Some thoughts on why one shouldn’t debate Nazis
I have great respect for Gary Younge and his work. I even have some appreciation for his attempt to interview Richard Spencer, one of the leading figures in the so-called “Alt-Right” (which, it needs to be stressed again, is basically newspeak for “neo-nazi”) movement. Younge expresses his reluctance to engage in a conversation with this person: “ordinarily giving someone like that oxygen is something I think journalists shouldn’t do”. He nevertheless decides to do precisely this – thus proving why his first intuition was right after all.
|Deze tekst in het Nederlands
Traduction en français
Let’s be clear about this: one shouldn’t debate Nazis. Not as a journalist, not as a politician or policy maker, not as an activist, teacher, neighbour or fellow citizen. One shouldn’t engage in a political discussion with them, period. What’s so great about Younge’s attempted interview with Spencer, however, is that it astutely illustrates why not.
Here’s a few things that we can learn from it:
1) Some people feel that we should be prepared to listen to Nazis as long as they are not inciting violence. The thing is: they always are, by definition. Their message simply IS violent. For example, take the moment when Spencer suggests that – by virtue of his British name and heritage – he is entitled to tell Younge that he “will never be an Englishman”, and effectively to claim superiority over him. Spencer is literally trying to subordinate Younge in front of his own camera. Younge’s response is the only right one, I think. You can’t have a proper conversation on that basis. But it also shows why it’s better not to give Nazis the space to say these kinds of things at all: whenever they open their mouths, someone’s basic rights and dignity are immediately being violated.
2) Spencer’s perspective has no additional value to the public debate. His ‘opinions’ are not merely outrageous – they are absurd. So absurd, in fact, that literally anything he says becomes questionable. Someone who claims that “slaves benefitted from slavery” should categorically not be trusted. When he says that it’s sunny outside, then better take your umbrella. If he claims that 2+2=4, it’s time to get out your calculator. There’s absolutely no value to his ‘opinions’ – so why take them seriously?
3) In fact, racism is not simply someone’s ‘opinion’. It’s a means of subordination and exploitation. It’s a power mechanism. Racism is a form of violence that is deeply sedimented in our public institutions, the Western culture, and in our political discourse. Ultimately, anti-racism and anti-fascism have very little to do with challenging Spencer’s personal ideas or motivations. It’s about questioning something that is way more structural and that exists literally everywhere (and arguably, Spencer is only one of its most extreme exponents). For non-white people in particular, anti-racism is a means of self-defence. Not just another topic for a nice debate.
4) It is often argued that Nazis and their so-called ‘opinions’ should be taken seriously, as they give expression to a widely shared resentment or frustration. The last thing we should do, according to this logic, is to dismiss people’s genuine feelings as illegitimate or insignificant. Some add to this that only by engaging in a serious political debate with Nazis, the superficiality and stupidity of their ideas can be revealed. The problem is: there is no proof that this strategy actually works. This is so, first, because some extreme right leaders (like Spencer) actually DO have the rhetorical and strategic skills to use such opportunities for mobilising their own support base. And second, this support base has entirely different perceptions of what renders an argument valid or convincing. Spencer’s own fanboys will probably think that he actually won this ‘discussion’ with Younge (if that’s what you want to call it). This interview does not lead to a better understanding of Spencer’s ideas or politics. It does not give his supporters the feeling that they are “being heard” (and they probably wouldn’t care anyway). But it does give him further media exposure on a major outlet. He really is the only one who gains from this.
5) One may of course object that Nazis as well have a “right to freedom of speech”, just like everyone else. Sure, legally that may be the case. But this is often misinterpreted as a moral obligation to hear them out – no matter how ridiculous, insulting, or outright dangerous their so-called ‘opinion’ is. The “right to freedom of speech” only pertains to the relation between citizens and their government. It basically means that you cannot readily be censored or prosecuted on the basis of what you say in public (although there obviously are limits). But it sure as hell doesn’t mean that anyone (including journalists or politicians) has any moral or political obligation to listen to you – let alone to offer you a stage. We don’t have to give a fuck about what Nazis think or feel, and we don’t owe them shit.
6) We’ve got our hands full with the ‘radical centre’: those who claim that all radical (or “extreme”) positions are equally bad and that we should all “keep talking to each other”. Which implies that racism and egalitarianism, fascism and anti-fascism are basically on the same footing. In this case, it also implies that Spencer’s statements on slavery or his attempts to humiliate and subordinate Younge are politically legitimate. The ‘radical centre’ is one of the reasons why we have to put up with people like Spencer in the first place. It’s an incredibly harmful – yet increasingly popular – position. If we are to engage in a rational, public debate on racism and the rise of the extreme-Right, it is this ‘radical centre’ that we should seek to address. It is their opinion that we should try to change.
In short, one shouldn’t debate Nazis. We don’t gain anything from it – they do. So let’s not give them the oxygen. We need it more than ever for our own survival.
Mathijs van de Sande
5 reacties op “Some thoughts on why one shouldn’t debate Nazis”
Prachtig, direct op de thema, zeer helder artikel.
Nu de vraag: Waarom durft het auteur niet om dit stuk in het Nederlands te publiceren, thans waar het erg broodnodig is op dit moment van ontwikkeling van ons land of is de reden en verklaring de gebruikelijke strenge censuur in onze media?
Voor de duidelijkheid ben ik regelmatig in mijn collegiale vergaderingen benaderd door mensen met fascistische tot neo-nazi geadachtengoed waarbij ik regelmatig heb geweigerd op hun thema-suggesties in te gaan.
Deel ik volledig het mening van Mathijs dat dialoog met neo-nazi’s bewezen overbodig en contraproductief is omdat ze enkel hun gedachtengoed blijven herhalen als een versleten liedje, zonder inhoudelijk op de discussie in te gaan. Kijk eens voor het voorbeeld naar de PVV de afgelopen jaren.
Erg vreemd dat je aanneemt dat Mathijs het in Engels heeft geschreven omdat hij het niet in het Nederlands “durft”. Je projecteert daar nogal wat op zeg!
Mathijs schrijft wel vaker in het Engels. In dit geval, vermoed ik, omdat hij reageert op een Engelstalige video en omdat hij op deze manier potentieel meer mensen bereikt, simpelweg omdat het Engelse taalgebied veel groter is.
Overigens verschijnt er vandaag of morgen een vertaling.
Mogelijk projecteer ik het harde feit erop dat er thans harde bewijzen zijn voor staatscensuur en in het navolg ervan zelfcensuur die bekend is altijd vanuit de strenge regimes die volledig willen controleren wat er in de mediaruimte losgelaten wordt.
In het nasleep hiervan vond ik het werkelijk bizar dat er belangrijk voor onze maatschappij artikel op een Nederlandstalig website in het Engels verschijnt. Het is en was gewoon iets wat mij opviel. Daar heb ik meteen melding ervan gemaakt.
Uiteindelijk verschijnt het artikel ook in het Nederlands en daar is alles op zijn plekje gekomen.
Ik begrijp het. We hebben overigens best regelmatig Engelstalige stukjes op onze verder Nederlandstalige site daar aan de rechterkant, misschien dat niet iedereen die altijd ziet.