Do Americans Have Problems With Identifying with Victims?

Great post, Ceci.

But, seriously, are you surprised? Hell, many Americans can't even identify Iraq on a map , or can't even identify the vice president . Why would you expect a bunch of morons to identify with victims?

Besides that aspect, most Americans are selfish materialists. They could give a what less if their next door neighbor was a victim of something, as long as it isn't them. As long as they can have their fancy cars, or big house, or their social status, or their J's, they could care less about victims.

Hell, if these people don't care about victims of the US war machine (US/Israeli imperialism to some), or broke ass victims of capitalism, or they THEMSELVES becoming future victims of the Orwellian US police state, what do you expect?

Thank you, Truthseeka for the compliments. To be frank, narcissism is one of the worst aspects of American society because there is so many signs of it in the MSM as well as in the White House.

For example, whenever something drastic would happen to the country (such as Hurricane Katrina), Mr. Bush would be on vacation. And no matter that people (of color, especially) were suffering and dying in the streets of NO, the President still had to be on vacation. One of the most disgusting things that the President had uttered during the entire Katrina episode was, "You did a hell of a job, Brownie". He said this knowing full well that the past FEMA director was lax on his job and let people suffer on his watch. This statement alone demonstrates a lack of empathy and connection with the victims. Not only that, it is plain as day to see that no discernable conscience or feeling is put forth about how people suffered in the conflict. Mr. Bush was able to muster more emotion for his former cabinet member than for the true victims of the disaster.

And what is worse, is that his "manufactured" emotion for the suffering was especially part and parcel of the MSM. Without any sense of shame or conscience, Mr. Bush (and other officials) tried to act with "pathos" with each of his visits, but the pictures snapped alone of his stature when dealing with others (not to mention Hayley Barbour's look of indignance) tells the tale. He hated being there. And, he had nothing but disdain for the abrupt stoppage of his vacation in order to give "comfort" to the country. The sad thing is that his emotions are so transparent that people can see through them. Some could even tell that despite his speeches and his gestures to "show" that he cared, one could describe his attitude as being one of indifference and uncaring. He didn't give a damn.

There are many good examples of the psychopathology in America during the Hurricane Katrina episode: lack of identification with the victim (in this case those of brown skin, because Trent Lott was readily identified with and white survivors "found" instead of "looted"), no conscience about what happened (smirks and joking during press conferences, rolling up of the sleeves to "look like he's working", playing guitar while people are screaming for help on television), manipulating of the facts in order to make it "seem less than it already is"(Waiting for Trent Lott's house to be rebuilt in order to "sit on that porch", his answers in the wake of Kanye West's pronouncement on television. In fact, he didn't say much about it, his parents mostly spoke for him. Barbara Bush didn't even try to account for her comments about the survivors in the Astrodome. ) and the lack of funding or help in rebuilding 9th ward while the richer sections are being worked upon.

There is plenty more that points to the self-absorption from our leaders. But, this is a small example which sadly complements Mr. Giroux's idea of "disposabiity". It is a pity that even those at the top of the food chain in America see themselves as more important than others in society. And to show their contempt, they join in the blame of the victims in order to reinforce themselves above anyone else. What is appalling is that some citizens of America cannot "see" what is wrong with this and even emulate the national leaders down to their responses (the rhetoric surrounding "anti-victimist" language.).

What was astonishing about the Hurricane Katrina situation is reading the comments said about the survivors as they suffered. The "blame the victim" rhetoric only seems to reinforce that despite the obvious being shown in society, that some couldn't "see" the disparities in society even in the wake of disaster. And to see our national leaders practice "not seeing" the obvious and trying to "deflect" it with their own "linguistic gymnastics" is shameful.

You see, you can find any explaination in the world to deflect away from actually confronting what is there in front of your own eyes. But in the case of Katrina, the disparities were so blatant that it took a lot of fancy trickery from the dominant culture (from the leaders on down) to "miss" and "not connect" with what they were "seeing" on their television screens. You'd liken the event to what theorists in the media speak about when such shows like "American Bandstand" was on the television while images of the Civil Rights movement flashed on the news (people getting hosed down and bitten by dogs; arrested by cops) prior to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

However, the latest trend is to turn that anger of witnessing the disparities in society against the victims. And judging from the rhetoric, the anger is rather heated because members of the dominant culture are forced to care instead of turning off their feelings against people who are different from them. That is what it is all about. Being self-absorbed enough to get indignant about caring to the point of being "self-righteously" angry about it. Every excuse is used in the book to get out of caring--right down to theorizations corresponding to "not seeing a thing" and that "it didn't happen". The only way that this resentment is vented is via the victims, one of the vunerable poplations in society.

And that is a shame.

Just my .02. More on the psychopathology in American society against victims later.


[edit on 27-3-2007 by ceci2006]

I just wanted to post a few excerpts for everyone to think about in order to continue the discussion on the treatment of victims in American society:

America: breeding ground for psychopaths


Interestingly, this value is also the basis of conscience, which is an intervening sense of obligation rooted in a sense of connectedness. If an individual does not, or if neurologically he cannot, experience his connection to others in an emotional way, perhaps a culture that insists on connectedness as a matter of belief can instill a strictly cognitive understanding of interpersonal obligation.

An intellectual grasp of one's duties to others is not the same attribute as the powerfully directive emotion we call conscience, but perhaps it is enough to extract prosocial behavior from at least some individuals who would have behaved only in antisocial ways had they been living in a society that emphasized individualism rather than interrelatedness. Though they lack an internal mechanism that tells them they are connected to others, the larger culture insists to them that they are so connected�as opposed to our culture, which informs them resoundingly that their ability to act guiltlessly on their own behalf is the ultimate advantage. This would explain why a Western family by itself cannot redeem a born sociopath. There are too many other voices in the larger society implying that his approach to the world is correct.

Charles Pierce adds to the analysis of why the national culture in America displays psychopathy:

Daddy Darkest

There was an unmistakable subtext throughout the coverage that the American people needed “closure” because they couldn’t be trusted to govern themselves, a belief quite obviously shared by five-ninths of the Supreme Court. It has its roots in the developed sense within the media and its audience that self-government consists mainly of the media’s ability to navigate from one disconnected episode to another -- which is why speakers at the Republican convention could cite both Richard Nixon and Reagan’s dubious finagling in Central America with impunity from the podium, secure in the knowledge that nobody would point out the obvious fact that Watergate and Iran-Contra were both way stations on the road leading to the bunker in which our government has stashed itself. The connective tissue of institutional memory has been allowed to wither to the point where both of those festivals of felonies seem as separate from one another as two sitcoms that premiered 16 seasons apart.

There is a tedious ongoing debate about why the political media behaves the way that it does, but there seems little doubt that modern rightist campaigning and the modern political media share views of their primary audience that are uniquely consonant with each other. Neither one takes the work of self-government seriously any more -- the rightists, because it would interfere with their plans to restore the shine to William McKinley, and the media, because the work of self-government makes terribly bad television. It’s to the rightists’ political advantage to have the children parked in front of the TV, and it’s to the economic advantage of the political media to provide the simple and flashy distractions.

What is especially interesting is Dr. Hare's description of the "camouflage society":

Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder

In my book, Without Conscience, I argued that we live in a “camouflage society,” a society in which some psychopathic traits- egocentricity, lack of concern for others, superficiality, style over substance, being “cool,” manipulativeness, and so forth- increasingly are tolerated and even valued.

Just FYI.











[edit on 30-3-2007 by ceci2006]