Do Americans Have Problems With Identifying with Victims?

Originally posted by semperfortis
My question is what does one thing have to do with another?

Quite a lot when it talks about how people utilize and implement a politics of anti-vicitimization against those who suffer.

The title of the thread is...

"Do "Americans" have problems" ......

Yes, it is.

One may naturally assume the topic is about Americans, a group, a rather large group...

Why, that would mean--as some people have told me in the past--generalization, does it not?

What does identifying with one single rape victim have to do with group dynamics?

Because it distinctly shows how little empathy there is for the sufferers in America. Furthermore, it demonstrates how reviled victims actually are. If one cannot even feel pity for victims of rape, then we're totally lost.

To accurately and effectively study and/or discuss group dynamics, the individual is never relevant to the issues...

Did you not read The Vagabond's posts? He was all about individual merit . In fact, I pointed out to him that his line of thinking reflected the "myth of meritocracy".

Of course we all sympathize with every SINGLE true victim. The result of an action that caused them harm....

No we don't--especially when it has to do with people of color talking about their oppression. The fact that people show little or no pity for the experiences of people of color and equating their issues with the "victim mentality" is all that needs to convince me that there is a hierarchy of victims. Furthermore, if people want to demonize victims and silence their experiences, they must do it not only for the woman of rape as well as the person of color who speaks of racism. Racism is also a harmful act against a person. And I've read many threads that showed no conscience for people of color and little pity for them when they discussed issues of racism. In fact, in the case of Black people, they were "told to go back to Africa" not once, but many times. And no one sought to speak up to correct such horrid speech.

So, logic would dictate that if people were so against the victim mentality, they would hold the same standards for women who were raped. In fact, the lack of empathy from the anti-victimists would probably entail the raped woman to go back to Africa too.

What the topic suggests is that we are exposing and discussing a broader and more complicated issue involving the GROUP and not the IVDIVIDUAL..

Please. Take responsbility for your individuality. People throw individuality around here when it is convenient for them--especially when they want to deny collective responsibility. No one was arguing against the individual at the start of the thread.

The rather large segment of people that refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, even ridicule those that do.

Precisely. And I suppose with the "anti-victimist" rhetoric that is being thrown around the boards, they would also press the woman who was raped to take responsibility for her own actions as well. So be proud in embracing the anti-victimist stance. If you don't want people of color to have a victim mentality, a raped woman shouldn't have to have a victim mentality as well. And what you are all proposing is that for people who have experienced the brutality of the system to shut up about their experiences and move on without any sympathy. And anti-victimists don't account for the perpetrators at all. Instead, they let the perpetrators escape responsibility.

You've posted rhetoric like that all over the board. Now is the time to be proud of your efforts and take responsibility for your lack of empathy for others who suffer.




[edit on 21-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Quite a lot when it talks about how people utilize and implement a politics of anti-vicitimization against those who suffer.

WRONG...

Not possible within the boundaries of group dynamics... YOU set those boundaries when YOU titled the thread....

quote: What does identifying with one single rape victim have to do with group dynamics?


Because it distinctly shows how little empathy there is for the sufferers in America. Furthermore, it demonstrates how reviled victims actually are. If one cannot even feel pity for victims of rape, then we're totally lost.

Again, completely incorrect and misleading.....

The very definition of the study of a group, Group Dynamics, dismisses the idea that any single person , event or incident can effect the ultimate outcome of the study....

quote: To accurately and effectively study and/or discuss group dynamics, the individual is never relevant to the issues...


Did you not read The Vagabond's posts? He was all about individual merit . In fact, I pointed out to him that his line of thinking reflected the "myth of meritocracy".

Not relevant... If Albert Einstein posted a reference to an individual as to the effect on group dynamics, he would quite simply be wrong...

Also Vagabond was not discussing the group, at least that was not what I understood...

No we don't--especially when it has to do with people of color talking about their oppression.

Your opinion.... On reading the dissenting views, one that is in the minority as it were. Be that as it may, it is as simple as taking responsibilty for ones own self and refuse to enter the Victim Culture...

So, logic would dictate that if people were so against the victim mentality, they would hold the same standards for women who were raped. In fact, the lack of empathy from the anti-victimists would probably entail the raped woman to go back to Africa too.

That makes no sense what so ever....

Please. Take responsbility for your individuality. People throw individuality around here when it is convenient for them--especially when they want to deny collective responsibility. No one was arguing against the individual at the start of the thread.

YOU titled the thread....
YOU placed the discussion within the confines of GROUP Dynamics....

You've posted rhetoric like that all over the board. Now is the time to be proud of your efforts and take responsibility for your lack of empathy for others who suffe

My amount of empathy or lack of is not at issue here and frankly none of your business.

What is at issue is your misdirection in either naming the thread, or staying within the topic. Group or Individual... The Thread title relates to the GROUP. You fail at that, so you begin to lament on the individual....

And perhaps you should look up the definition of Rhetoric.... Then go read what you have posted....

Thank you

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
[

WRONG...

Not possible within the boundaries of group dynamics... YOU set those boundaries when YOU titled the thread....

Who says you're right?

Again, completely incorrect and misleading.....

No it doesn't. But, you're also misleading as well.

The very definition of the study of a group, Group Dynamics, dismisses the idea that any single person , event or incident can effect the ultimate outcome of the study...

You're correct. But that's not what others argued against me.

quote: To accurately and effectively study and/or discuss group dynamics, the individual is never relevant to the issues...

You ignored what I said. But never mind.

Not relevant... If Albert Einstein posted a reference to an individual as to the effect on group dynamics, he would quite simply be wrong...

It is relevant. After all, there was a lot of espousal about how the individual was responsible. And I argued for the sake of the group.

Also Vagabond was not discussing the group, at least that was not what I understood...

Thank you for acknowledging that. I hope we're on the same page.

Your opinion.... On reading the dissenting views, one that is in the minority as it were. Be that as it may, it is as simple as taking responsibilty for ones own self and refuse to enter the Victim Culture...

That's what I mean. All blame is placed on the victim. The perpetrators are never questioned in such a response. Blaming others on the victim mentality does not account for the act of oppression or the perpetrators of the crime. In fact, the people who espouse "anti-victimist" stances don't want to hear about it. They tell the victims to stop speaking about it and move on. Furthermore, they convey the sense that the perpetrators are blameless for their actions.

That makes no sense what so ever....

It makes quite a lot of sense to me. And there's a lot of lack of empathy in those responses to prove it.

YOU titled the thread....
YOU placed the discussion within the confines of GROUP Dynamics....

And you always accuse the oppressed of being part of a victim culture. Take responsibility for it. Also take responsibility for the lack of empathy and conscience afforded to them. After all, the individual is very important when it has to do with reviling the experiences of the sufferers.

My amount of empathy or lack of is not at issue here and frankly none of your business.

You made it the business of the thread when you posted here. But it is just best that you admit that you have none for the suffering.

What is at issue is your misdirection in either naming the thread, or staying within the topic. Group or Individual... The Thread title relates to the GROUP. You fail at that, so you begin to lament on the individual....

I didn't produce any misdirections. However, yourself.....

And perhaps you should look up the definition of Rhetoric.... Then go read what you have posted....

Why do that when I have your posts for reference?


[edit on 21-3-2007 by ceci2006]

quote: Originally posted by semperfortis

WRONG...

Not possible within the boundaries of group dynamics... YOU set those boundaries when YOU titled the thread....

Who says you're right?

Simple.

The definition of Group Dynamics

group dynamics

noun
the branch of social psychology that studies the dynamics of interaction in social groups

Dictionary

And you always accuse the oppressed of being part of a victim culture.

Are we discussing victims here or your oft lamented oppression?

It is relevant. After all, there was a lot of espousal about how the individual was responsible. And I argued for the sake of the group.

Yes you did, until others posted and it became clear you were on shaky ground. Then you referenced individuals in an obvious attempt at throwing around a guilt complex.

Furthermore, they convey the sense that the perpetrators are blameless for their actions.

Victims of natural disasters have no perps...

You made it the business of the thread when you posted here. But it is just best that you admit that you have none for the suffering.

What does that have to do with anything?
Does the amount of my "empathy" directly relate to the value of my informational posting?
If so, what does that say about your treatment of BH?

I didn't produce any misdirections. However, yourself.....

Yeah Right

Why do that when I have your posts for reference?

I am glad that we agree....

Semper

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by ceci2006
What started this attack on victims? Who is responsble for encouraging others not to feel for victims (9/11, Hurricane Katrina, etc.) and what they experienced?

I'll have some sources explaining this later, but I would like you guys to put in your two cents about this phenomenon.

I'm still waiting for the sources promised in the first post. I'm waiting to hear something to back up the accusations made there...

In addition to waiting for those sources, I'm still waiting for something to back up these daffy statements:

Originally posted by ceci2006
The problem with "blaming the victiim" is that it focuses on an ideology that supports the rhetoric of indifference popularized by the current government as well as the MSM. Because victims are being ridiculed and demonized in public policy speeches, state addresses, blogs and politically-motivated studies, indifference from the American public sets in and denial arises due to overlooking the actual issues that must be discussed.

Emphasis added.

Victims are "ridiculed and demonized"? When? Where?

Why, jsobecky, I'm surprised.

With the continued threads and posts on the "Victim Culture", "Victim Mindset" and "Victim Mentality" on the board, I'm surprised that these escaped your notice. You don't have to look to me. All you have to do is use the advanced search function.

If you want a more expedient answer, please do click on the the "Victim Mindset" link on BH's post (on this page). She took particular pains to promote it in my thread.

With that out of the way, I'm staying on topic and continuing to work with the subject matter.

I thank you and Semper for your inquiries and comments, though.


[edit on 21-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
You promoted an entire thread (twice on my thread) about the the "victim mindset" and in it (and on here) you perpetrated the same language as others who espouse blaming the victim.

I linked to the thread (which is perfectly within my rights, I believe) but I did not perpetrate language blaming the victim. I don't "blame the victim". I have compassion and empathy for victims. I've been there myself, I know how devistating it can be.

Be proud that you want people to continue to suffer without any comfort.

I don't. I don't want people to suffer. My God, you have a twisted idea of who I am... :shk:

Be proud that you made divisions between victims.

I did not make "divisions between victims" (whatever that means). Psychoanalysts and Psychologists have been studying this for many years! There are tons of sources out there on how to transform one's self from the victim mindset to one of survivor, self-empowerment, self-responsibility, and powerful accountability. There are many books on the subject.

This was taught to me, I didn't make it up!

And be proud that you don't show any desire to hear about their oppression.

That's just BS. You're the only person who has that opinion of me that I know of. I am totally open to hear about people's problems and suffering. In fact, it's very common for people to come to me with their problems. Even people on the board. People know I care.

And be proud for rightfully arguing that in the severe case of a victim who has experienced a terrible crime like rape, she should not get comfort. Instead, she should stop complaining and move on.

That's insane! I was raped. Talk about empathy! I know EXACTLY what that's like. Shame on you for saying that to me, a survivor of rape, myself. You have no idea what you're talking about.

You do want victims to stop complaining about their misfortunes and move on because of a narcissistic society's inability to care anymore, don't you?

No. You are incorrect. That is NOT what I want. Further, this is not about what I want. I'm talking about a psychological condition, not something I want. It exists, without any help or desire on my part.

Be proud of eradicating the "victim mindset" now

If I had that kind of power, I would eradicating the victim mindset and I would be proud. But that's a decision and a choice that each person has. One can only choose to do that for themselves. It cannot be done by another person.

After all, it has to do with emotional exhaustion and abuse of people's feelings--except if it happens to the people who espouse the "anti-victimist" mindset. But then, it would not surprise the anti-victimists if they receive the same lack of concern that they refuse to dole out to other sufferers. Because even they have to stoically move on and "deal with it".

Ummm... okay.

Fancy that. No one wants to be even bothered with the sad experiences of rape survivors.

You keep throwing rape in my face, don't you? You think that's hurting me? It's not. You think people reading this believe that about me? They don't. I was a victim of rape, so you might think your words can hurt me, but they don't. I am a survivor of rape. You can get as nasty as you like about rape and why don't you go for the child-molestation, while you're at it? Tell me I want sexually abused children and even cancer victims to suffer. Go for it, Ceci. You can't hurt me. Firstly, because none of it is even close to true and everyone knows that, and secondly, because I don't carry the victim mindset.

That's exactly what I'm trying to get across to people by talking about and exposing the victim mindset. Just for those who are interested in feeling more in control in their lives. For those who are tired of hurting about something.

The reason I brought it up in this thread is that I question who you're talking about when you say victims. Are you talking about rape victims? I didn't think so. I'm not sure you're talking about real victims, like 9/11 and Katrina victims, even though you mention them in your first post. I suspect you're talking about people who have a victim mindset and how America doesn't feel sorry for them.

It's not out of line for me to ask or wonder who are these victims that you think America has no empathy with...

And ever since I asked, you've been deflecting, making it all about me and what a terrible, heartless, "anti-victimist" person you think I am, instead of just answering. Why don't you just tell us who you mean by victims (in the title), and then get on with the discussion?

After this, there is no reason to address you any more.

Do what you need to do. I like discussing things with you, and I will hang in there and talk it out, but if it's not what you want, you are free to ignore me.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by ceci2006
If you don't want people of color to have a victim mentality, a raped woman shouldn't have to have a victim mentality as well.

Ahhh... This makes it more clear. You equate a "victim of color" to a victim of rape. Honestly, I suspected that's where you were going with this.

And instead of coming straight out in the first post with "Americans have a problem identifying with victims of color", you used 9/11 and Katrina victims as the hook.

Then, when that didn't get the desired result, you brought in rape victims to tug further at the heartstrings...

Ugh... :shk:

If you want to talk about the idea that people of color are inherently victims, and should have empathy from America for that reason, just do that. But it's pretty slimy, in my book, to use 9/11, Katrina and rape victims when you had no intention of talking about them. When really, your intention was to shame Americans for not feeling sorry enough for you.

Sorry if that's harsh, but I feel a little ill right now.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

I will answer your linguistic gymnastics, "one more time":

No, that was not my aim. I was trying to argue my point when dealing with the degrees of victims.

So shame on you for thinking less of the thread and the argument. :shk:

But why am I not surprised? No matter if eradicating the victim mentality was "taught" to you, it still serves the purpose of using the victim as a form of spectacle, shaming the victim into being silent about their oppression, not adequately dealing with the perpetrators of the crime and of course, allowing the perpetrators to be free of any culpability.

In all the discussions about the "victim mentality", were the perpetrators ever focused on? Not in any stretch of the imagination. It all fell on the victim and left everything in the victim's lap. It is a tough love scenario that damages the victim far more through berating their experiences so that others do not have to feel a sense of conscience. It has nothing to do with empowerment.


There is nothing wrong with discussing the oppression of people of color or women, especially if their experiences are synonymous in terms of power-relations. Racism has been likened to rape in many ways in such a manner because they are both acts of power perpetrated by an aggressor. They both humiliate the victims with the violation of their dignity and soul.

But I'm not surprised by your response. It fits the real reasons why yourself and many others perpetuate this "anti-victim" mentality especially with the continued omission of not dealing with the oppression and the perpetrator. You still don't get that the victim is the only one that is focused upon here and the repercussions of being used polemically as a symbol of scorn who doesn't deserve any empathy. :shk:

You've exploited people of color once too often in your threads and posts in order to suit your linguistic gymnastics. And you choose to write it off by implementing audacious "feel good rhetoric" in doing so. Now you choose to explain away your culpability in denying their oppression and shaming people of color to suppress their experiences. It only communcates to me that you still don't understand the problems with telling victims to "suck it up" and "move on" and why society is complicit in this. It contributes directly to the reasons why America has a problem with empathy. :shk:

And the point is, that there is no difference in persons who suffer. And they all should be treated with respect, caring and compassion no matter what the oppressive experience entails.l No one should ever demean the experiences of those who suffer oppression in society.

There is nothing more to say.



[edit on 21-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
In all the discussions about the "victim mentality", were the perpetrators ever focused on?

No. We weren't talking about the crime or wrong-doing itself. We were talking about how to stop hurting from it after the fact. We were talking about how one gets back the feeling of power over their own lives, once they have been a victim. And that has nothing to do with the perpetrator.

In my case, the perpetrators are either in prison or dead. But that doesn't mean the feelings of victim and powerlessness and helplessness just go away. In many cases, they don't. People continue to feel like victims after the situation of victim is gone. People continue to feel like an abused person, even after they get out of the abuse. They continue to feel controlled by some force external to themselves.

Recognizing and working to crawl out of the victim mindset helps people to gain control of their lives again. It empowers them. It reclaims the power that the perpetrator once had over them! It's a Good Thing! There is no shame in being a victim or being in victim mentality. We've all done it!

There is nothing wrong with discussing the oppression of people of color or women, especially if their experiences are synonymous in terms of power-relations.

No, there's not a thing wrong with that. But your first post made no mention of that. Not even close. If that's what you want to discuss, at least be honest about it.

Racism has been likened to rape in many ways in such a manner because they are both acts of power perpetrated by an aggressor. They both humiliate the victims with the violation of their dignity and soul.

I understand.

You still don't get that the victim is the only one that is focused upon here and the repercussions of being used polemically as a symbol of scorn who doesn't deserve any empathy.

Focusing on the victim doesn't have to mean the feeling is scorn or shame or blame. Far from it. The victim is focused on with compassion and empathy. And that's where it has to start. I have explained why focus on the perpetrator is irrelevant. Because he may have already been punished, he may be dead, he may be out in the world. But the victim is right here and that's who is in the focus. Not that they did something wrong. Not in a negative way. But in a helpful, compassionate way. The idea is to help them get their power back. The power that was taken from them without permission! You know this, I feel sure!

You've exploited people of color once too often in your threads and posts in order to suit your linguistic gymnastics.

What? That's ridiculous. And sad.

Now you choose to explain away your culpability in denying their oppression and shaming them to suppress their experiences.

Show me where. I have NEVER denied their oppression, Ceci. I am not culpable in this. I have nothing to explain away. I have constantly said that racism exists. I have acknowledged white privilege. I have said that it's wrong. I have experienced racism myself. I have never shamed a person of color into suppressing their experiences. I have encouraged people to talk about their personal experiences. Remember?

You are out of touch with reality with these accusations.

It only communcates to me that you still don't understand the problems with telling victims to "suck it up" and "move on" and why society is complicit in this.

Not only do I understand the problems, I have never told a victim to "suck it up". I have discussed the concept of "moving on" in the context of moving out of problem into solution. I'm not putting any blame on the victim, I'm suggesting that they have a choice to move out of the powerlessness they're feeling. And if there's a problem with that, then yeah, I don't understand it.

And the point is, that there is no difference in persons who suffer. And they all should be treated with respect, caring and compassion no matter what the oppressive experience entails.

While I agree that all people should be treated with respect, caring and compassion, at least initially, I don't agree that there is no difference in persons who suffer. I believe that some continue to suffer when it isn't necessary. I believe some people are "stuck" in victim mentality. I believe that some people suffer when they're not actually victims. This isn't a moral judgment, it's an observation based on experience and psychological research.

It's ok if we disagree on this.

No one should ever demean the experiences of those who suffer oppression in society.

I agree 100%.

There should not be any choices made in this fact.

I don't know what that means.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

In my readings the last day or so, I came up with some interesting aspects to explain why victims are derided.

Use of the Victim Mentality as Deflection, Absolution of the Issues Afforded Oppression

Kindergarten Racism

Most white Americans reportedly think that racism is a thing of the past, and that we live in a colorblind society. Any continuing disadvantages experienced by blacks must, by this logic, be their own fault. And we shouldn't even really talk about race, because, the thinking goes, that is what perpetuates racism.

Cultivating Grievances

Thus, which feelings about racism are permissible - and which reactions to oppression are "normal" - is for white folks to decide; expressing grievances has been ruled unacceptable by the very people to whom the grievances are addressed. Blacks will have a legitimate gripe only when Taranto - or some equally well qualified arbiter of racial injustice - says they do. What noble impartiality! What admirable objectivity!

Grief, of course, isn't suitable for discussion. Grief has its own pathology, but to dwell on it would be too uncomfortable and too humanizing. Instead, blacks are said to be "cultivating grievances" (presumably in some form of hothouse, since our honest American soil would never allow such unnatural weeds to thrive).

One of the worst of all injustices is the attempt to convince people - through the abuse of whatever power one happens to have - that what they see and feel and know is mere delusion. I imagine that it would be easier, in some ways, to live under a system of formal apartheid than to be subject to virulent racism while being told that it's all in one's head...or worse, that it's simply a manipulative, made-up excuse for one's own laziness or ineptitude.

Criticism of an Institution, Group of People, or Nation Is Not Espousing the Victim Mentality

Telling it like it is
But in the world of politics, nothing, no one, no group and no state is above criticism or condemnation. No one is above the law. If I criticise Saudi Arabia or Iran I am not an Islamophobe. If I denounce China's actions I am not an enemy of communism or Confucianism. If I condemn India's policies I am not a Hindu hater. By the same token, criticising Israel does not make the critic an anti-semite. Criticism has nothing to do with love or hatred for your subject, and every thing with calling what you see before you by its name whatever the risks may be. This means telling the truth as it is. The opposite is complicity with the aggressor and betrayal of the victim.

The Victim as the "Accuser"

The Macho Paradox

Borrowing a phrase, I would call that a double Orwellian Whammy.It's similar to another really disturbing linguistic development over the past couple of years that is directly related to this phenomenon. It is the term "the accuser," when headline writers and news anchors call alleged victims of rape or another form of violence "the accuser," rather than "the alleged victim." This problematic usage accelerated in the Kobe Bryant rape trial. By calling a woman who comes forth with a rape allegation "the accuser," it has the effect of making them into the ones doing something to the alleged perpetrator. In other words, it reverses reality. Instead of the alleged victim alleging that she was assaulted by the perpetrator, now the perpetrator is in a sense being assaulted by her accusation. So she is the one doing something to him. He is now the victim of her accusation. This helps to shift people's sympathy away from the alleged victim and towards the alleged perpetrator, which is a very powerful way of flip-flopping these issues and overturning decades of feminist consciousness-raising around the gender and power dynamics at the heart of these crimes.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Here are some more excerpts that discuss why anti-victimisation stances are popular as a form of deflection and manipulation.

White America and Reparations
Lulled by comforting racial stereotypes, fearful that blacks will unfairly get ahead of them, all too many whites respond to even the most dire reports of race-based disadvantage with either a sympathetic headshake or victim- blaming rationalizations. Both responses lead easily to the conclusion that contemporary complaints of racial discrimination are simply excuses put forward by people who are unable or unwilling to compete on an equal basis in a competitive society. . . .

Demonization of the victim is simply a factor of power-relations, especially when measuring between the 'group' and the 'individual':

*133 RACISM, GENOCIDE, AND MASS MURDER: TOWARD A LEGAL THEORY ABOUT GROUP DEPRIVATIONS

The most conspicuous fact of social organization is that human beings identify with and
are invariably affiliated with groups of some sort. If we describe social processes as
involving human beings (participants) pursuing values (desired goods, services, honors)
through institutions (political parties, corporations, labour unions, colleges, hospitals,
churches, etc.), based on resources (bases of power, base values), it will be apparent
that institutions are often group-based and specialized to the vindication of basic
values. For example, power and ideology find expression in political parties, the wealth
interests in commercial actors, the professional concern for health and well-being in the
institutions of health care, education in schools and universities, the skill interest in
organized labour and professional groups, and the moral concern in religious or faith-
based groups. [FN11] The universal nature of groups in social order is as ubiquitous as
the 'individual,' who is invariably a part of an aggregate or group. [FN12] Sometimes
groups are *140 easy to identify, for example, some people are 'black' and are thought
to belong to the black group. Others are 'white' and thought to belong to the white
group; others may be 'brown' and thought to belong to the Hispanic group, and so on.
Sometimes the same person may have an ascribed 'ethnic identity' based on physical
characteristics, but will have voluntarily affiliated with a political party and acquire a
political identity as, for example, a Republican or a Democrat. A person's income may
weaken or strengthen the links of 'ethnic' identity if that person's primary neighborhood
and professional associations are in striking correspondence with economic and/or skill-
related patterns of stratification. [FN13] Social organization, thus, witnesses a rich
plurality of 'groups' as outcomes of social process, and depending on context, a wide
proliferation of individual identifications with multiple group-based processes. These
processes of individual-group relationships constitute the foundations of social
interaction. [FN14] Moreover, the outcomes of some group processes have important
consequences for the system of power relations, both within States and across State
lines. [FN15]

The Blame of Victims as an evasion of collective responsibility:

The Global Privileges of Whiteness
Whether or not it was principled -- and what principle it reflected -- is a separate question from whether or not the US and UK, as colonial powers, bear responsibility to African nations and diasporic African peoples.

This evasion of responsibility is subversive of the very coherence of public moral language, as it wraps naked self-interest in superficial talk of combating social injustice. It should have surprised no one that, months after giving every signal that it wanted WCAR to fail, the US boycotted WCAR because the agenda could not be made to suit Washington. This evasion of responsibility, which is subversive of the common moral vocabulary of rights and responsibilities, is at the same time a defense and expression of the structures of White privilege. The Bush administration making a pretense of being antiracist in order to impede antiracism is ruinous. Bush and Blair, and the domestic interests they each represent, mocked and deceived those whom they hurt, those whom they continue to hurt, all while claiming the moral high ground.

[...]when women and people of color press their legitimate claims for justice, White America is under siege from a "culture of victims".

The MSM develops a lexicon against victims by creating easy and palatable phrases that silences any discussions about social disparity.

Bruce's Beat

Growing corporate media consolidation, the disappearance of most local news coverage and the consequent shrinkage of the ranks of full-time professional journalists has reduced political discussion in the mainstream media to battles of sound bytes, a terrain inherently more friendly to rightist political messaging, which like its commercial cousins, endeavors to reach audiences not through their reasoning and critical faculties, but tries to grab them by their subconscious fears, their unfulfilled desires for status and belonging, their prejudices and loathings. Political messaging in this era is all about crafting potent propaganda, phrases and slogans completely independent of any facts, but calculated to appeal to things many people know deep down inside, but which are simply not true at all. Think “support the troops.” Think the “war on terror.” Think the “culture of victimhood.”

[...]
A long cherished project of the right in America is to impose and popularize the blanket invalidation of any and all claims of racism, racial profiling, white skin privilege and institutional white supremacy made by people on the receiving end of those practices. That's what the previous decade's phrase “playing the race card” was about. It's what today's charges of victimhood, victimology and the alleged “culture of victimhood” are about. Both are cases of marketing-message-style terminology designed to facilitate a disregard of the facts of life as it is lived, and which appeal to beliefs many white Americans hold but would rather not admit to. Both de-legitimize and pathologize anybody who would dare call attention to their own mistreatment or the mistreatment of others.

[...]

There is no shortage of problems in black America, problems that we alone can address by directing our own energies to projects of self-help and uplift. But a vision that calls those who point to the existence of active white privilege and white supremacy as continuing and often dominating factors in a supposedly color-blind America merely apostles of victimhood, is not visionary at all. It's not factual at all. It's enemy propaganda.

More food for thought.


[edit on 22-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Just so you guys know, i haven't forgotten about the thread. I had some midterms to take care of and i've gotten myself sick while I was at it, but I'll have time to digest the new replies and give my take pretty soon, probably tomorrow afternoon.

I'm a victim! Pity me! Pity me!

Originally posted by jsobecky
I'm a victim! Pity me! Pity me!

Thank you for displaying some "anti-victimist" language for others to see so we can dissect it and analyze it. I will repost several key excerpts that help analyze the statement above.

Ridicule and intimidation is used by the speaker to deride the victim in order to reinforce feelings of superiority:

Whenever anti-victimist language is used, it is implemented to manipulate the oppressed into feeling shame for their experiences through berating them. Therefore, the oppressed is "silenced". Out of the gate, the oppressed is manipulated by the oppressor not to truly speak of his/her oppression. Instead, the oppressed is made into the subject of blame by the oppressor by ridicule, denial, and omission.

The speaker of anti-victimist language, keeping the system in tact, uses humiliation as a form of belittling the experiences of true grief, especially when it tied to those who are oppressed. Grief is being pariodied because in its real stance, it is too hard to identify with or discuss these matters on its face. Therefore deflection is used in the form of ridicule:

Thus, which feelings about racism are permissible - and which reactions to oppression are "normal" - is for white folks to decide; expressing grievances has been ruled unacceptable by the very people to whom the grievances are addressed.

Ridicule is being used as an evasion of collective responsibility:

This evasion of responsibility is subversive of the very coherence of public moral language, as it wraps naked self-interest in superficial talk of combating social injustice.

Anti-victimist taunts (supplicated repeatedly by the MSM) are often repeated as a way to avoid identifying with those who suffer:

A long cherished project of the right in America is to impose and popularize the blanket invalidation of any and all claims of racism, racial profiling, white skin privilege and institutional white supremacy made by people on the receiving end of those practices.

Because with the types of anti-victimist language that is being demonstrated by the speaker, we have a good example in which we can critically analyze and dissect to get a better meaning for why these phrases attacking and blaming the victim are being implemented within current American speech. Not only that, we can also pick apart the statements to uncover the psychopathy underneath as well.




[edit on 23-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
I will repost several key excerpts that help analyze the statement above.

Ridicule and intimidation is used by the speaker to deride the victim in order to reinforce feelings of superiority:

Are you a victim? Of what? If you were a victim, then yes, that would be an "anti-victim" language. If he had said that to a real victim, in other words, I'd be all over him, too. But you have never indicated that you're a victim of anything.

Yes, you're black, but that's your race. If you're saying that you're a victim of race, then that's a perfect example of adopting and embracing a victim mindset.

If you're a victim of rape, poverty, illness, violence, robbery or other act of aggression or oppression, then you might have a case, but being black in itself doesn't make you any more oppressed or discriminated against than being a woman does. Or being gay. Or being a fat person or an old person. Or anyone!

Anyone CAN be victimized by oppression and some ARE. Everyone, at one time or another in their lives, is a victim of something. Nobody is always a victim, unless they choose to be.

Not only that, we can also pick apart the statements to uncover the psychopathy underneath as well.

And what kind of language is this? "Anti-sane" language? "Anti-coherent" language? You seem to be accusing people who don't agree with you that blacks are automatically victims -- of having a serious mental illness?? Just because someone doesn't feel guilt or remorse about something doesn't mean they're a psychopath. There's much more to it than that.

Definition of Psychopath

A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
...
A person with an antisocial personality disorder, especially one manifested in perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior.

Psychopathy Checklist

Psychopathy is not a clinical term in either the DSM-IV or the ICD-10. The nearest equivalent to it is, in the DSM-IV is Antisocial Personality Disorder, while the ICD-10 uses the term "sociopathy" or "Dissocial Personality Disorder".

* Glibness/superficial charm
* Grandiose sense of self-worth
* Need for stimulation, with a proneness to boredom
* Pathological lying
* Conning and manipulating behaviors
* No sense of remorse or guilt
* A very shallow emotional affect - they display emotions they don't really feel
* A lack of empathy for others
* They are parasitic - they live off of others
* They are impulsive, and show poor control over their behaviors
* They tend to be promiscuous
* Their behavior problems start early in life
* They cannot form long-term plans that are realistic
* They are impulsive, and irresponsible
* They do not accept responsibility for their actions - another caused it
* Marital relationships are short, and many
* They display juvenile delinquency
* They violate probation often
* Their criminality is diverse

Essentially, they violate social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret in order to take what they want and do as they please.

It is estimated that 1-4% of the population is sociopathic, but most are able to control it within the limits of social tolerability, only being termed "socially obnoxious".

Instead of hurling these insults at people you don't like for whatever reason, you should find out what they really mean. 1-4% of the population (not the majority of Americans) is psychopathic, and most of them control it pretty well. And I would venture to guess that you certainly don’t know any of us on this board well enough to diagnose us as psychopaths or narcissists, but that doesn't stop you lashing out at the world in nearly every post.

You can throw the words around, but it only makes you look desperate.

You are already desperate because you still have to attack the messenger, without dealing with the concepts as they are. However, it only shows that I don't have to lift a finger in order for you to reply.

After all, this thread as nothing to do with myself being a victim. It discusses victims in general. However, this has nothing to do with my feelings concerning other members. If you can't understand that, I cannot help you.

As for psychopathy, thank you for doing the work in outlining what it is. I was going to do it, but you beat me there. And I have already examined what they mean and have applied some of the concepts in another post. Did you miss it?

Besides, I think you missed another post of mine on this topic of psychopathy. I wrote that just because there might be some aspects of it in the description does not mean that the entire "cluster" of symptoms are there. There are studies which discuss that some persons in society display some of the traits, but not enough to make them a psychopath. However, even this does not preclude the statistics that there are a great number of psychopaths in society. And think about it this way: they are only measuring those that have been caught. Unfortunately, there are plenty of others who are so successful that they haven't been uncovered. Now that is truly disturbing.

This analysis in the thread has nothing to do whether anyone has a "mental illness" or not. If you are concerned about that, this is not the thread you should be on. You should start your own thread if you feel adversely about "mental illnesses".

My interest here is to find reasons why "anti-victimist" language is used in an analytical fashion using socio-political psychological aspects as a basis. Furthermore, the aspects of sociology are used to typify the larger construct of how the national character might display these traits, in part.

Another caveat: there is a difference between those who can critically analyze a subject without making it personal and those who simply make it personal without any critical thinking. And that, my dear, has to do with a difference in education. And as another member told you before, let's not compare educations. Please.

And the analysis of "anti-victimist" language has nothing to do with hurling insults. Luckily, there was a "live specimen" in order to analyze and dissect the language as it is. Or else, this thread would be useless if it didn't apply what has been expressed in the sources to break it down. If you can't understand that as well, this is something that I can't help you with.

Personalize if you must, but I am staying on topic. And I am refusing to go down the low road with you.





[edit on 23-3-2007 by ceci2006]

I would like to address other members, who might be reading this, with a small note and disclaimer:

For fear of being misconstrued, I must say that discussing this topic does not mean: 1) that I am a victim; 2)that any other members are victims; 3) that any member has a mental illness; 4)that I am lashing out at the world at every post; or 5)people must agree with me.

What I do believe is that a social pathology exists in American society. This social pathology is one of the causes of the "anti-victimist" (not my terminology, but Dr. Alyson Cole's words) stance. If this wasn't the case, Dr. Robert Hare, Dr. Cole, Elie Wiesel, Dr. Cornel West, Dr. Anatol Lieven, Phillip Rieff, Thomas Frank and other theorists and practioners in society would not write about this phenomenon. We can even reach back into the works of Gramsci, Freud, Ellul, Russell, Goffman, Durkheim and other theorists who have worked on this problem and eloquently stated their ideas in their texts.

Their work, along with others, has discussed different aspects of the social condition in political, psychological and sociological means which deals with individuals and groups especially when dealing with the larger forces of history and social norms in society. And it is fair to note that they address these issues to outline certain aspects of why some groups display adverse feelings and actions toward other groups in society. In this case, the group in question has to do with victims.

Disclaimer: Even this statement will not prevent the linguistic gymnastics that will occur in the future. But, I will try and hope to do my best to stay on topic. And if any attempt at linguistic gymnastics happens, I apologize in advance. I will make an effort to not go down the low road.

Now, with that out of the way, we can go on.





[edit on 24-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Race does cover the aspects of oppression because it affects not only individuals, but entire groups. Oppression also corresponds with how institutions treat people of color as a result of skin color.

This is from the NASW (National Association of Social Workers) site:

The Issue Statement
Racism is the ideology or practice through demonstrated power of perceiving the superiority of one group over others by reason of race, color, ethnicity, or cultural heritage. In the United States and elsewhere, racism is manifested at the individual, group, and institutional levels. It has been institutionalized and maintained through educational, economic, political, religious, social, and cultural policies and activities. It is observable in the prejudiced attitudes, values, myths, beliefs, and practices expressed by many people, including those in positions of power. Racism is functional—that is, it serves a purpose. In U.S. society, racism functions to maintain structural inequities that are to the disadvantage of people of color.

Organized discrimination against members of visibly identifiable racial and ethnic groups has permeated every aspect of their lives, including education, employment, contacts with the legal system, economics, housing, politics, religion, and social relationships. It has become institutionalized through folklore, legal restrictions, values, myths, and social mores that are openly supported by a substantial number of people, including those who maintain control of the major institutions of American society.

The history of racism in this country began with the genocide of American Indians and includes the atrocities of slavery, colonialism, and the internment of Japanese Americans. Historically, racism has been used to justify the conquering of people of color—American Indians, African Americans, Native Alaskans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and Native Hawaiians—to obtain land, forced or cheap labor, and strategic military outposts. These conquered population groups became involuntary U.S. citizens. As other people of color immigrated to the United States as legal or undocumented immigrants, especially those entering the United States after the immigration laws of the mid-1960s, they too often faced many of the same stereotypes, myths, and prejudices that the conquered populations had faced. Among the other immigrants encountering racism are Pacific Islanders and other Asians, Dominicans, Cubans and other Latinos, and West Indians and other people of African heritage. The effects of racism are seen in poor health and health services, inadequate mental health services, low wages, high unemployment and underemployment, overrepresentation in prior populations, substandard housing, high school dropout rates, decreased access to higher education opportunities, and other institutional maladies.

Henry Giroux discusses the issue of pathology that is laid bare as a result of Hurricane Katrina:

Katrina and the Politics of Disposability

News reporting on the aftermath of Katrina blames the victims rather than helps them.

[...]

In the current blitz of media remembrance, memories of the 9/11 victims legitimate the discourses of militarism, national honor and patriotism, while Katrina invokes memories of pathology.

A year later, and the victims of Katrina are not only deemed unworthy of state protections, but dangerous and disposable. What does it mean, for example, when CNN’s Anderson Cooper returns to the scene of the crime named Katrina and, rather than connecting the Bush’s administration contempt for social programs to the subsequent catastrophe, focuses instead on the rumors of crime and lawlessness that allegedly spread over New Orleans after the hurricane hit?

It is hard to argue that race is not a construct when dealing with the aspects of oppression. Unfortunately, events like Hurricane Katrina cannot uncover what America has tried obsessively to hide through its language, actions and attitudes. With the actualities that are presented, it is much harder to proclaim from certain circles who has the "victim mentality" or not. Instead, with the stark demonstrations of persons suffering, having the audacity to name others as having the "victim mentality" only seems to allude to a politics of not only "lack" (Giroux's term) but of "denial" in which people willingly convince themselves not to "see" or "acknowledge" certain disparities in society.

Mod Edit: Reduced External Quotes.

[edit on 24/3/2007 by Mirthful Me]





[edit on 24-3-2007 by ceci2006]

In order to discuss how this might affect "anti-victimist" language, the psychopathology of American society must be undercovered. These are starting texts that will help outline some reasons why victims are derided.

Sociologist and theoretician Christopher Lasch first wrote about narcissism in American culture in 1979. Even in its conservative stance, it still helps to lay bare the aspects that there is a social pathology at work in American culture. He deals with this as a social problem.

The Culture of Narcissism

The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations, a book by the cultural historian Christopher Lasch (1932 - 1994), first appeared in 1979.

[...]
The book offers as its central thesis the proposition that post-war, late-capitalist America has, through modifications placed on the traditional family structure, given rise to a personality-type consistent with clinical definitions of "pathological narcissism". Lasch locates symptoms of this personality-disorder in the radical political movements of the 1960s (such as the Weather Underground), as well as in the spiritual cults and movements (everything from est to Rolfing in his view) of the 1970s.

Silja J.A. Talvi writes of the impact of Lasch's idea and applies it to current events:

Narcissists Rђ Us?

Sociologist Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in An Age of Diminishing Expectations, first published in 1979, was the furthest thing from a self-help book. Written in a dense, unemotional style more suited to the classroom than to armchair psychology, the work was nonetheless groundbreaking. Lasch grasped an emergent sociopolitical trend: a societal push toward self-satisfaction and self-aggrandizement, to the near exclusion of a sense of collective responsibility and accountability.

One of Lasch’s greatest feats was to pinpoint the narcissistic by-products of our American culture of “competitive individualism.” Our society, he argued, had carried the “logic of individualism to the extreme of war of all against all, the pursuit of happiness to the dead end of narcissistic preoccupation with the self.”

[...]

The path toward a more meaningful, collective-oriented future—has to begin with an introspective re-evaluation of how narcissism has skewed our personal, social and political lives. Many of us have, consciously or subconsciously, rejected a society that requires incessant self-promotion for economic survival by refusing to center our existences around publicity-seeking approaches to our life and work. In that act of rejection we can find a bit of shelter from the dangers of a hyperinflated ego.

Even before the Iraq war began in 2003, attributions to narcissism in American culture and this conflict were being examined:

Iraq Is Not a Quagmire

The extreme American self-absorption of the "quagmire" debate lends itself to ostensible solutions that shift -- but perpetuate -- the U.S. government's central role in the carnage. Reigning political manipulator Karl Rove, whose Machiavellian electoral calculations have had extraordinary leverage over the current administration's foreign policy, is very likely to seek further U.S. reliance on air power that uses the latest Pentagon technologies as blunt and lethal instruments in Iraq.

A key goal will be to bring down U.S. casualty rates and reduce American troop levels in Iraq while the people of that country suffer further deaths and destruction.

If the Iraq war is primarily framed as a problem because of what it's doing to Americans, the "solutions" could make the war seem like less of a quagmire even while more Iraqi people pay with their lives. Media arguments over whether Iraq is a quagmire turn the spotlight away from the human calamities that Iraqis are experiencing on a daily basis, while American taxpayers continue to subsidize Uncle Sam's deadly machinations.

Narcissism is more than an "individual" trait, in this context. What has been outlined (and will be continued to be examined) is that there is a problem that exists in American culture in which victims are either deemed "disposable" or "collateral damage". Whether it is the survivors of Katrina and Rita or Iraqi civilians in the conflict of the Middle East, the facts convey the case that the narcissism in American culture has a depth that is disturbing. It is even more troubling that the MSM, our national leaders, and some of America's citizens cannot pick up on this. It is easier to subscribe to "blaming the victim" and denying the aspects of oppression to socialized "out-groups" to the point of dismissal. It reveals that there is a lack of conscience when it has to do with certain members of humanity. And the disparities show when the emphasis is being placed on who is deemed "valuable" in society.

It is also appalling that some Americans are so self-absorbed in their attempts to define "who are victims and who are not" that they cannot even analyze the lexicon that makes up the structure of "anti-victimist" language. It conveys solely that there is a price that is paid to human life in American society--in colonialist thought as well as a lack of empathy.

More on the aspect of psychopathology later.


[edit on 24-3-2007 by ceci2006]