Hate, the book: 128

Hello Curious Friend.  Welcome to my book about Hate.  The number tells you where you are in the sequence.  I look forward to your comments.

Part Three
Chapter Twenty
Order From Chaos    (Continued)

Lots of famous people have already suggested this.

Scenario Patel

Ms. Parvi Patel is a young woman who decided her newborn would be better off in a dumpster rather than living with her and her parents.  It seems obvious that the source of hate in this case is Parvi, but who exactly is the target?

Our blessed child who knew of life for only a few breaths was spared every knowledge of harm and was soon beyond the reach of any pain nature could bestow.

No, the baby was not Parvi’s target.

Was it Parvi herself?  Or perhaps her possibly overbearing parents?  Maybe it was her way of hurting them, removing the possibility of their enjoying a grandchild.  Or perhaps the act was to shame herself in their eyes.

Finally, could it be that Parvi may have been trying to harm the father of her child, who had abandoned her?  In our era it usually considered a woman’s burden, a woman’s fault, for allowing a man to impregnate her.

Once pregnancy is acknowledged, an expectant mother whose mate has left her is generally left without any male accomplice.

This doesn’t mean she doesn’t think about the father of her child.  Indeed, it’s likely she thinks about him and the outcome of his deed almost continuously, as Parvi surely did.
Finally, who are the observers in this tragedy?  The legal system and its investigators, no doubt.  But their interests are in legal facts, not the underlying story.

Perhaps the medical professionals trying to help Parvi are the observers.  It could be that it was the journalists who covered the story.

Finally, perhaps even her parents can be considered observers.  Maybe they were looking to understand their daughter, to possibly reassert their love for her, to help her prepare for a normal life.

For each of these observers there is a slightly different play to write, for every one of them observes.  And what happened from any one of their perspectives will be slightly different than the other observers.

Finally, and not so innocently, consider this last complication.  Yes, Parvi is the most obvious candidate for the part of source.  However, consider this; Parvi’s parents came from an old culture that places a very high value on birthright and social position, one that doesn’t look kindly toward bearing children out of wedlock.

Is it conceivable that Parvi’s parents put so much pressure on her that she felt the need to do something extreme in order to appease them?  If this were the case, is it then not possible to extend the role of source to her parents, or even the culture they came from?

To be continued …

Hate, the book: 127

Hello Curious Friend.  Welcome to my book about Hate.  The number tells you where you are in the sequence.  I look forward to your comments.

Part Three
Chapter Twenty
Order From Chaos    (Continued)

Lots of famous people have already suggested this.

Another possible target I can suggest in this scenario is all of us, the world.  For perhaps his own pain was great enough so that he wanted the world to gasp, even if it were only for a moment.

We did.

Our last possible actor in this scenario represents the observers, and here I will argue that there is only one possible group.  True, a horrified world stood by and watched as events unfolded.

However, there is a special group of trained, experienced, and somewhat hardened men and women we trust to wrest facts from those alpine cliffs.

These are the accident investigators.  They are the ones we train and trust to carefully sift through mountains of data in order to present the most likely cause of such an unfortunate event.

From them the story is told to journalists, and from the journalists to us.  We are the comfortable audience, horrified and enthralled.  But as students of hate, we must also be careful not to let these stories mislead us.

There are two other observations I would like to make on this scenario that involve two other possible players, although they may not be actors.  First, there is the organization that regulates the actions of all European airlines.  Within the USA there is a rule stating that there must be two people inside the cockpit at all times.

When the Germanwings captain left the cockpit to use the bathroom, the co-pilot locked him out.  With new unbreakable cockpit doors designed to keep out terrorists, that co-pilot made himself invincible.  Had another crewman been in the captain’s place, this tragedy might have been averted.

Secondly, the very existence of that unbreakable door is also something to consider.  The reason that door exists is because of our government’s great fear that more suicide terrorists are going to board our planes and overcome the pilots.

Yet, since 2001, there have been no more such cockpit attacks.  Even with enhanced passenger screening, these fortress doors remain.

The goal of the terrorists was to inflict great harm on our society, and one aspect of that harm has been increased screening and fortress cockpits.  Without those doors, it’s possible this Germanwings tragedy would not have happened.

To be continued …

Hate, the book: 126

Hello Curious Friend.  Welcome to my book about Hate.  The number tells you where you are in the sequence.  I look forward to your comments.

Part Three
Chapter Twenty
Order From Chaos    (Continued)

Lots of famous people have already suggested this.

If our student has read Appendix B they know the answer.  If they haven’t, then I can spring the surprise conclusion from this fundamental assumption: No one on that tragic flight was harmed.

The new student will no doubt stare and think this is crazy.  At which point we begin the following explanation.

Death is not harm, it is exactly what it sounds like – death.  Death is the end of a life.  Living entails joy and suffering.  Living means experience and expectations.  Life revolves around love, and in some cases, hate.  When hate results in death, all harm is forgotten for the target.

Pain, expectations, and love are gone.  They no longer exist.  And by our definition, hate is inflicting harm.

If the Germanwings co-pilot wanted to harm himself and those on the plane, he did a poor job of it.  For a few brief moments those poor souls on that plane knew what was coming, and in those moments they probably suffered great harm in the form of mental anguish.

Yet, in the fraction of a second it took the empennage of that aircraft to smash into the cliff, everything they knew was gone.  The terror, grief and pain were erased.  And for the most “fortunate” few who knew nothing, like the infants, there was no harm done.  Their lives were simply over.

No, the co-pilot was not that stupid.  He wanted to harm someone, but it wasn’t the passengers; he didn’t even know them.  No, he possibly wanted to send a message of harm to someone he knew.  Whom did he know?

He once had a girlfriend.  Had, in the sense that she had left him some time earlier.  As a young and presumably deranged man, he must have felt harmed, abandoned, and willing to commit a senseless act to try and win her attention, if not her affection.

Affection?  Yes, affection, for it is a common human frailty to imagine others valuing us more highly “once we are gone.”

How many children have uttered the epithet, “You’ll miss me when I’m gone” as they prepare to run away?  How many of us have imagined, in secret, how others would react in our absence?

Most people, I’d wager.  So yes, unfortunately, our co-pilot’s suicide may have been a desperate response to his failure to realize love.

Is there anyone else he may have been speaking to or addressing?  Could he have been targeting his managers?  Is it possible that he attributed his frustrated love life to how he was being treated by airline management?

After all, Germanwings is a budget feeder airline for parent Lufthansa.  Like most feeder airlines, it does not pay its pilots very well.  It probably also gives them terrible schedules.  And it may not offer much in the way of career advancement.

Some of these perks may be necessary if one is going to have a serious girlfriend.  Therefore, in this poor man’s mind, he may have felt that his management must suffer for what they had done to him.  And what better way to harm them than by creating a tragedy that cost them their reputation and one of their aircraft?

To be continued …

Hate, the book: 125

Hello Curious Friend.  Welcome to my book about Hate.  The number tells you where you are in the sequence.  I look forward to your comments.

Part Three
Chapter Twenty
Order From Chaos    (Continued)

Lots of famous people have already suggested this.

Scenario Germanwings

Our second scenario appears simple at first because of the classical interpretation we have of hate.  A plane full of innocent and unsuspecting strangers falls victim to a deranged co-pilot.

Flying from Barcelona to Germany, this co-pilot decides to end his own life by flying the entire aircraft into the side of a mountain.  Our first glance, even using our new tools, would suggest that the source is our co-pilot, the target everyone else in the aircraft, and the observer a horrified world.

As with any new tool, care must be taken in its use.  Used precisely, new possibilities emerge, and it is these possibilities we are exploring now.

Whether the co-pilot’s actions are good or bad isn’t for debate, they simply happened.  What we need to focus on here is whether our new tools can enable us to see anything that the old methods of would miss.

The good news is yes, our new tools will soon reveal new insights into this event.  The bad news is that you and I must divert briefly to the relationship between death with respect to harm.

Fundamentally, in order to be hated, you must be alive.  If you are dead, you are no longer being harmed.  You have become an object, a piece of the Earth. If we define hate as the intent of source to cause harm to the target, then the last thing the source wants to do is kill the target.

Appendix B goes into this in a bit more depth.  For now, we assume that the source of hate does not want to kill his target.  The corollary to this is that if someone is killed, the target must have been someone, or something, else.

We now return to our discussion of Germanwings.  We are certain that in this scenario there is only one source of hate, and only one person who wished to do harm to others, and that is the deranged co-pilot.

Whatever role his mental state, sense of despondency, or medical history may have played in his horrific action, we can point decisively at him and say he is our hater.
His actions have harmed others.  There is no other source.

Now we must move on to those who have been harmed.  At first glance, according to our traditional interpretation, we are tempted to say those who were harmed were on that plane.

If I were to ask you if that included them all, you, as a student of hate would probably say yes.  And to show how closely you have paid attention to previous chapters, you will point out, quite rightly, that the hater and the hatee are one and the same.

Source and target in this case are also embodied in the same person.

Here is where we return to the definition of harm.  At this point, I would ask you and any other new student of hate how a target’s expectations influence harm.

To be continued …

Hate, the book: 124

Hello Curious Friend.  Welcome to my book about Hate.  The number tells you where you are in the sequence.  I look forward to your comments.

Part Three
Chapter Twenty
Order From Chaos    (Continued)

Lots of famous people have already suggested this.

Not only was there at least one police officer who had negative feelings about dark-skinned people, but subsequent investigations revealed that many other Ferguson civil servants did as well.

Therefore the problem may be embedded within the Ferguson political system.

Is this possible?  And how does this perception impact our scenario?

Before I address these questions, let’s look back on Chapter 17.  In that chapter, we discussed our actors and how they didn’t have to represent one person, but in fact could represent two, or twenty, or an entire nation.

It’s up to us to determine whether our source is an individual or a million people.  And that determination will influence the questions we’ll ask to help us understand the roots of hate in any given situation.

Make no mistake, when we go looking for hate, we’re going to be armed with a load of questions.  And those questions are going to heavily influence our approach.

This isn’t a bad thing, for it reflects the essential nature of scientific method.  The only thing that makes this a negative is if we didn’t reveal our questions to you.

Always remember that you are the judge when it comes to scientific results.

Using sports as an analogy, you have to see the entire playing field in order to determine if the play is fair, or must be recalled.

The question in hand, in the case of the reporters covering the Ferguson murder, was whether there was a pattern of hate among other Ferguson city employees.  We can infer that the Twitty scenario was used by a reporter to try and justify this position.

But does that scenario provide sufficient information?

As I’ve said before, we are not going to address underlying issues or whether any one person is good or bad.  Our task is to try and understand any scenario of hate in terms of our new tools.

In this case, the question is whether there is a pattern of hate in Ferguson.  Was the murder of a young man the result of a system of intent to harm?

Ms. Twitty and her emails are no longer to be viewed as an isolated source; she has become a single member of a group.  That group is comprised of all Ferguson city employees.

In this interpretation of our play, Ms. Twitty is going to be put in a lineup alongside the police officer who allegedly killed the young man.  Together they will be asked if Ferguson systematically intends to harm dark-skinned welfare recipients.  The source is no longer a person, but an entire city’s government.  And our play will adjust accordingly.

We now have two possible sources, one target, and three possible observers.  2 x 1 x 3, giving us six possible hate plays.  Each play can be seen as illuminating the situation differently, and what we could learn from each would vary accordingly.

Alas, such an intense analysis will have to wait for another day.  Right now it’s time to turn to our next scenario.

To be continued …