Monday letters: Atrocities begin with language

My wife and I recently watched “Woman in Gold,” in which Helen Mirren gives a bravura performance as a Jewish refugee who fled Austria-Hungary while it was in the clutches of the Nazis. She seeks the return of a Gustav Klimt portrait of her aunt Adele that was stolen; the painting became a national treasure of Austria in spite of its origins, and the Austrians of the late 20th century were still not inclined to give it up.

A stolen masterpiece was the least of crimes perpetrated. Inflamed rhetoric conditioned many Germans to accept Hitler’s vilification of Jews. Laws were passed to strip Jews of the rights of citizenship, and then concentration camps were opened. Once people are dehumanized, the steps to annihilation become easier to undertake.

The race-based murder of nine souls in a church in Charleston is a vivid reminder that some people are still viewed as subhuman. Even after this jarring massacre of prayerful people, some lawmakers remained committed to old thinking during a debate over removing the Confederate flag from the state capitol grounds. Under that flag, South Carolina and 10 other states actually took up arms against the United States of America. Some say the Civil War was about “states’ rights.” One of those rights concerned the ownership other human beings.

Let’s rethink how we think. When someone sends a racist joke via email or uses language that diminishes or marginalizes other races, ethnicities or religions, we need to object strenuously and explain why it is unacceptable. We have seen all too vividly and all too recently how far this kind of demonization can go.