Martin was murdered, when Tamir Rice was murdered, when Atatiana Jefferson was murdered, when James Byrd was murdered and when I read about the murders of Emmett Till, Martin King or Malcolm X. If I am responding to hatefulness does that make me hateful as well? If I am walking down the street and you spit on me and I, in turn, rearrange your teeth are we, somehow, equal? This is what I mean by the term being nebulous.

I have a neighbor who is flamboyantly homosexual. He is a very nice person. If his home were to catch fire or he was in some type of trouble I would not hesitate to come to his aid. But, I don’t want to socialize and hang out with him, does that mean I hate him? I don’t want to hang out with drug addicts either, I dislike drugs of any type; prescription or illicit (cannabis gets a pass) does that mean I hate drug addicts?

I am a firm believer in Talion Law. To insinuate that a response to a hateful act is “hate” is equine feces. If that is the case the United States is the most hateful nation on planet Earth (which is likely true). After “9/11” how many decades did the U.S. wage war? How many innocent men, women and children has it murdered? How many billions of dollars did it spend only to be defeated in the end?

I tend not to “hate” but my reasons are simply academic. I was always taught that hate and love are two sides of the same coin and I have found that to be quite true. I have spoken to men in jail and, ultimately, the vast majority of the time they are there because they loved or hated someone. A man who catches his wife in bed with his brother and in a hateful rage dispatches them both or stalks and harasses the woman is still showing feelings. The man who sees the two in bed, packs his bags and tells his brother there’s some cold beer in the fridge never to be heard from again is the one that has no feeling and, thusly, dangerous. The opposite of love is not hate, the opposite of love is indifference.

In 1971 The Persuaders had a hit “race record” (now called R&B) song called Thin Line Between Love And Hate.

In conclusion, the white supremacist murderers that committed some of the acts mentioned in this article may have committed hateful acts, but they were not animated by hate; they were animated by impunity and indifference. That is how they could be so brutal. Anyone that has been in combat knows there is no emotion in the midst of someone trying to kill you.

Further, I submit to you that retribution is not, necessarily, hate and if you give one salient and substantive reason to hate you, they should, however pointless. It is intellectually dishonest to infer that call and response are the same thing. Anger is not hate. Dislike is not hate. Resentment is not hate. In the words of Stieg Larsson: “To exact revenge for yourself, family or friends is not only a right, it’s an absolute duty.”