Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
More than Mere Lunacy
When James Wenneker von Brunn murdered Stephen T. Johns at the Holocaust Memorial Museum earlier this month, history was less made than revealed. Officer Johns, a 39-year-old African-American family man, was an easygoing guard, affectionately known to colleagues as "Big John.'' That his last act was to open the door for a member of the public defines his goodness. That von Brunn, an 88-year-old white supremacist and anti-Semite, simply opened fire on the man holding the door defines his malevolence. But more is at work here than an act of lunacy.
Officer Johns was not murdered by coarsened civic discourse, nor by broad currents of racial hatred, nor, for that matter, by inflammatory rhetoric of certain talk-show hosts. Johns was murdered by von Brunn, who should now be swiftly brought to justice. But it is impossible, and would be irresponsible, to ignore the implications of this event: a set of extravagant hatreds combined with a mysticism of the weapon, laying bare multiple connections. A Jew hater, von Brunn could have assaulted a synagogue. A racist, he could have targeted an African-American postal worker. A nihilist, he might have attacked another tourist site in Washington; the guard randomly confronting him might have been white - but what von Brunn in fact did defines its own meaning.
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum affirms that even the darkest human impulses must be reckoned with. The institution itself, including the gravity of architecture that evokes a death factory, epitomizes cultural criticism, imposing on everything around it - from Mall edifices that were partly built by slaves, to the Bureau of Engraving's sanctification of money, to sculpted glorifications of various wars - an unsought verdict of history. Von Brunn attacked such reckoning itself. A denier, he attacked memory.
For all of Hitler's neo-paganism, the Holocaust did not spontaneously spring up out of the Teutonic forest. The District of Columbia may have been carved out of the heart of tidewater slave-holding, but that crime had roots beyond the American South. Indeed, what von Brunn's act dramatizes is that race hatred in Western culture is elliptical, and has two foci: anti-Semitism and white supremacy. In ways that are rarely understood, the former generated the latter, which then curled back as anti-Jewish genocide. Aggression of one group toward others is built into the human condition, but we are speaking of something more deadly than that - an effervescent lethality that is peculiar to the culture that comes from Europe.
What we call "racism'' can be traced to the 15th-century Iberian idea of "blood impurity,'' a biological fault that set Jews apart from Christians. Jewish unworthiness was no longer in their religion, but in their physical makeup - an inherited inferiority. That idea combined at about the same time (1492 a marker) with assumptions of innate European superiority over the "savages'' encountered in first-wave colonialism. The new European imperialism (unlike, say, the imperialism of ancient Rome) depended on the ideology of absolute ranking by race.
The pseudo-scientific idea that "inferior races,'' like inferior species, were properly doomed by laws of nature (survival of the fittest) arrived in time to justify wanton genocide, from Congo to Colorado. Unkilled natives were enslaved. As the scholar Sven Lindquist observed, Hitler's innovation was to apply within Europe, against Jews, the method that conquistadors and colonists had long used against aboriginals on four continents. One thing alone empowered Europeans to wreak such havoc wherever they went, and that was the gun - enabling murder from afar. The gun, in all its forms, was the epochal tool of white male supremacy, which is why it continues to have irrational appeal. As much as the jack-booted hate Jews and blacks, that much they love their guns.
If we humans were condemned to such homicidal impulses by the mere fact of our human condition, then the denial of history would be tolerable, moral amnesia inevitable. But anti-Semitism and racism come from particular times and places, choices and consequences - from culture created by humans. Therefore such culture can be changed by humans - but only if we reckon with its past. It was to history, memory, and the possibility of a better future that Officer Stephen Johns opened the door. May he rest in peace.
- Posted in

9 Comments so far
Show All"But more is at work here than an act of lunacy."
Here we go again. Hitler, Stalin, David Duke, George Lincoln Rockwell, George Wanker Bush, Dick Cheney, Hideki Tojo . . . none of thse people are or were lunatics. They are not insane. Neither is Von Brunn. These are thoroughly rotten, evil human beings. Calling them lunatics lets them off the hook. They know exactly what they're doing.
That's the craziless thing I ever read in my life!
· Yr Obd't Servant
Ray Berthiaume
Obedient Servant: What "thing" are you referring to? It is not at all clear to me.
Just because someone "knows what they're doing" in no way means they ain't totally f@#king nuts.
The nuts part is this: they think what they're doing is "right" and that the rest of the world is nuts.
To label them 'evil' actually lets them off the hook, as if they had no choice in the matter - they were born that way, right? WRONG.
For whatever reasons, nature/nurture etc., there are - and will always be - those among us with crossed-wires in their brains. Most find a work-around, via drugs, therapy, etc. A very tiny few, however, finally short-circuit.
That does not mean hate is epidemic, or that the majority hasn't mentally evolved since the 15th century, as this essay more than implies...
When a dog goes mad and starts biting people it isn't evil just crazy -- and we destroy it because we have to. Let the Pup of Rome sort out the theology.
The right to bear arms does not make it right to bear arms.
Shouldn't it read:
The right to arm bears does not make armed bears right.
Or
The right to bare arms does not make bare arms right.
Or does it really matter?
shouldn't it read "in god we thrust"?
"Hitler's innovation was to apply within Europe, against Jews, the methods that the conquistadors and colonists had long used against aboriginals on four continents. One thing alone empowered Europeans to wreak such havoc wherever they went and that was the gun - enabling murder from afar. The gun, in all its forms, was the epochal tool of white male supremacy....."
Conquistadors indeed gave the aboriginals a stark choice between death or enslavement (with religious conversion thrown into the equation). While many colonists certainly shot the natives first and asked questions only later if at all, that was not really the official policy of say, the Puritans or the merchants of New Amsterdam or the Quaker settlers of Pennsylvania.
"Unkilled natives were enslaved"? Not if they moved on, kept to a safe distance, and stayed in their social place (as defined by the whites).
Still, I accept John Carroll's very broad historical linkage between "the 15th century Iberian idea of 'blood impurity'" and the creation of commercial slave trafficking based upon skin color which grew up right after the first great culture clash in the western hemisphere back in 1492. "The gun in all its forms" - cannon, transoceanic sailing ships, later on Gatling guns, and even death dispensing aeroplanes - did spread the blessings of Caucasian civilization to the less technologically advanced natives everywhere on the face of the globe by means of murder, real and threatened, from afar. The key was always to maintain a Caucasian monopoly over the guns, should the natives or slaves get restless. And don't forget, the Islamic Moors were on the receiving end of those newfangled Iberian blood impurity protocols too, right alongside the Jews.
Yet John Carroll deserves proper full quotation for full context.
"The gun, in all its forms, was the epochal tool of white male supremacy, which is why it continues to have such irrational appeal. As much as the jack booted hate Jews and blacks, that much they love their guns."
My old Army buddies, my friends and neighbors in the NRA, and many colleagues in law enforcement, must certainly now be reaching for the toilet paper. Disclosure: I am not personally a gun owner.
I really do find it a stretch to believe the allure of firearms for the gangbangers or school campus serial killers of today is some subliminal fascination with, or yearning to emulate, the colonial excesses of yesteryear. More likely, the continued "irrational appeal" of packing heat springs from the gun in all its forms being the epochal tool of military supremacy - regardless of whether the combatants are all of the same racial group, or make up a glorious rainbow coalition ethnic mix blasting away at each other while the testosterone is pumping wild.
Guns do not only enable murder from afar. They also enable self-protection up close and personal, self defense from those who might invade our private space with dangerous intent. Other than for purposes of sport, I believe gun ownership in contemporary American society - including the twisted, virtual glorification of guns as symbols of power by some - is rooted primarily in their utility as a survival tool of last resort rather than as a mechanism for aggression.
Yes, this all does harken back to frontier settler white boy mentality.
But I also know of jack booted Jews, and jack booted blacks, who love their guns the same.
Bill from Saginaw