The oppressor and the oppressed

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Hello Comrades!

Just yesterday, I was talking to a friend of mine, a fellow autie, and he has a different view on the matter of oppression in that he simply refuses to see 'the oppressed' as victims at all.:(

He points to historical examples (Africa, India, Americas) and says that in almost all cases, the so-called oppressed people were busy fighting each other . . . and that is what made oppression possible in the first place. Because they were more interested in fighting each than they were in fighting the invaders, they got conquered. That doesn't make them victims; it simply makes them losers in battle.

This is his argument. How would you counter this? Is there any truth in this at all? I always assumed that 'the oppressed' cooperate with the oppressor by not fighting for his rights, as my sig points out. But I would NEVER go so far as to say that the whole thing is just a game, and that the losers are mistakenly called victims.

Any thoughts?

[Invincible Summer]

So if your friend is having an argument with someone else, and then some random guy comes over and beats the shit out of him, somehow he's not a victim of assault???

With this logic, are women who are victims of rape not victims, but simply "women who were losers in fighting off predatory males?"

That's totally ridiculous. It's a classic case of "blaming the victim" and a good smattering of fascism too, what with this underlying idea of "conqueror" and "conquered."

[Dimentio]

Hello Comrades!

Just yesterday, I was talking to a friend of mine, a fellow autie, and he has a different view on the matter of oppression in that he simply refuses to see 'the oppressed' as victims at all.:(

He points to historical examples (Africa, India, Americas) and says that in almost all cases, the so-called oppressed people were busy fighting each other . . . and that is what made oppression possible in the first place. Because they were more interested in fighting each than they were in fighting the invaders, they got conquered. That doesn't make them victims; it simply makes them losers in battle.

This is his argument. How would you counter this? Is there any truth in this at all? I always assumed that 'the oppressed' cooperate with the oppressor by not fighting for his rights, as my sig points out. But I would NEVER go so far as to say that the whole thing is just a game, and that the losers are mistakenly called victims.

Any thoughts?

Theoretically, it is not intellectually impossible to deny all oppression and all victimhood.

"So, you got robbed. Well, what did you have to do in that area that time of night?"

The extreme case is when someone is calling it unfair that those who are strong are prevented from oppressing those who are weak.

[Hiero]

It is not about "conquering" or being "defeated" or even "victims". Oppression is a modern system of relationship, not a historical fact that one has to abided by.

Germany were defeated in WW1 for instance, and what followed basically sucked for the national bourgeoisie of Germany. However this did not constitute oppression, it just limited them financially.

Oppression exists where there is an oppressed and an oppressor. In cases like Israel and Palestine, Zionists and Zionists appeasers constantly try to aviod the modern relationship of oppression that exists between Israel and Palestine by talking history which is sometimes near mythic. Regardless of Arab and Muslim raiders, British Imperialism and Jewish Kingdoms of the past, the current issue is that Palestinians are oppressed by Israelis. Their their movement, their self determination, their safety and their chance to better themselves are severely inhibited by the Israeli state.

Your friend and many wishy washy leftists are often confused about left-wing opposition to oppression. Both assume that left-wing causes just latch onto a victim out of sympathy, because they were defeated or what not. It is not just the history or the case of their being a victim, but that there is a system of oppression like the one I described above. These oppressive regimes should not be allowed to exist and generally can not continue to exists. Within systems of oppression there are conflicting forces that make the system unstable and lead to it's downfall.

For instance the indigenous nations of South Africa were defeated. What followed was an oppresive system of White minority rule. If I follow your friends logic it is too bad for the colonised. However day to day life in South Africa breed resistance to the opppresive regime by the colonised and that eventually made the apartheid system unworkable.

Not only do we opposed the oppression because of it's unequal power relationship between people, but because we know that it is unstable and doomed to collapse under it's own contradictions.