Oppression

[August1991]

I'll bring this thread to the top with a related example.

There is a website with a high quality webcam showing a nest of eagles with two eaglets growing in real time. (If you have kids, grandkids, nieces, nephews, e-mail the link to them.)

Now then, one of the two eaglets is strong and large, getting most of the food. The other is weak and scrawny, rarely getting food. The website has a forum for discussion and posters have asked about this unfairness. Others have answered philosophically: "Mother Nature knows best."

Ultimately, is this how we define oppression? The offspring who gets less?

And why is this simple answer (Mother Nature knows best) so easily accepted? Does it have to do with the fact that Mother Nature is presumably female?

(Incidentally, I have linked to this particular website for no other reason than that I know about it. I think other websites have attempted the same. True, it's a good, cheap way for a tech firm to show its prowess. I suspect - fear - this will become the next big craze: webcams/reality TV of animals having sex/offspring in their natural habitat.)

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Now then, one of the two eaglets is strong and large, getting most of the food. The other is weak and scrawny, rarely getting food. The website has a forum for discussion and posters have asked about this unfairness. Others have answered philosophically: "Mother Nature knows best."

Ultimately, is this how we define oppression? The offspring who gets less?

It is all about having will. (Your example could be straight out of Mein Kampf.) Hitler believed that not only were the strong meant to win out, they should take it in hand to eradicate the weak. This would 'purify' the stronger, ensuring their continued dominance. So, they started with eradicating the 'weakest eaglets', the mentally ill, with their T4 program. (You'll also note what sort of animal was glorified on the 'Reichsadler')

In another thread, BHS opines that 'altruism is irrational' in economic theory. Indeed, if one holds 'the will to power' dear, then this itself is logical. Hitler's reasoning will also become more logical to you.

Oppression isn't about the one eaglet being larger and getting more food, it is about realizing that this is happening, to decide it is a good thing, and then working to ensure it continues to happen.

We must ask ourselves: "Are retards a burden on society or 'free meat'? Or do we grant them equal rights?" Having a choice is what makes us different from the animals.

[Guest Warwick Green]

So, what is oppression? Who is oppressed?

How about the immigrants attacked by skinheads in Eastern Germany?

or

The gays assaulted by clergy and the radical right in Moscow?

or

The three tennis players killed in Iraq for wearing shorts?

[SaintLucifer]

Dear August1991,

It would help matters if a Leftist could clarify this issue for me.

Here goes. Generally, those that seek to attain more than they have, oppress. Especially with power, but money works too. There is a scale, as with most things, that indicates severity. One could be an ordinary supermarket clerk or a corporate/conglomerate head. Both participate in some oppression, to varying degrees. The clerk, as a consumer, is an enabler, the market for oppression, while the conglomerate head directs it through production and marketing.

Social factors are indeed big, and one can see how 'greedy conglomerates' generally outsource their efforts to where social oppression is the to the level where profits can, as safely as reasonably possible, be maximized.

It used to be, until very recently, presence of the the armies of various countries that secured trade routes and trade goods. Now, in the last 50-60 years, in many places, the local gov't is paid to use their own army to keep those same trade routes and resource ownership in the hands of the same people who took it by force.

Palestinians are usually defined as oppressed and Israelis as the oppressors. This seems to mean that Muslims are oppressed but Jews are not.

There is no question in my mind that the Jews have been 'oppressed' (ie:treated unfairly) throughout history. This does not mean that they cannot also oppress.

As to the Palestinians, one could ask, "What would have happened to Palestine if the British chose to make Israel somewhere else?"

Ah. I knew I would see something about the 'oppressive' British. I should like to advise many individuals to please learn how to read history texts. Britain in no way is responsible for Israel. They did not 'choose' to make Israel out of the former Palestine. You can thank the League of Nations for that.

The British were pressured into given up the territory of Palestine which in effect belonged to them by the Americans and the League of Nations who felt guilty about what had happened to the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. I would ask that you all refrain from blaming my people for something the Americans forced onto us. One must also remember that not ALL of Palestine was made into a new Israel, only part of it. The Palestinians did not agree with this so they attacked the new Israelis who ended up victorious and took the Palestinian half away. The Palestinians reaped what they sowed.

[theloniusfleabag]

I should like to advise many individuals to please learn how to read history texts. Britain in no way is responsible for Israel. They did not 'choose' to make Israel out of the former Palestine. You can thank the League of Nations for that.

The League of Nations ceased to exist before the creation of Israel. The British had 'had enough' of Jewish terrorism, from the likes of groups such as the Stern Gang and Irgun, and walked away from trying to control Palestine. The United Nations actually 'created' Israel, by partitioning Palestine into an Arab section and a Jewish section (and a tiny bit around Jerusalem as 'an international section). Then Israel declared itself a state,

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/declare.htm

and the US and USSR both soon recognized the state for their own strategic reasons.

[August1991]

To get back to the OP:

Now if you want to define oppression, oppression is basically the exercise of power to marginalize, disempower and control a particular group or individual. Oppression does not imply violence or coercion. Oppressive cultural or social norms can be acceppted, even by the targetted group (as you indicate above; indeed, conditoning the marginalized to accept their lot is the ultimate acheivement of an oppressive system). The point, though is not cruelty, violenece or even the degree to which the oppressed submit to their oppression, but the simple fact of enforced, arbitrary inequality. In short: oppressin is simply one group excercising its power to keep another group down.

Here's something to help you: The Common Elements of Oppressions

It is not by simple happenstance, that we have leaders, revolutionaries, activists, simple and ordinary citizens, who act against the system. If the system is oppressive it produces people who resist.

Consider our speakers today. What social conditions brought forth their decisions to resist oppression? If there is a need for change the people will step forward. Look at the world over, look at Bosnia, Africa, Sudan, Latin America and now Iraq, it goes on and on.

Oppression produces resistance and the need for change. It begins with one small decision. It begins within ourselves and no matter how seemingly insignificant it may be, it effects other people. We can change our environment.

Counterpunch

And here are my many queries: Are women in abusive relationships in Canada "oppressed"? Are women in Islamic societies "oppressed"? Are poor people in Canada "oppressed"? Poor people in Africa? How do we in the West understand oppression, individual freedom, the lack of choice and wealth?

We receive cards in a hand and then way we play the cards as best we can.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

How do we in the West understand oppression, individual freedom, the lack of choice and wealth?

We in the West truly don't know what it is like to be faced with poverty, famine, etc, but that doesn't mean we can't see or understand oppression. One of my brothers worked in Africa for some years, and he told me "Never send aid money or food to Africa". The reason? The local militias or crooked gov'ts skim at least 50% of all donations, and they are usually the ones creating the 'oppression'. Then they shoot anyone who dares oppose them. The other 50% of their income comes from 'western' (or European or Asian) conglomerates who covet the resources of that country.

[Figleaf]

Objectively, it seems to me that someone who is oppressed lacks choice. If a person can choose, and knows about the choices, then the person cannot be "oppressed". [Choice, and knowing there's a choice, is the definition of freedom, ISTM.]

I think for completeness you need to formulate a useful definition of 'choice'. The choice between death and slavery for example, would seem to fall short of precluding 'oppression'.

Palestinians are usually defined as oppressed and Israelis as the oppressors. This seems to mean that Muslims are oppressed but Jews are not.

There is no basis for you to confuse the concepts 'Palestinian' and 'Israeli' in the first sentence with the concepts 'Muslim' and 'Jew' in the second sentence.

[August1991]

The choice between death and slavery for example, would seem to fall short of precluding 'oppression'.

I'm not saying the choices are always attractive but the more choices one has, the richer one is.

Oppression presumably indicates a lack of choice. A woman in an abusive relationship in Canada has the choice to leave and if she doesn't make this choice, then can we say she is "oppressed"?

I'm more sympathetic (if that's the word) to the circumstances of a woman in an abusive relationship in, say, Saudi Arabia. Her choice to leave is much harder. She is surrounded by an enforced cartel that makes the cost of leaving her husband much greater if not impossible.

Palestinians are usually defined as oppressed and Israelis as the oppressors. This seems to mean that Muslims are oppressed but Jews are not.

There is no basis for you to confuse the concepts 'Palestinian' and 'Israeli' in the first sentence with the concepts 'Muslim' and 'Jew' in the second sentence.

Fair enough. But my play on words was playing on perceptions. For a period after World War II, Jews were perceived as being oppressed. Palestinians seem to have obtained that status while Israelis have lost it. It depends of course on who is doing the perceiving. Many Leftists perceive Muslims in general as being oppressed by the West but then many Leftists perceive everyone as being oppressed by rich white straight anglo-saxon males in suits.

We in the West truly don't know what it is like to be faced with poverty, famine, etc, but that doesn't mean we can't see or understand oppression. One of my brothers worked in Africa for some years, and he told me "Never send aid money or food to Africa". The reason? The local militias or crooked gov'ts skim at least 50% of all donations, and they are usually the ones creating the 'oppression'. Then they shoot anyone who dares oppose them. The other 50% of their income comes from 'western' (or European or Asian) conglomerates who covet the resources of that country.

Poverty reduces one's choices. The richer you are, the more options you have. But even the rich can be limited in their choices. Cartels of various sorts also limit choices.

Around the world, young men and women from wealthy families are forced into arranged marriages. The alternative is social ostracism. In Canada, most children are forced to go to public school with unionized teachers since the alternative is too impractical or even illegal for their parents.

----

BD, I read that Suzanne Pharr article posted by Stoller (never heard of either) and the basic problem with her argument is that it depends critically on a cartel or as Hillary Clinton would say, a vast right wing conspiracy.

Conrad Black, to pick one rich white guy, is a notorious selfish individualist. He'd never respect the rules required to enforce a cartel if he could personally benefit.

[DarkAngel_]

Go into the forest, literally in the middle of predators, feel that you are cornered and cry a war cry loud, then use sticks to defend yourself from these hungry animals, and that is to be oppressed.

and then to fight back.

[M.Dancer]

Go into the forest, literally in the middle of predators, feel that you are cornered and cry a war cry loud, then use sticks to defend yourself from these hungry animals, and that is to be oppressed.

and then to fight back.

Go to Walmart when the welfare cheques have arrived and the new tickle me elmo is on sale....then scoop up the last one and offer it for sale at 3 times the price......then you will know what it is to be oppressed.....

[Black Dog]

Objectively, it seems to me that someone who is oppressed lacks choice. If a person can choose, and knows about the choices, then the person cannot be "oppressed". [Choice, and knowing there's a choice, is the definition of freedom, ISTM.]

Good enough as far as it goes. I'm sure you would include those who are aware of choices, but lack the power to make them.

IMV, oppression must involve a cartel of oppressors capable of enforcing the oppression, and power politics and lack of choice on the oppressed.

When Leftists speak about "oppression", do they mean there is a cartel? Is there a secret society of rich, white corporate-suited European and American males who meet and secretly handshake to decide the agenda?

Well, right away, your premise is off. There needn't be an organized conspiracy oragreed upon terms. No cartel is neccesary. Oppression can be internalized and unconcious.

It seems to me that there is a complex definition scheme to identify oppressed groups. It is not merely an economic question but involves social factors too. The scheme is not entirely arbitrary. White males who wear suits are definitely not oppressed.

That's not true either. Take feminsim for example: many feminists postulate that the same system of male privilege which keeps women down in soceity (aka the patriarchy) also hurts men by creating a parrallel set of gender expectations that limit personal choice (for example, by setting standards and practices that define masculinity). Thus, even white males in suits can be oppressed, though in different terms than those who they may, in tern, oppress (though now we're getting into discussing heirarchies of oppression and I haven't had enough coffee today to go there right now.)

Palestinians are usually defined as oppressed and Israelis as the oppressors. This seems to mean that Muslims are oppressed but Jews are not.

Uh no. The former opccurs strictly in the context of that dynamic, the latter is much broader. Context is key.

Now then, one of the two eaglets is strong and large, getting most of the food. The other is weak and scrawny, rarely getting food. The website has a forum for discussion and posters have asked about this unfairness. Others have answered philosophically: "Mother Nature knows best."

Ultimately, is this how we define oppression? The offspring who gets less?

Well, what makes opression oppression is the arbitrariness of it all. Blacks weren't enslaved because of any intrinsic failing on their part, but because whites had the means to enslave them. Indeed, that power imbalance pepetuated the notion that it was okay to enslave blacks because they were backwards, and not much better than animals. You can see simliar power dynamic at work in how the Pashtun treat women. So, August, if you want to know about opporession, start with who has he power in any given dynamic. And then watch the self-justification flow.

Oppression presumably indicates a lack of choice. A woman in an abusive relationship in Canada has the choice to leave and if she doesn't make this choice, then can we say she is "oppressed"?

I'm more sympathetic (if that's the word) to the circumstances of a woman in an abusive relationship in, say, Saudi Arabia. Her choice to leave is much harder. She is surrounded by an enforced cartel that makes the cost of leaving her husband much greater if not impossible.

IMV "choice" is not the be all and end all. In a way, choices can serve to reinforce oppression (using the above example, the abused wife's choices could boil down to a choice between beatings and poverty.)

BD, I read that Suzanne Pharr article posted by Stoller (never heard of either) and the basic problem with her argument is that it depends critically on a cartel or as Hillary Clinton would say, a vast right wing conspiracy.

I disagree, though I can see how you'd come to that interpretation. I think the point is that in every power dynamic (which result from and perpetuate oppression) there's going to be a winner or a loser. That doesn't necessarily mean everyone involved is aware of or contributes to the dynamic, but they may benefit nonetheless.

[DarkAngel_]

Go into the forest, literally in the middle of predators, feel that you are cornered and cry a war cry loud, then use sticks to defend yourself from these hungry animals, and that is to be oppressed.

and then to fight back.

Go to Walmart when the welfare cheques have arrived and the new tickle me elmo is on sale....then scoop up the last one and offer it for sale at 3 times the price......then you will know what it is to be oppressed.....

hularias, so funny i cant even spell right. but in essence, to be oppressed is to be 'put back or behind another' so in basic, to be in a long line at walmart to pay for a tickle-me-elmo at x-mas and with a discount price that only lastes for 3 hours... then have 5 nazi's cut in front of you, telling them to get back and then getting yelled at by EVERYONE, how whould you feel? angry, if you tolerate it for too long, that is oppressed, but to do something is another story, who knows, i could be wrong, oh well i wrote at least.