MAKING VICTIMS, DESTROYING SOULS

 My New Found Victimhood

Recently I received an email from the university from which I retired and where I still mentor and teach students.  The email was seeking to “gather a list of First Gen faculty” who could be called upon to mentor “First Gen” students.

Being unfamiliar with the term “First Gen”, I did some research and learned that the U.S. Dept. of Education defines a First Gen or First Generation student as:

An individual, neither of whose parents completed a baccalaureate degree;

or

An individual who, prior to the age of 18, regularly resided with and received support from only one parent and whose supporting parent did not complete a baccalaureate degree.

or

An individual who, prior to the age of 18, did not regularly reside with or receive support from a natural or adoptive parent.

If your parent(s) and/or guardian(s) attended college but do not have a bachelor’s degree (i.e., did not graduate), you are considered to be first-generation.

This is the basic definition used by most colleges and universities, although some further explain that it does not matter about your siblings or any other family members.  That is, one only looks to the parent to determine if someone is First Gen.  Additionally, some schools expand their definition to include individuals whose parents, while having a degree, received that degree from an institution outside the United States.  The Dept. of Education tends to group its discussions of First Generation students with low income or otherwise disadvantaged students.

Think about this.  You could have highly successful parents who, for whatever reason, do not have a college degree, you might be a graduate of an outstanding prep school, have older siblings who are students or graduates of the finest colleges in the country and yet still qualify as a First Gen student and thus be qualified to receive whatever special benefits your college chooses to provide.

When I went to college, I did not consider myself disadvantaged.  I had parents who, though lacking college degrees, were well educated and encouraged education.  I went to good public schools with a high rate of graduates attending college.  My older siblings went to college before me.  Yet, lo and behold, I now discover that I had the disadvantage of being able to label myself as a First Generation student.  Wow.  I too can be a victim.  Actually, I found this thought quite offensive.

Realizing how ridiculous this is, I replied to the email and related my discovery that I am a First Gen.  I further explained that nonetheless, I would not be volunteering for the First Gen mentorship program.  Specifically, I stated, “In my humble opinion, such labels hurt rather than help individual initiative and success.  Obviously, I will not be volunteering as a First Gen mentor though, as you are well aware, I am always ready to help our students as individuals, regardless of whatever label our Woke world might want to place on them.”

I expected to get no response or simply a “thank you for your input” email.  But what I got was an email the total substance of which read “Was that really necessary?” to which I responded with one word:  Yes.   This interchange is not really relevant to the point of this essay, but it does serve to point out that those who are onboard with the Woke practice of labeling and creating political victimhoods are not inclined to want to have a discussion with someone of differing views; indeed, they don’t even want those views to be voiced.

Creating One’s Victimhood “narrative”

On the same day that the above took place I read an article revealing that Republican presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy has fabricated his story of growing up poor, then becoming a successful entrepreneur.  He tells the story that he “didn’t grow up in money” and yet was able to create multimillion dollar companies out of nothing.  It turns out, however, that his parents both held graduate degrees and were highly successful professionals.  Vivek went to an elite prep school and had his own stock portfolio created for him by his parents that was “bringing in hundreds of dollars in dividends before he graduated high school and thousands by the time he attended Harvard, according to his 2002-2004 tax returns.”  Moreover, he accepted a scholarship “he previously said he needed in order to pay for law school.” The year he accepted a $90,000 award for law school, “Ramaswamy reported $2,252,209 in total income, according to his tax returns. He reported a total of $1,173,690 in income in the three years prior.”  You can read the full article here:  Vivek’s Background 

Why would someone as successful and seemingly intelligent as Vivek Ramaswamy create this false rags-to-riches narrative?  Why would he or anyone think that in order to be truly successful, to be “approved” by our culture that they need to first be a victim?  Why would anyone choosing to go into the public arena think that his deceptions would not be found out?  And, on a moral level, why would someone choose to deny who his parents really were and the positive help that they provided as they supported their son in his educational and career journey?  Is that not a slap in the face to his family?

The Consequences of Victim Labeling

Our Woke culture, our world of identity groups/politics, demands that we all be either victim or victimizer.  (I have fun wondering how my new-found victim status due to being a defined First Gen fits with my defined – due to my being White - status as victimizer.  Perhaps I should fall into some schizophrenic fugue.)

But seriously, we are all more than one label.  Each of us is an individual, not a two-dimensional cardboard cutout that can be labeled and then either applauded, condemned, or ignored.  We are all multi-dimensional and those dimensions include both positives and negatives, but all are uniquely ours.  They are what make us the INDIVIDUALS that we are.

If we are nothing more than the labels that some group has decided to place upon us then we lose our individual identity.  Not only who we are, but whom we may become is predetermined for us by someone else who may or more likely may not have our individual best interests in mind. 

If all we can be is what the label says we are, then why have any initiative?  And personal responsibility becomes meaningless because our actions are simply the result of our label.  If we are a victim, then we have our victimhood to blame for anything that goes wrong in our life.  After a fall we need not go through any self-examination or attempt to learn lessons for the future; we need not pull ourselves back up and try to do better or improve things for next time.  Rather, we can simply blame our victimhood and those labeled as our victimizers. 

Labeling is nothing more than a way to control us. People have always to some extent labeled others, and probably always will.  But today we have a political power movement that uses Wokeness to label and divide us and as a result take power over us.   You fit this label so you belong in this box.  No need to try to get out – to improve yourself or to go after your individual vision.  We have decided that this is you and therefore this is whom and what you will be.   And too many simply accept such labeling (or mislabeling) without question or, worse yet, seek it out.

Candidate Ramaswamy fell for the Woke labeling and believed that in order to be “successful candidate” he needed to have an appropriate backstory.  He chose the “rags to riches” narrative.  He became something he is not but that which fits within a particular label.  I chose to question my new label and was chastised for such questioning. 

Sadly, labels, and their subsequent import of victim or victimizer, are a part of our culture today.  We seek out and apply labels to both ourselves and others, and in so doing we diminish our humanity.  Accepting societal labeling grants power over us to those who create the labels and apply them.

The question is, are we playing victim, or is the need for victimhood playing us?  Because in the end, we are nothing but our own victimizers if the need to label, to be a victim, destroys us.  As Sophocles wrote in Antigone, "Who is the Slayer? Who is the Victim? Speak."

We need to answer this question for us, for today, for our civilization and our lives.  But we cannot truly answer it without shedding our need for labels, taking back the power over our being that we have granted to others, and becoming each our own unique individual.

The First Nine Days

It’s been barely over a week since Biden took office and he has already signed over 40 executive orders and actions. It is stunning how quickly America is being dismantled.   

                Gutting America’s Core

President Biden begins by forgetting that we have three branches of government: the Presidency is not a dictatorship.  But, when one rules by executive order, bypassing the other branches and hence the representatives and voice of the people, what can one call it but a dictatorship?

Now, to be fair, House Speaker Pelosi applauds this dictatorial bypassing of the legislature; she supports Biden’s “transformative executive actions.”  Those words should place fear in all of us as we ask “to what are these executive actions intent on transforming?”

The President is also supporting assault on the judicial branch and its independence.  He has appointed a “commission” to study the possibility of reforming the courts beginning with packing the Supreme Court so as to make it nothing more than a political arm of his party.

President Biden’s refusal to address the ongoing and escalating censorship of opposing or unapproved ideas is another assault on one of our most cherished freedoms:  the freedom to speak and believe unpopular views.  Biden’s Department of Justice has even begun prosecuting people for memes used during the 2016 election. 

               Where is the Transparency and Accountability?

Biden, along with his press secretary, seems to be adept at avoiding answering any controversial questions.  Of course, such avoidance is easier when you have a friendly press that will not push for answers to difficult questions or even avoid those that have the potential of putting Biden in a bad light.

Biden has failed to speak about the continuing violent protests (riots) on the West Coast.  He has failed to speak out on the GameStop affair, including saying nothing about his Treasury Secretary being paid by a fund linked to the scandal.   The administration simply says they are “monitoring” the situation.

However, as part of this Administration’s “transparency initiative,” Press Secretary Psaki did inform us that the President’s favorite snack is ice cream, and his favorite flavor is chocolate chip.  Ahh, such important news they deign to share with us common people.

Military State

We have troops quartered in our nation’s capital.  Our symbols of freedom are surrounded with razor wire to keep the people out.  

Bringing the National Guard to DC for Jan. 6 and its immediate aftermath may have made sense, but now the Biden Administration has extended their presence there for months.  The excuse is the possibility of threats to Congress, but they point to no such viable threats.  Instead, this looks like the fortification that one used to see only in countries ruled by dictators paranoid about losing their power.

In a similar vein, again looking like those paranoid leaders of totalitarian regimes, President Biden fully backs not only the impeachment of the former President, but also purging any and all who are not fully on board with the Left agenda.  People like the head of Voice of America or the National Security Agency general counsel who had previously been vetted through a bipartisan process.

Not only is there a purge of former officials.  The “purge” goes forward toward any and all who might raise a dissident voice.  Former Democratic Presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard put it this way (in response to a statement by John Brennon):

Brennan says: “Members of the Biden team who have been nominated or appointed are now moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements they’ve seen overseas where they germinate in different parts of the country and gain strength and bring together an unholy alliance, frequently of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascist bigots, racist, nativist, and even libertarians.” This is the extent that they are going to try to undermine the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed to every one of us, and it is incredibly dangerous.

A good example of where this sort of purging leads is playing out in Russia right now with the imprisonment of opposition leader Navalny and his supporters.  Indeed, the attitude of this administration smells of the fear of opposition that one usually sees in a totalitarian leadership obsessed only with retaining its own power.

               The Policies Belie Unity and Healing

Unless you are blind, stupid, or ignorant, it has become fairly clear that Biden’s “unity” is nothing more than a move to force all to march in lock step to this administration and party’s approved beliefs.  That is not a democratic unity but a unity of oppression.

The Left’s preferred method of achieving this uniformity seems to be via identity politics.  Biden’s policies and executive actions thus far seem to signal that he will use his polices to maintain if not accelerate the identity wars against social enemies.  Why else, by fiat alone would Biden using executive orders essentially not only reverse policies on immigration and climate, but things like abortion, LGBT and Transgender issues, including creating athletic policies that are unfair and biased against women, reinstating the debunked and biased Critical Race Theory indoctrination while cancelling the 1776 project, and other hot button social issues.  

These are issues that require dialog, objective input, and understanding.  Instead, President Biden is stoking the fires of identity hatred in hopes of furthering a Leftist agenda.

Not a Moderate

Biden told us he was a moderate when he ran for President.  If that is so, that he underwent a major transformation once he took the oath of office.  His environmental actions, while doing nothing to actually help the environment, are costing tens of thousands of jobs and costing states millions in lost revenue.  His sudden embrace of increasing the minimum wage can and likely will be devastating to already struggling small businesses. 

 And, like the rest of the Leftists, Biden seems to loathe America and all she stands for.  Without discussion he accepts and promotes the view that America is built upon and still is plagued by “systemic racism.” He called the 1776 report “offensive” and “counter-factual”; apparently he disagrees with statements therein such as “The bedrock upon which the American political system is built is the rule of law. The vast difference between tyranny and the rule of law is a central theme of political thinkers back to classical antiquity.” 

President Biden stated that America has never lived up to her promise, yet, despite the fact that America has had and probably always will have its flaws, “America’s history has always been a relationship between those principles and a nation trying, aspiring to uphold those principles.”  The abolitionist movement began here.

As stated in the preamble to the Constitution, our mission is “to form a more perfect Union.”  Perfection may not be achievable in this world, but there is nothing wrong with continuing to aspire toward it.  And our Constitution and our core democratic principles are our roadmap for that quest.

We have always been the shining light of freedom and democracy.  Yet, if these first nine days are any indication, that is about to change because what we are seeing are the first steps in a march toward dictatorship.

Peace Requires a New Identity – are we courageous enough to go there?

We cannot have peace until we first dismantle the identity groups that are preventing it.

In the context of a different discussion, Jonathan Sacks writes, “When, though, enemies shake hands, who is now the ‘us’ and who the ‘them’?  Peace involves a profound crisis of identity.  The boundaries of self and other, friend and foe, must be redrawn.”  (Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference, 2002).

If one’s identity is to be the victim of another group, then if the causes of the victimhood are resolved, if one is no longer a victim they have then lost their identity.  The same, in reverse, is true for those holding the victimizer identity.   It logically follows that there must be a “crisis of identity” as the uncertainty of “who am I” unfolds. 

If victimhood via group definition is the only identity that one knows, then how will they reformulate a new identity?  Perhaps the idea that one who identified as the victim of real or perceived white supremacy will now assert their supremacy over that previously victimizing group is not as far fetched as those attacking Terry Crew’s comments would have us believe.  If one’s only identity is the label given them by their group, then how will they know any other sort of identity or behavior?

Here is a personal example.  About 10 years ago the institution at which I taught installed its first female dean.  My feminist colleagues who saw women as victims of male supremacy decided to have a gathering to which no men would be invited.  Rather than simply saying I couldn’t make it, I (perhaps foolishly) chose to stand up and say I believed the whole idea was wrong, that I did not want to do what we women for years had complained about men doing – excluding those of the opposite sex.  The gathering went forward, and from that point on I became somewhat of an outcast by those colleagues:  I did not have the right mindset for redefining the feminist group identity.  I was demanding individual identity and accountability rather than simply assumption of a new group mantle.

The point is that when the end of an identity group conflict makes us ask "who am I?",  we must be brave enough to find our unique and individual identities rather than just redefine our groups and their labels without addressing the hopes, hate, and fears that belong to each group.  If we do not, then the hate and fear is just perpetuated, though redistributed, and the discord continues.

Peace.  If we really want it we must have the courage to break the cycle of identity groups.  The mere existence of one group implies the existence of another - and thus the existence of an "us" and a "them."  

We must have the courage to stand up and say that the only group with which we each will fully identify is the one called humanity.  Beyond that we must be brave enough to say we do not need a group to give us an identity, that we will work against the existence of sub-groups that take away both our humanity and our individuality.  

We must be brave enough to say that we each must and will be defined by our unique individuality.  That individuality is a multifaceted thing that includes aspects of many groups, but in the end is defined by none.

As long as we let groups define and label us we will always have an “us” and a “them.”  When we resolve an issue between identity groups, we must not simply draw new group identity lines.  Rather, we must face the identity crisis that the dismantling of group identities will cause.  We must each be brave enough to accept ourselves and others as the individuals that we and they are.   Only then can we move forward as one united mass of humanity.