Is it wrong to beat up a Nazi?
Many people seem to think so. Many liberals (if not most) will I think tend to agree. I find it more than a little disturbing that Tea Party advocates at the LA Times are blogging in fervent support of the Nazi though.
For myself, I can see how many people would argue that violence is never right. But then again, I can't forget that the Nazis murdered more than 6 million Jews in WWII, and back then it was patriotic to beat up Nazis. Is it only patriotic to beat up a Nazi during war time? How far should the protection of Nazis go in our country?
So how wrong is it to bloody a Nazi with a protest sign?
Is it the same as beating up a black person? Is yelling horrible things at a Nazi the same as yelling horrible things at a latino or a gay person?
I don't think it's the same. I think I'd probably tend to fall on the side of non-violence, but then again, I don't think I could condemn the descendent of a Holocaust victim for beating a Nazi with a protest sign either. I couldn't tell them it was the wrong thing to do.
Counter-demonstrators surrounded him, chanting, "Nazi scum." One pushed a sign in his face and another jostled him. He was bobbing his head mockingly as the crowd chanted, when pushing suddenly broke out and about a dozen protesters began showering him with punches and kicks as he fell. The wood handle of one sign was smashed so hard into his back it snapped.
Other protesters tried to protect the man. "You can't fight hate with hate," shouted one.
After about a 15-second beating, an undercover police officer began shouting and flashed his badge. He pulled the man, bleeding from a gaping wound in the back of his neck, from the mob and past the yellow tape blocking the protesters.
Advocates for the Tea Party movement at the LA Times have been quick to write comments supporting the Nazi and his right in America to be a Nazi and to protest proudly in support of the Holocaust and future genocide against minorities.
Evidently that's a right in this country. I don't happen to agree that it should be though. In Europe there are restrictions on that kind of advocacy for white supremacist groups because they've seen the horrors that can result when it goes unchecked. In America we tend to outsource our genocide in the form of foreign wars that are distant enough from the American public that they don't seem to register in the same way that WWII did for Europeans. Vietnam. The "War on Terror." Our own torture and abuse of brown people (Arabs), etc. But I digress. However, I do think America is at a point where the violent rhetoric we permit has become a social disease that's actually undermining our freedom and our way of life.
Here are some of the comments from supporters of the Nazi who was beaten at the Times online:
Hey, where's CNN and MSNBC reporting on mob violence against first amendment rights?
Oh wait, these are hate groups. And this is America, where assaulting a man for despicable speech still protected by the first amendment is totally not worse than someone uttering the "N" word in a non violent tea party. IF that even happened in the first place.
As a minority, I demand Americans educate themselves.
Posted by: XM | April 17, 2010 at 01:13 PM
I'm pretty sure this "minority" is white, but that they consider themselves a minority in Los Angeles, because whites are no longer technically the majority. Personally I find it a little silly to use the term minority, but if whites insist on doing so, they can. It sounds awfully petty and full of white supremacist resentment to me though.
Let's see - a group who supports the white race - is beaten by ILLEGALS and other colored individuals representing their respective groups.
Why?
Why can't a white man voice his opinion just like you, people of color?
YOU should've been arrested and deported ... or if legal - charged and convicted.
This man has the right to his voice. Idiots.
Posted by: DefendUrRights | April 17, 2010 at 01:24 PM
It's disappointing to see the eagerness with which the defenders of the Nazi movement above link this beating to the condemnation of the Tea Party protesters for their own white supremacy and hate speech. But that's the danger with violent reactions to Nazis or white supremacists in the Tea Party movement. I'm not sure America has the intellectual capability not to draw direct comparisons and our media certainly can't be trusted not to do the same. I'm sure that the beating will be linked to liberals even though there's no evidence that it was liberals who beat up the Nazi in question. There will be an eagerness in the media to set up a false narrative that equates the violent rhetoric of the Tea Party movement with the violence involved in beating up a Nazi, and for my part that's the danger I see in it and that's probably why I'd tend to condemn the beating. Not because I think it isn't patriotic to beat up a Nazi (I think it probably always was), but because I think it's probably counter productive.
For some reason the people above seem to think that it's hypocritical to condemn white supremacists for their hate speech and then to beat up a Nazi on American soil. I'm not sure it's hypocritical. Is intolerance of intolerance hypocritical? I don't think it was during WWII.
To me it seems like the same attitude we had towards Nazis in WWII.
I'm non-violent by default, but when it comes to Nazis, I'm not sure my respect for the First Amendment and my belief in non-violence goes so far that I can condemn Americans for beating up a Nazi. If I had been alive during WWII, I'd have been fighting them with everything I had. I'd have been a resistance fighter or an enlistee for certain. I wouldn't have been non-violent. So where do I draw the line today? Nazis are still working to infiltrate our political system and start wars based on racism and hate. Were does the line get drawn wrt our reaction to their attempts to do so? How do we make sure it "never happens again?" And is violence never on the table when it comes to dealing with Nazis?
I'm not so rigid in my beliefs about non-violence when it comes to Nazis, and I tend to think that sometimes you do have to fight back, even if it's ugly and maybe even if it at first seems counterproductive at the time.
So I'm conflicted. I don't like seeing Americans beat people up in public. But I'm not sure I don't like seeing Nazis free to be Nazis in public even more.
And lastly, how worried should liberals really be about getting this act tied to our movement even if we weren't the ones doing the beating? Even if there were conservative Jewish voters (for example) in that counter protest, is it bad for liberals if the hatred of Nazis is now equated with being liberal and the defense of Nazis is equated with being conservative by our media?
In the end, my basic feeling on Nazis and what their rights in America should be is that I think being a Nazi should be criminalized, so that people (especially kids) can get into rehab programs and get the healing they need. I don't think you can criminalize thought. But you can criminalize the joining of certain groups.
What do people think?
Update [2010-4-17 18:48:53 by banderson]:: I don't want to advocate violence by saying I understand why a Holocaust victim would beat up a Nazi. To those who feel I've done so: I apologize. I can't say I don't understand why they would though, if I'm being honest. Naziism has a very specific history in our country, and despite my non-violent beliefs, I honestly can't say I don't understand why a Holocaust victim or the relative of one would react violently to a Nazi. I hope my understanding isn't always seen as synonymous with advocacy. I don't think it's the same thing in the case of Nazis.
For those of you who think understanding why a Holocaust victim would beat up a Nazi is the same as understanding why someone would kill an IRS worker or an abortion doctor, I have to say that I find that argument pretty revolting. There's no question about the morality of a Nazi amongst decent people. There's no contention or argument. Abortion doctors aren't Nazis. IRS workers aren't Nazis. Saying you see an equivalency in understanding why one person would attack a Nazi and why another would attack an IRS worker seems pretty sick to me personally. I don't think I buy the argument that all violence is created equally. If it were, then it was just as evil in WWII for America to defeat the Nazis as it is for that guy to have flown his plane into the IRS building. And I know that's not true.