Annoying modern trends...

[Fading Fast]

Depends on the act of oppression. If it's something that's codified under law, and there's evidence to prove the claim, well, see you in court. If it's simply something like a "mansplaination," well, Person A telling Person B she isn't being oppressed because Person A doesn't believe she's being oppressed in no way changes what person B is experiencing. And Person A, quite frankly, is being kind of a dink.

But what if person B (man or women, white or black, green or purple, martian or human) is simply wrong? What if they have falsely accused person A of oppressing them? Just because person B believes he or she is being oppressed, just because they feel they are experiencing oppression doesn't make it factually true (it might be, but doesn't prove it objectively).

 

[LizzieMaine]

If what you're experiencing in your life leads you to believe you're being oppressed, and if you're living under a system which has, historicially, engaged in mass class oppression of people like you, then I'd think the chances are actually pretty good that you are, in fact, being oppressed, whether your oppressor chooses to acknowledge that or not.

Oppression can be an individual act or an act of class action, but it is always a case in which established power is being excercised downward. All men, no matter how non-sexist they insist they are as individuals, have shared in unearned social benefits resulting from the historical class oppression of women. All white people, no matter how non-racist they insist they are as individuals, have shared in unearned social benefits resulting from the historical class oppression of other races. And all members of the bourgeoisie, regardless of sex or race, have shared in unearned social benefits resulting from the historical class oppression of the proletariat. And those unearned social benefits, are themselves the substance of which oppression continues to be made.

To use a simple real-world example -- every single white man who played major league baseball in the United States between 1884 and 1946 shared in the unearned social benefit of not having to compete for their jobs against black players. This is not to say that every man who played major league baseball during those years was a conscious, active racist -- there were certainly many who were not, and many spoke out openly against the color line. But even these players partook of the unearned social benefit of not having to compete against African-Americans on the playing field. That is class oppression in action. There are different unearned social benefits in play today, but the overall dynamic is still the same -- those in a position of established power, by dint of belonging to that "power" class, will always enjoy unearned social benefit over those on the outside of that class.

 

[vitanola]

I've noticed that folks who use the term "snowflake" in its most recent context oft seem to be lacking in the old-fashion concept of simple decency. Of course these are generally only folks whom I have met on-line, and so their personas may all be pose. I have no doubts at all about the two men I've heard use the term in this way in person, however. They were well known to me. The usage was quite in keeping with their other modes of expression.

There is an old time expression which might well be applied to many: "Nice people don't say such things, dear."

And also by people who apply these terms to anyone they disagree with. For example, if someone tells you that Black people are highly overrepresented -- per capita -- in the commission of violent crime, is she a racist, or is she simply stating a fact? If someone tells you that the Bible condemns homosexuality, is she a homophobe, or is she simply stating a fact?

Well, quite frankly, folks who go out of their way to point these things out quite often are using them as so-called "dog whistles", in the manner so succinctly described by the late Lee Atwater in the famous 1981 interview conducted by Alexander Lamis and Saul Friedman. I believe that the relevant lines are sufficiently well known that they need not be quoted here.

 

[vitanola]

But what if person B (man or women, white or black, green or purple, martian or human) is simply wrong? What if they have falsely accused person A of oppressing them? Just because person B believes he or she is being oppressed, just because they feel they are experiencing oppression doesn't make it factually true (it might be, but doesn't prove it objectively).

I think that part of the problem lies in the possibility that most of we so-called "oppressors" are living in an environment where "oppression" is the norm, yet we do not recognize it as such, rather like a fish failing to recognize the concept of "water". If true, this has interesting implications, for a supposed "oppressor" who is unaware of "oppression" may well engage in "oppressive" actions entirely without malice. The lack of malice is, unfortunately, seldom perceived by those on the receiving end of potentially "oppressive" behavior.

 

[Fading Fast]

I have read and thought about Lizzie's and Vitanola's response and believe I understand them. But the "solution" IMHO is not to simply say someone's view is right because they either feel oppressed or because they are part of a historically or presently oppressed class no matter how horrible the history and present oppression in society may be.

Without objective justice - as an ideal we'll rarely achieve, but one we have to strive for - all we have is a system of everyone trying to decide who gets to be the oppressor.

To wit, if someone can claim oppression against someone else and the person being charge can not actively defend themselves in a venue striving for objective justice - and if our social norms don't believe that objective justice is a fair approach - then, IMHO, all we have done is switched one biased and oppressive view of justice for another.

If the person claiming to be oppressed is granted special status and not required to prove their claim objectively, then they have, IMHO, become an oppressor themselves.

 

[vitanola]

I have read and thought about Lizzie's and Vitanola's response and believe I understand them. But the "solution" IMHO is not to simply say someone's view is right because they either feel oppressed or because they are part of a historically or presently oppressed class no matter how horrible the history and present oppression in society may be.

Without objective justice - as an ideal we'll rarely achieve, but one we have to strive for - all we have is a system of everyone trying to decide who gets to be the oppressor.

To wit, if someone can claim oppression against someone else and the person being charge can not actively defend themselves in a venue striving for objective justice - and if our social norms don't believe that objective justice is a fair approach - then, IMHO, all we have done is switched one biased and oppressive view of justice for another.

If the person claiming to be oppressed is granted special status and not required to prove their claim objectively, then they have, IMHO, become an oppressor themselves.

There is a great deal of truth in what you have written. We must, however, retain a sense of proportion, must we not?

 

[Angus Forbes]

Class oppression? Looks like Marxism is alive and well, at least in this thread. Workers of the world, unite! From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need! Religion is the opiate . . . oh, well, never mind.

 

[Angus Forbes]

Yes, Vitanola, but you didn't answer the questions. So what do you think? Is everyone who notes that Blacks are highly overrepresented in the commission of violent crime a racist? Is everyone who dares to mention this "blowing a dog whistle?"

 

[sebastian czentner]

Cell Phones. I used to keep mine turned off most of the time, but circumstances have forced me to keep it on and with me all the time. It is an electronic ball and chain.

i agree i hate cell phones too and refused use one for 10 years, despite my friends told me about be in touch. I had to give up when one my ltle´s sister went to live 2000 kms, away from me. But i rarely used it and almost all the tiem i have it dischasrged almost always forgot about charge the battery.

 

[MisterCairo]

Workers of the world, unite!

Ah, the Wobblies...

 

[vitanola]

Yes, Vitanola, but you didn't answer the questions. So what do you think? Is everyone who notes that Blacks are highly overrepresented in the commission of violent crime a racist? Is everyone who dares to mention this "blowing a dog whistle?"

Why, no. Not everyone.

Class oppression? Looks like Marxism is alive and well, at least in this thread. Workers of the world, unite! From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need! Religion is the opiate . . . oh, well, never mind.

Now please . You seem to be just mite overwrought. Religion? Miss Maine is, I understand, a lifelong Methodist. I have been for twenty-vice odd years an Episcopalian. Hardly radical atheists.

The tendency to tar everyone who holds ideas which are slightly to the left of those of de Maistre or Leontiev is unfortunate, I think.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I don't find Marxism and Methodism the least bit oppositional -- the original Methodist Social Creed of 1908 is very much in harmony with classical Marxism, and when Marx referred to religion as being the "opiate of the masses" he was simply stating that it was a primary way in which people allieviated the misery brought about by class oppression. If he was criticizing religion at all, he was criticising the way in which the established religious authorities were used by the capitalist class to lull the masses into accepting their wretched state rather than rising up to do something about it, the kind of religionists who piled heavy burdens upon mankind but lifted not a finger to lift those burdens themselves, the sort of religionists who told slaves that they were slaves because it was God's will for them to be slaves, and to be content in their state of slavery.

That's not the God I worship. I don't know which Christ you profess to follow, but mine was the one who chased the profiteers out of the temple with a whip.

 

[Angus Forbes]

Overwrought? Hardly. Just reminding you of the principles of Marxism that accompany revolt against "class oppression." It's unfortunate, I guess, but I can't help it if someone else has cognitive dissonance in trying to get their head around the famous statement concerning religion as an opiate.

BTW -- I was once an Episcopalian, back in the day when it was a denomination of the Christian Church, but have long since given it up, as they too have long since given it up. Now I'm an Anglican.

 

[Angus Forbes]

I don't find Marxism and Methodism the least bit oppositional -- the original Methodist Social Creed of 1908 is very much in harmony with classical Marxism, and when Marx referred to religion as being the "opiate of the masses" he was simply stating that it was a primary way in which people allieviated the misery brought about by class oppression. If he was criticizing religion at all, he was criticising the way in which the established religious authorities were used by the capitalist class to lull the masses into accepting their wretched state rather than rising up to do something about it, the kind of religionists who piled heavy burdens upon mankind but lifted not a finger to lift those burdens themselves, the sort of religionists who told slaves that they were slaves because it was God's will for them to be slaves, and to be content in their state of slavery.

That's not the God I worship. I don't know which Christ you profess to follow, but mine was the one who chased the profiteers out of the temple with a whip.

Well there you go, then. You have a nice neat package, Marxism all the way. But about that whip . . . So was Jesus a Marxist, too? I have heard such claims.

I also remember hearing that a Methodist was a Baptist with shoes (no doubt a necessity in snow country!), a Presbyterian was a Methodist who went to college, and an Episcopalian was a Presbyterian with a trust fund. I was raised as a Baptist . . . and later became (unfortunately) an Episcopalian, and finally an Anglican (skipped the Methodist and Presbyterian phases).

 

[vitanola]

Well, any educated man must be familiar with "Das Kapital", the same as they must be cognizant of "Reflections on the Revolution" or "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". "The Road to Serfdom" belongs on the shelf next to "The Economic Consequences of the Peace", just as "The Theory of the Leisure Class" should share space with "Problems in Political Economy".

I thought that you might be a schismatic.

 

[Angus Forbes]

Well, any educated man must be familiar with "Das Kapital", the same as they must be cognizant of "Reflections on the Revolution" or "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". "The Road to Serfdom" belongs on the shelf next to "The Economic Consequences of the Peace", just as "The Theory of the Leisure Class" should share space with "Problems in Political Economy".

I thought that you might be a schismatic.

All of these books are well worth reading, each for its own reasons. Just don't fall in love with any of their teachings.

But it's open to debate which faction arises from "schism."

 

[vitanola]

Well there you go, then. You have a nice neat package, Marxism all the way. But about that whip . . . So was Jesus a Marxist, too? I have heard such claims.

I also remember hearing that a Methodist was a Baptist with shoes (no doubt a necessity in snow country!), a Presbyterian was a Methodist who went to college, and an Episcopalian was a Presbyterian with a trust fund. I was raised as a Baptist . . . and later became (unfortunately) an Episcopalian, and finally an Anglican (skipped the Methodist and Presbyterian phases).

I always understood the progression to be from Orthodox to Conservative to Reform, to Ethical Culture Society to High Church Episcopalian. Or is that a different "eth"?

I was raised a Lutheran, was confirmed a Boston (that is Christian) Unitarian Universalist (and I am still a great admirer of Channing, Bellows, and Porter), but when I moved to our rather rural Michigan town found no Unitarian congregation ("Western Unitarians", that is Unitarian congregations which are located beyond the circle of Route Nine in Natick, are too pan-theist for my belief, anyway) I joined the Episcopal communion.

 

[2jakes]

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well there you go, then. You have a nice neat package, Marxism all the way. But about that whip . . . So was Jesus a Marxist, too? I have heard such claims.

Let's just say my reading of the Scriptures leads me to believe that Jesus would have more in common with those at a union meeting than he would at a conclave of the National Association of Manufacturers. He was, after all, a carpenter.

 

[vitanola]

Well there you go, then. You have a nice neat package, Marxism all the way. But about that whip . . . So was Jesus a Marxist, too? .

Well, the Protestant denominations here in America were under very strong Ruskinian influence during the so-called "Golden Era" (which of course I identify as the period between the election of McKinley and Roosevelt's third term, a bit earlier than the period as identified by others here). Protestant Christianity tended toward social Progressivism to a very great extent in this period, save in some backwaters. This error was eventually corrected after condsiderable expenditure by groups like the NAM and the Advertising Council through their creature "The Committee for Religion in American Life", making the Temple once again safe for the Money Changers.

As you may have noticed, I am a Reactionary. What else can a Bull Moose Republican be in this age?