Log in

View Full Version : Minorty Oppression



The Feral Underclass
3rd December 2004, 14:55
The general definition of oppression, taken from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression) is:


Originally posted by "Wikipedia"+--> ("Wikipedia")Oppression is often used to mean a certain group is being kept down by unjust use of force or authority and has been referred to as "systematic oppression". See: domination and imperialism.[/b]

Another definition taken from dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) is:


"dictionary.com
op·pres·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-prshn)
n.

The act of oppressing; arbitrary and cruel exercise of power: “There can be no really pervasive system of oppression... without the consent of the oppressed” (Florynce R. Kennedy).
The state of being oppressed.
Something that oppresses.
A feeling of being heavily weighed down in mind or body.

These definitions aren't necessarily wrong, but as revolutionary socialists or socialists in general we run into many complicated issues regarding what oppression means in relation to class. Not simply in the ruling class/working class divide, but the role of capitalism and it's historical effect on the psychology and attitudes of human beings.

The question of oppression is not a simple one. We can clearly show how the Iraqi's are being oppressed by the domination of the US/UK armed forces. We can clearly show how the working class are oppressed through the unfair distribution of labour. These aspects of oppression are clear and easily defined.

However, capitalism as an economic system may not have existed for very long put as a subjective force in the world it seems as if it has existed forever and holds god like sway of many people. The vast majority of people in the industrial world and even in the developing world see the status quo as fact.

The hammering home of bourgeois justifications for the existence of capitalism, the increased alienation caused by work and the "brain washing" of consumerism has effected the human psyche almost beyond reproach.

The ruling class have the monopoly of power on ideas. Take nazi Germany as an obvious example. Hitler and the nazi leadership took a very sensitive subject, the role of Jewish people in society, and used it as a means of scapegoat and a pretext for a campaign of psychotic hate.

Idea's on racism, sexism and homophobia are the same, and throughout history have been defined by our ruling class. From the slave trade to the present day, from the biblical attitudes towards the role of women in society until the present day and the progressed quasi-religious repression of same sex relationships, have all contributed to our present day attitudes.

Are we all aware of this? Are we all safe from it? In my opinion no. Our attitudes towards black people, women and gay people have come through centuries if not millennia of human history, changing politics, philosophical and economic attitude. We simply cannot expect people to not harbour racist, sexist or homophobic attitudes no matter how blatant or latent.

These attitudes, covertly and overtly take many different forms. There is of course race politics. The far-right take oppressive attitudes towards anything that goes against the biblical and economically prominent status quo. These fucknuts are obvious.

What is of more concern is the covert attitudes, which are far more dangerous and far more harder to fight against. The reason for this difficulty is because it is generally accepted by many people, especially those who control the monopoly of power. The word is a patriarchal world, dominated by white heterosexuals. Although nobody claims to be a racist, sexist or homophobe many bosses may not want to employ a black person, someone may cross the road because they see a black person coming and fear (thanks to the media) they may be robbed. Wives are at home cooking their husbands meals while men masturbate to naked pictures of women being groped. A person may tell a joke about how all homosexuals are paedophiles or sex mad or say "i'm not a homophobe, I just dont want them round me."

These things are general within society. It is generally accepted as the norm and so when someone says "paki, queer" or laughs at the picture of a famous rock band groping a naked woman with smiles on their faces it is not associated with these historical facts. It is not identified as oppression. But as the norm. Something which shouldn't be taken seriously etc.

What is our role against this? The first step is to realise that the use of language and the subtle, "ironic" highlighting of differences between races, sexes and orientations contributes to the status quo attitudes, of which is controlled and exploited by the ruling class, who can pick up and use these things to further their agenda.

The second step is to stop doing it, and to question other people when they do it. The recognition that saying "queer" or "paki" is as bad as putting magazines for gay people on the top shelve with the pawn, or refusing to discuss black history in high schools or getting turned on at the portrayal of women being dominated, for "fun", will force people to realise that these differences are detromental to our liberation as human beings. Yes, it's that serious.

The end of minority oppression will only happen when human beings no longer see a difference in each other. We all have a role to play in that. Especially as communists.

The Garbage Disposal Unit
3rd December 2004, 16:55
Ultimately, what is absolutely crucial in this fight is siezing control of the means by which this oppression is perpetuated, and, in particular, the means of historification. Traditionally, history is controlled by those in power, so that we are not only written out of history, but fail to understand who we are in historical/social context.
We have to smash existing myth frameworks, and do away with the grand narratives of great (white, hetrosexist) men.

Yr textbooks are as dangerous as any cop.

The Feral Underclass
4th December 2004, 11:49
Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 3 2004, 05:55 PM
Ultimately, what is absolutely crucial in this fight is siezing control of the means by which this oppression
I assume you mean to take control of society/means of production, but do you think that this will actually deal with the attitudes of people. Homophobia, racism and sexism will still exist in latent forms even after a revolution.

YKTMX
4th December 2004, 12:07
Homophobia, racism and sexism will still exist in latent forms even after a revolution.

I disagree with this. Some residue of personal prejudice among sections of the population might persist after the revolution, but the actual concept of "racism" will have been banished. And let's be clear about this, the reason racism exists is not because people are "inherently racist", it's a symptom and a creation of this particular stage in history. When the revolution is made and all forms of alienation and oppression are ended, the idea of any "inferiority" amongst any sections of the population will be things of the past. As Marx put it:

Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and...the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary...a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew

:)

New.Art.Riot
9th December 2004, 16:23
I assume you mean to take control of society/means of production, but do you think that this will actually deal with the attitudes of people. Homophobia, racism and sexism will still exist in latent forms even after a revolution.

For the very situation to arise where a revolution to occur I would suggest that all prejudices would have dissapeared.