Go to Naut's View
- Add a comment
- Go to Reflections on ‘Positive’ and ‘Negative’ Americans...Part III
Dylan,
I have to tell you that I don't think you understand the issues. Let me try and use your own example, that of the rape case, to illustrate at least part of my argument. That the victim in this case is a victim is an observation so obvious as to be trivial. (Whether she feels herself to be a victim is a different matter entirely.)
Typically it is the perpetrator who is seen as having acted, at least partially, under the influence of whatever 'social forcces' are said to be operating in his case, and his responsibility is diminished to that extent.
That it may not help him in court is a different matter again, but 'responsibility' is not something that is merely assigned in courts of law. The degree to which his environment operates on the 'social forces' model and the degree to which he himself subscribes to it influences how the perpetrator sees himself and his actions...
And finally, to the extent the perpetrator's act is seen as 'social forces driven', to that extent the victim too is a 'victim of circumstances'.
I hope this helps...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 8, 2007 at 4:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Whinge,
alright, hon, I'll read it, not today, though. And I
am relieved - I was beginning to picture myself in a hat, a pale blue dress, wielding a large purse and wearing sensible shoes...I was beginning to look like the Queen Mum, may she rest in peace...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 8, 2007 at 7:33 AM
| link to this | reply
Naut, noooo, Glen, not Mother Abigail!!!
That's it, you have to read it now, that's your assignment!!!! I think it's probably best that you google the book first, but I know you will enjoy it.
What pisses me off is most people tend to dismiss King as a horror writer when in fact he makes great social commentary on the state of the world in general. What shocks me about this book is you get so drawn in to it, that you're almost wishing it was real, because the depth & warmth of characters are so much better than some real people. It continues on to a degree where you're encapsulated by the world in 'The Stand', your imagination and the news bulletins of real life (Ibola virus, bird flu etc...) entertain it's plausibility. I've re-read it nearly every year since I was 17.
Corbin, definitely Ariel is Judge Farris. 'Desperation' is another favourite of mine. I don't know Corbin though, I'm kinda worried about who you'd be dreaming about in 'The Stand', do you like the trains to run on time?
posted by
CringeintheUSA
on February 8, 2007 at 1:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Whinge
Oh my....you have picked my all time Stephen king book......and honestly I could see Naut as Glen......but Ariel70 would have to be Judge Richard Farris.....Now I have the urge to re-watch the mini series.....
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on February 7, 2007 at 6:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariel and Dylan
I hope to comment on your discussion tomorrow, tonight things got a little to late...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 7, 2007 at 5:53 PM
| link to this | reply
Whinge,
I know it's a gap in my education, but I must confess to you that I have never read anything by Stephen King. All I know is that he's terribly popular and successful.
Having said that, you have aroused my curiosity, especially in view of the fact that I seem to remind you of this Mother Abigail. Which, on the face of it, seems hilarious, since neither I nor any of my friends would normally think of me as a 'Mother' of any kind...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 7, 2007 at 5:30 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariel70,
I agree that we are talking at "cross purposes." I think the problem is mainly semantic. Persecution, yes; victimhood, no. In my view, the difference is overstated by those who say they oppose the victim mentality. It's a red herring. Too often a "get over it" attitude toward those who have suffered persecution or its effects -- an attitude that would release the persecutors and those who have profited from the persecution from responsibility -- is disguised behind the supposedly empowering language of "don't be a victim".
But if people really have been persecuted -- or victimized, whatever word you want to use -- how they feel about it is one thing; the objective reality is another. Take an obvious example of a person who has been raped. It's all fine and well for the person to say "I don't feel like a victim; I'm not going to give the rapist that kind of power over me," but that doesn't change the fact that the rapist made a victim of the person and needs to be punished. The person may overcome their victimhood, which is great; but they were, at the time of the rape, a victim by definition; and what made them a victim was the fact that the perpetrator had more power than the other person. On a larger scale, victims are made because of power imbalances every day: there are still people working in dangerous sweatshop conditions for pitiful wages who would not be doing so if they had bargaining power. They are victims of exploitation, and it's unreasonable to argue -- as many anti-victimhood people do -- that these workers are fully free as individuals and can change their lot by acting alone. No, they need social support, to fight a social problem. This is not whining; it is just common sense.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on February 7, 2007 at 10:56 AM
| link to this | reply
Dylan
We appear to be talking at cross purposes. I take it that in your first paragraph the " victimhood " referred to is " persecution", which are two emtirely different animals.
Of course Jews lament the persectutions and the mass slaughters visited upon them throughout the ages, but I have not to date ever heard of a Jew complaining of others visiting " victimhood" upon them.
I quote ... " But the fact is, some people really are victims, and to overlook that is to release the victimizers from the same sort of responsibility that the victims are (often callously) encouraged to take."
This, especially in the case of the Jews, is so obvious as not to need stating.
You have clearly not been reading my series of posts about one aspect of the Holocaust, for if you had you would be in no doubt as to my views on the victimization of the Jews by the Nazis.
The foundation of the state of Israel was clearly influenced by recent events, but are you seriously suggesting that this was some form of German-inspired compensation? ( You'll no doubt recall that I pointed out that the Jews had not even asked their erstwhile persecutors for compensation. )
posted by
ariel70
on February 7, 2007 at 6:20 AM
| link to this | reply
I do and I don't. I might understand the human part of it
the political part, I'm still not even lukewarm on. I'd like to get an 'A' in this class though, and instead of an apple, I bought a cognac for the teacher!
Speaking of Stephen King, you remind of the character of Glen in 'The Stand', he said some bloody cracking comments on the foundations of society/societies. I was going to badly paraphrase one of his comments but I can't remember it to a degree whereby it'll make sense. The context was in relation to the reforming of people after a catastrophic event, something along the lines of 'Give me one person, and we'll call him a survivor, give me two and we'll call them friends/a couple/I can't remember?, give me three and they'll make one an outcast....' and so on. It was so spot on, it was scary.
I love that book, it's a comedy, horror, survival manual and spiritual guide all in one. I mentally divide people on Blogit into the Mother Abigail camp or Randall Flagg camp. You're in M.A.'s camp. I guess I shouldn't be too public about that! I must do my annual reread of it. Ok, no more blog hog.
posted by
CringeintheUSA
on February 7, 2007 at 5:43 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariel70,
Actually I have observed quite a lot of (legitimate) complaining by Jews about the victimhood visited on them and their ancestors. And they have demanded compensation. Ever heard of the state of Israel? The case for creating a Jewish state got a lot of help from the persecution of Jews. To this day any criticism of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians is taken as anti-Semitic.
It's true that many Jews have worked hard and overcome the obstacles placed in front of them, instead of making a claim of victimhood and leaving it at that. But the fact is, some people really are victims, and to overlook that is to release the victimizers from the same sort of responsibility that the victims are (often callously) encouraged to take.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on February 6, 2007 at 8:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Whinge
thanks for your comments! You clearly understand the issues. I think your remarks about slippage and 'the decline of reason, common sense, ownership or responsibility' are particularly apt!
And Hennessy ain't a bad tipple at all, nor do I mind fuzzy slippers, at least not on you...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 6, 2007 at 6:49 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut, am back to the occasional Hennessy, not as nice as the Scots
counterpart, but will live with it. May join you for that drink later, if you don't mind my fuzzy slippers. More minor drama on domestic front, but nothing of great consequence. Thanks for your lovely comment on my post. I was most happy with the last couple of lines.
posted by
CringeintheUSA
on February 6, 2007 at 10:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Well Naut, it took me more time to get back to you than I thought.
This is a sneaky lunchtime peak in breach of company regulations.
Look all I see is that this culture of victimhood has been so enabled by experts & victims alike that it's almost impossible to argue against anything w/out being treated as Ariel has well pointed out racist/discriminatory/mis or uneducated. Feck it, there are people in Ireland who still treat the English like they just took the last spud out of their mouths, and the famine happened in 1845 (GET OVER IT!!!). There are sociologists in Ireland trying to claim that inordinate level of sexual abuse (1 in 5) is a direct result of the displacement of the Irish people during the famine, it's not even a case of connecting the dots 'cos there not even on the same fecking page or room! Stupid, as it's bound to have existed prior to same.
I know I've taken a point and ran away a little with it, but it's like any child being given a sweet for getting a knee scrape, you'll have a big story next time, mangled knees, and a bigger payload.
Remember in a prior post we talked about things being so fuzzy round the edges, there's no substance anymore, Stephen King called it 'slippage', you had another proper name for it. But I like the term slippage, it's the decline of reason, common sense, ownership or responsibility, and Irish grandmothers who slap you on the ass with a hurley when you have the gaul to feel sorry for yourself.
posted by
CringeintheUSA
on February 6, 2007 at 5:48 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariel
thank you very much for your extensive comment. And needless to say (so why do I say it?) I fully share your view of the Jews and of Israel - an amazing people, and an astonishing country. These are themes I hope to deal with in future posts, although my main focus will be on the Islamo-fascist threat...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 5, 2007 at 6:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Wiley
maintaining body heat appears to be the very
first task, lol - all else pales by comparison! And I take it it's a particularly difficult task in your parts these days...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 5, 2007 at 6:05 PM
| link to this | reply
Muser
fulsome praise indeed, and much appreciated! And for a Canuck to be nominated an American hero is a
special honour...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 5, 2007 at 6:02 PM
| link to this | reply
OFFBEATS
how's that tune go? "Come on baby light my fire..."
posted by
Nautikos
on February 5, 2007 at 5:59 PM
| link to this | reply
Joe Love,
you're absolutely correct - a lot of people would lose their jobs if the PTW mentality were to evaporate suddenly! Fat chance, though...Incidentally, I think I'm more 'deep drink' than 'deep think'...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 5, 2007 at 5:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Whinge,
let's have an after-dinner cognac together...or two...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 5, 2007 at 5:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Another impressive grasp of facts, well argued.
Nearly bedtime here, so I can't stay long. It's quite strange, really coming acros your posts at this time, because only this morning as part of my ruminations about my series of posts on the Holocaust, I felt my usual contempt for those who adorn themselves in the robes of victimhood.
The explosive growth in the study of social sciences has spawned a whole vast industry dedicated to a' finding victims, b. working on their sense of grievance, and ( most important ) becoming a " community leader" on their behalf. Power, influence, wealth are all to be had in these self appointed postiotions.
Politicians play to this for all they're worth, losing all sense of proportion and commonsense in deciding who is and who is not a true victim. What does this have to do with the Holocaust, and the Jews? A hell of a lot!
No people/religion on this earth has been so cnistently and so vilolently persecuted and slain en masse as the Jews. They are the archetypical victims of history.
Do they whine about this? Do they demand handouts? Damnit all, they don't even ask their last mass murderers for compensation! They've made a garden from a desert ; they file more patents per head of the population than any other nation except America, and it goes on and and on. They have a powerful work ethic.
What then is one to think of, for example, British Muslim youths who have a 20% to 30% unemployment rate? This in a land that's a giant employment sponge for East European and other immigrants?
One is not a racist but a realist to draw the obvious conclusions from all this.
posted by
ariel70
on February 5, 2007 at 2:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
A great post as usual, however, I am simply here to say howdy and let you know I am still alive, just not participating in anything except the study of maintaining body heat.
posted by
WileyJohn
on February 5, 2007 at 1:45 PM
| link to this | reply
I sent Max an email today in which I told him of a "must read' for today...
I told him about this outstanding post. I know he will applaud it as much as I.
posted by
muser
on February 5, 2007 at 8:49 AM
| link to this | reply
WELL,WELL,WELL...NAUTIKOS, YOU OBVIOUSLY SEE THAT THE EMPEROR IS NAKED!
...and you are aware that words have (correct) meanings, original, correct meanings instead of newly invented meanings or incorrectly used meanings! Damn, Nautikos...you better start watching your back...I hear the PC crowd can be vicious!
SERIOUSLY, AND SINCERELY, THIS IS A FINE SERIES...THIS IS A FINE PIECE OF JOURNALISM. THE GOOD OLD FASHIONED KIND OF JOURNALISM...NOT PROPAGANDA OF THE NEW WORLD "PROGRESSIVE MAKE-IT-UP-AS-YOU-GO- KIND- BECAUSE NOBODY- IS- GOING -TO -CHECK- YOUR- STATISTICS -AND -"FACTS" KIND OF STUFF THAT SLOWLY CREEPS INTO THE MAINSTREAM AS IF IT WERE FACTUAL. BRAVO, NAUT! IMHO...YOU ARE AN AMERICAN HERO!
posted by
muser
on February 5, 2007 at 8:40 AM
| link to this | reply
G/Morning Naut
Hope you are staying warm...I am going to build a fire directly even though I have no fireplace...
posted by
Offy
on February 5, 2007 at 6:13 AM
| link to this | reply
Naut
I have been bad and have not caught up on this yet...Yikes...spank me!
posted by
Offy
on February 4, 2007 at 6:42 AM
| link to this | reply
I'm not a deep think like yourself, however, I feel when
it all rolls around, it comes back to the politicians (as you have noted) that feed the frenzy. SOME of them, without victims, are LITERALLY without jobs.
posted by
Joe_Love
on February 3, 2007 at 9:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Catching up with you soon, will read back along after dinner.
posted by
CringeintheUSA
on February 3, 2007 at 11:54 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I think that your positive/negative analysis is pretty much right on.
posted by
TAPS.
on February 2, 2007 at 7:23 PM
| link to this | reply
TAPS,
thanks for your comment. I think you got my point. My reference to Job was intended to convey the fact that, although he suffered, and although it is possible to discuss his suffering in a myriad ways, any reference to 'social forces' would be utterly incongruous, in fact virtually impossible, even today.
And I probably should have made more explicit the connection between what I have tried to outline here and the initial distinction between 'positive' and 'negative' Americans (and Canadians, for that matter): for me, those who still hold to the belief that their 'doing' makes a difference, who habe a notion of responsibility to themselves and to others I would call the 'positive' ones. And those who subscribe to the PTW view of the world, with its belief in the ultimate power of 'social forces' I would call 'negative'...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 2, 2007 at 7:08 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
In your post today I see in the PTW example the epitome of the snowball effect. Re: Job, I don't think of him as a victim. Though he did complain at times, question, whine, feel sorry for himself, he never stopped fighting for what he believed in and he never gave up and in the end he was an overcomer whose ending was better than his beginning. The "social forces" of that day that could have easily turned a lesser person into a victim were spurned by Job and he did his thinking for himself.
posted by
TAPS.
on February 2, 2007 at 5:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Dylan
thanks for your extensive comment, which would almost require another post, but I think I shall leave this whole area alone, before nobody wants to read my stuff anymore, lol.
What I am trying to get across here, and maybe it simply isn't possible in the narrow confines of a space such as this, is that notions such as 'choice', 'responsibility' etc., which assume a 'rational' actor, are often replaced by a different model, where 'forces' cause problems the way bacteria cause illness. I'm not just talking about kids from the wrong side of the tracks here; (for one thing, kids are not deemed to be fully 'rational' actors anyway, which is why they usually have their own PTW's, aka parents); and even those do not all end up in jail!
posted by
Nautikos
on February 1, 2007 at 6:02 AM
| link to this | reply
This post questions the vagueness of the "forces" alluded to in the comment, but later on acknowledges some of them: poverty, crime, for two examples. Call them forces, call them problems, whatever. The point is they are social problems, and large-scale ones at that.
These problems are systemic because they are built into the structure of society. (They have the support -- intentional or not -- of law, economic policy, crime policy, and because they are zealously protected by powerful interests they are extremely difficult to change.) By nature they are not the responsibility of any individual, so it is not correct to hold an individual solely responsible for his/her lot. That is what I mean by self-abuse: saying "I have only myself to blame" when that is plainly not the case, when other factors beyond your control affected your situation. Of course we should do everything we can to improve our own situation, but people should not be held responsible for things they are not responsible for, such as a fiscal policy -- a legal policy -- a crime policy -- over which they were given no say, or over which their say was overruled.
When a city kid from a low-income home is sent to prison for a nonviolent drug offense, and in prison he faces violence, gangs, and perhaps even rape, and comes out an angry and disturbed person who will become a violent threat to society -- who is at fault here? Whatever way we assign blame, he gets only part of it. It is also the fault of citizens and lawmakers who refused to deal with amply-evident problems in the criminal justice and prison systems, which routinely help turn nonviolent offenders into violent ones in their "correctional" facilities. Instead, many of those who emphasize personal responsibility will place all the blame on the kid. Personal responsibility is treated as a substitute for social policy dealing with large-scale problems. But at most a person can only solve his own problems, he cannot solve problems that extend far beyond him into the realm of international economic and law -- or large social forces, if you will. At least, he cannot do so alone.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on January 31, 2007 at 7:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Corbin
Of course it's balderdash! Trouble is, this kind of thinking has become widely accepted...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 31, 2007 at 6:29 PM
| link to this | reply
On the comment you refered to from you orther post....
If he fails, then, he is quite right to place most the blame outside himself. To do otherwise would amount to self-abuse.” Balderdash! It's reality! So you fail once....twice....but if your a redeemer, you dust your self off and start all over.....based on this philosophy....Thomas Edison would never have invented the light bulb!
It this kind of logic and contamination....that has now produced third-generational "victims"........
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on January 31, 2007 at 6:23 PM
| link to this | reply