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.

Identity Politics and Victimhood vs. Liberation and Sovereignty

Black Lives Matter leader and Greater NY BLM Chapter President Hawk Newsome stated, “if this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.” (Video Interview on The Story, June 24, 2020).  And what is it that Mr. Newsome and his BLM want?  At the end of the interview he stated, “I just want Black liberation and Black sovereignty, by any means necessary.”

Let’s think about that.  Liberation is the act of setting someone free.  I think that was celebrated just a few days ago on Juneteenth, the celebration also known as Freedom Day, Jubilee Day, Liberation Day, and Emancipation Day.  Juneteenth celebrates and commemorates African American freedom.

So, to what liberation does he refer?  Perhaps he has liberation confused with some idyllic Utopia where everyone has everything they want, perhaps even without having to work for it, where no one is biased, where everyone has everything that everyone else has, where no one ever has to compete for and sometimes not get the job, or house, or friends, or family, or whatever else that he wants.  Perhaps he refers to that Utopia that we all know can never really exist.

We will come back to these thoughts in a moment, but first let’s look at the definition of his other key word:  sovereignty.  Usually used in referring to a state, country, or similar entity, the word sovereignty means supreme power or authority; the right to be self-governing.  No, the identity group Black is not a self-governing state and if he seeks it to become so then that idea is quite radical and will indeed require burning down our system as well as our country. 

But, perhaps by sovereignty he intends to mean the right of Black individuals to be responsible for themselves, to make their own decisions and chart their own individual courses in life.   That of course requires choices and decisions and in the real world everyone makes some very good decisions but also some very bad ones.  In either case, when an individual governs oneself that individual must be prepared to take the consequences, both good and bad, of those decisions.

And, if that is the sovereignty to which Newsome refers, then Black individuals received that sovereignty along with their emancipation.  If that is BLM’s demand, then BLM already has what it wants.  So, let’s explore why they feel so oppressed that they must protest and riot for “liberation and sovereignty.”

The key here is identity politics.  It does its best to deny Black individuals the freedom to be individuals.  That is its point and how it serves as a tool for those who seek power via division and, in classic socialist tradition, pitting one group against another.  As the Left has fueled the flames of identity politics for the last many years, Blacks have been pushed and cajoled to see themselves not as individuals but as members of a victim group. 

With Blacks as the oppressed, and Whites or the System as the oppressor, the oppressed Blacks are urged to blame the oppressing Whites for everything within their lives that is less than the Utopia of perfection that we all dream of.  Anything less than perfection is not the fault of the oppressed, but of their oppressors.  The Utopian dream would be possible if the oppressed were liberated from their oppressors.  This is the fairy tale of identity politics.

“Systemic Racism” is nothing more than a false narrative that is used to solidify victimhood of all who are deemed members of that identity group known as Black.  It is a byproduct of identity politics – a means of dividing us to further a progressive quest for power.  To proclaim that some sort of systemic racism is the force that keeps Blacks from being liberated and sovereign is simply another way of claiming, underscoring, and maintaining victim status for an identity group.  

Identity politics, not plantation owners, is what now keeps Blacks enslaved.  Group victimhood diminishes self-worth and destroys individuality; with that comes a lack of motivation and a dependence on those who have convinced these “victims” that they cannot live without the assistance of their victim-makers. 

If liberation is necessary, it is not from the “system”, not from “institutionalized racism” but from politicians who push a victim narrative promising to save those victims, while at the same time turn those “victims” into an underclass of dependent voters who will keep their victim-makers in power. 

Yet no one forces Blacks to be identified by a group narrative.  They, like any other individual in this country, have the freedom to create their own narrative, one in which they are free to see themselves not as victims but as individuals who can take responsibility for their own lives and in so doing enjoy the fruits thereof.  They can do this without envy of or hate for or dependence on some other group.  But this requires accepting the fact that the life they create will in all likelihood not be perfect – there is no Utopia.

Truly accepting one’s own liberation and personal sovereignty requires no small amount of courage.  It is easy to sit back, take no risks, and let others create things that you would like, whether that is a physical creation or the fruits of one’s labor, or a state of mind.  It is easy to accept the narrative that you can do no more than be dependent on others for your well-being.  And, when your life is not what you would choose, it is easy to be prompted into a mindset of victimhood. To break free of that mindset takes courage and independence.

This is not to imply that no people have biases or do not act in a way that is or can be perceived as racist.  That, however, does not prove systemic or institutional bias.  There are hundreds if not thousands of anecdotes about a Black person being somehow slighted or treated badly.  Sometimes that is due to racism, sometimes it is not.  There are just as many anecdotes of non-Black and indeed White people being slighted or treated badly.  Sometimes that is because of their color, sometimes it is not.  Some people will choose to see these as the individual occurrences they are; others will choose to see everything through the glasses of racism.

George Floyd’s murder was horrendous.  But what proof do we have that it was racially motivated, that it occurred because he was Black?  How do we know that his accused murderer was not just a cop who was drunk on his own power?  He had, with police union help, been allowed at least 17 prior times to abuse his power; those abuses were not labeled racist.  Perhaps this was just a bad man who felt like killing that day; do we have any proof that the blackness of Floyd’s skin was the reason?  And if we do, how does this horrible murder in any way prove the existence of systemic racism?

Far more realistic than systemic racism is the existence of identity politics and its use by the Left to turn Blacks and others into a dependent sub-class.  Repeated assertions that some specter known as “systemic racism” is to blame are useful to solidify the identity group and hence keep them as a class dependent on those who proclaim with both words and actions that only with their help can the group break free of its dependent status.  Yet, such promises and their accompanying handouts do nothing more than to keep that class dependent. 

It is this political and progressive if not socialist game that threatens the liberty and sovereignty of every individual who accepts as their own the uni-dimensional identity of a group.   The “victims” are nothing more than pawns in that power game.  Their only use to the victim-makers is the color of their skin; their human individuality has no merit and is of little concern to those who are using them as pawns

The system has already worked to grant to those who choose to take it the freedom and the sovereignty Mr. Newsome and BLM demand.  It is identity politics and its accompanying demeaning of the individual that are the threat.  This key tool of the socialist warrior is being wielded well by the Progressive Left who would indeed tear down the system – the very system that has already given BLM what they seek.

So, I would encourage Mr. Newsome and BLM to reevaluate things.  If liberation and sovereignty are what you want, then I suggest that you already have it.  Victimhood and its oppression are just one of many choices available to you.  Do not take the coward’s way forward, blaming others for the imperfections in your lives and life in general.  Within you is what you need -  the courage that it takes to stand up and be responsible for your own lives, to throw off the dependent victimhood identity and choose instead your own individual, multi-dimensional,  and independent narrative.

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.

“I will not become a racist to prove that I am not one” and other short thoughts on current events

Yesterday I read the story of a police officer comforting a Black 5-year-old who asked if he were going to shoot her.  This anecdote was being used to demonstrate the horror of “institutionalized racism.”  I was horrified – horrified that this child had learned this fear at such a young age.  And who, I ask, likely instilled that fear in her – her parents or other caregivers?

So, I must wonder, can all the blame for hatred go to those whom the victims claim hate them, or might some of it fall on the victims themselves?  For if a child at the tender age of 5 has been taught that police are likely to shoot her, what else has she been taught about those who are not members of her racial victim class?  How much of that is actually true or justifies a fear against a whole group?  With that fear the seeds of hate are also planted. 

And, how can we ever come together and be one nation if one group of us (whether that group is Black, White, or other) is teaching fear and hate rather than love and reconciliation against another group.  No wonder BLM and its partner M4BL (Movement for Black Lives) make demands on those whom they perceive as victimizers rather that reaching out to work with those others together to make a better world.

**

People say they want conversations, but it seems that what that really involves is dueling studies.  That is, each side will have their studies and statistics that “prove” their points and with those in hand seem to close their mind to any real dialog about those studies or diverse views supported by alternate studies. 

One can always find a study or data point to support their position.  Using them as a sort of “in your face” to those with opposing or differing views does nothing to resolve divisions.  What actually might resolve hatred and division is urging others and opening one’s own mind to understand that we are all part of one humanity that can work together to make a better world.  But we will never do that if we focus on our divisions and feel some need to prove that our position is always absolutely right and all others are absolutely wrong.

**

There is a difference between peaceful, lawful protests intended to make a point relevant to policy and urge changes in policies that the demonstrators are against, as opposed to riots, or revolts, or revolutions that simply focus on destruction.  Those who say that all are the same are actually siding with those who favor complete destruction.  

Those who would take away all police power, all lawful authority are in the process of destroying our democracy.  We do not have a first amendment right to riot and destroy other people or their property; it is the duty of our law enforcement and our leaders to protect the citizenry from unlawful acts.  

If we cease to have a safe democratic state that can only lead to having instead a safe authoritarian state.  Such a state would not even allow the peaceful protests that are not only a part of but a necessary piece of our democracy.

**

Let’s say that we: clear the nation of all confederate statues; put a large chunk of money for “reparations” in every Black person’s pocket; make it illegal to use any terms, phrases, or express any feelings or beliefs that the Black protests/demands deem to be racist; defund and dismantle law enforcement; send millions of dollars to Black communities.  Will the rioters be happy then or will they continue to: teach their children to hate, especially those who look different or think differently than do they; blame anything that is not perfect in their lives on a problem with the “system”? 

Racism will only really be resolved when each and every one of us is willing and able to take individual responsibility for our lives and when we hold individuals rather than identity groups accountable for their bad acts.  Only when we are all equally outraged at the unjust treatment or murder of any person of any color will we actually have moved forward. 

**

Identity politics is in large part responsible for bringing us to this point.  For the past 50 years mostly Democrat leaders of areas with large Black populations (especially large cities) have, despite their promises, done little to help raise Black people to a better existence, but have instead used identity politics to convince the Black population of their victim status.  This was useful for those politicians who could then claim that this underclass needed them and hence would demand their votes to keep them in power. 

Their power required this underclass and, in the name of helping our neighbors, they encouraged all of us to help to create it.  We reinforced mantras such as “you are not good enough on your own”; “you can only go so far”; the Whites/rich/republican/[fill in the blank] are out to get you and you must fear them”; and of course “you need the state, things like welfare, to survive because you cannot do it on your own.” 

Messages such as that are far more racist than demanding that Blacks simply be accountable.  Those who listen to those messages will always be victims full of hate at their perceived oppressors and ready to serve as tools for anyone who wants to “revolt” against the “system” usually for their own power, not to help those whom they see as their tools.

**

Gratitude is a key to joy.  Being filled with envy and hate destroys joy.  It also destroys one’s self.  It destroys one’s ability for self-motivation – why be motivated if others are all against you and likely will not let you succeed?  Instead of being the one in charge of one’s own life, falling victim to identity politics allows others to control your life and indeed your very identity. 

**

I am being urged to buy from Black retailers and Black business owners in order to show my solidarity with the “fight against racism.”  Well, to seek out or award someone simply because of their color seems pretty racist to me.  I tend to think the best individual should always win based on skills necessary to the contest, not simply because of a color of skin.  When I want to buy something, I will purchase from the retailer that best suits my needs be that price, quality or variety of products offered, convenience and quality of service, etc.  That retailer may be Black, White, or purple.  I will not become a racist to prove that I am not one.

Thoughts on he First Democrat "Debate"

After getting over the jokes and laughs at the ridiculous show that was the first Democrat debate, I realized I was actually horrified that one of these people could really become the head of our great country. 

The first question is:   How could that happen?  The answer is “sadly, too easily.”   We have a very ill informed electorate, partly because many people themselves make little effort to be informed, partly because our education system has failed to teach many about our system of government and the need of the electorate to be informed, and partly because the media no longer takes seriously its job to inform the electorate and rather chooses to be a propaganda arm for its chosen political views.   

In any event, as Thomas Jefferson told us:  A well-informed citizenry is the cornerstone and at the heart of a democracy and is the best defense against tyranny.   Based on this, our democracy is currently in grave danger!

The next question is: if anyone of these candidates were elected, what sort of a leader would they be?  From the “debate” we saw that each candidate went out of his or her way to claim their victim points:  African American, Hispanic, woman, veteran, poor upbringing, (even upbringing by conservative parents as a negative!), etc., etc.   We learned that they like to place people into identity groups and pander to groups that they believe will respond to that pandering with votes.  

We also learned that they are unable to acknowledge that for the first time in many years our economy is good and growing, unemployment, especially for minorities, is at all time lows; instead, they insist on telling us that the economy is bad. (They need it to be bad so they will have victims to which to pander and make promises) Similarly, they find fault with most everything that is currently going well for our country and at the same time choose to blame the President and Republicans for anything that is not perfect.

These two things alone show us that these candidates are not interested in uniting the country.  They will continue to tear us apart with identity politics and victimhood.  In furtherance of maintaining such underclasses dependent upon them and their power they will reverse anything positive for the people of this country that gets in the way.  And, they will continue to create hatred between identity groups.

Indeed, they are not interested in maintaining an identifiable country as evidenced by their stands for open borders.  They would rather play some blame game about the illegal immigration crisis, using that blame to gain points for their power, rather than deal with actual facts.  Thus, a man who chose to take his daughter across the Rio Grande in order to enter this country illegally, and who with his daughter perished, is not responsible; rather, it is the fault of the President and republicans (none of whom told him to cross a dangerous river to enter the country illegally).   Individual responsibility is not relevant when you can use an individual act to stir up hatred for a group you dislike.

There is, in these Democrats' view, no personal responsibility for that father’s decision – why should he wait for a slower legal process when he can put his daughter in danger and they can use the horrid result to cast blame for a crisis that they themselves are at least in part responsible for creating?  Not, in my opinion, the sort of approach I want to see in the leader of my country.

These candidates are also not interested in the assimilation of immigrants into our society as evidenced in part by their choice of using a language that is not the language of this country.  Pandering!  And, I’m wondering how immigrants from countries other than those speaking the foreign language answers prepared by the candidates felt about their exclusion.  I feel insulted that as a voting citizen these candidates chose to speak Spanish, to pander to some other audience just to score points.  

We learned that the law does not really matter to these candidates, or only matters when it furthers their agenda.  History is in many cases a mystery to them, as are a complete understanding of relevant facts on an issue.

During its founding, America came together under the slogan “united we stand, divided we fall.”  Yet, the main modus operandi of these Democrats seems to be to divide us in order to obtain and retain their own power.  Their currency is hate.  And, the frightening thing is that there are those who accept their ploys and pandering and even take them seriously. 

So, humorous as the “Democrats Have (no) Talent” show was last night, it should be a wake up call to everyone in this country about the direction we are headed if we continue to tolerate the beliefs and antics of these people.  Unless the electorate realizes the importance of  being informed, and then truly and fully inform themselves, it is not outside the realm of possibility for anyone to be elected, no matter how threatening they are to our country and its core principles

From Accomplishment to Victimhood

In this country we used to value accomplishment.  People strove to do their very best.  Students wanted to excel and be at the top of their class.  People would compete to get the first place (not the participation) trophy. 

Valuing accomplishment means valuing the successful achievement of a task.  It has meant that Individuals were rewarded for doing their best and for doing better than their peers:  they received a promotion or a raise, they were admitted to the top schools, they were recognized as excelling due to ability, talent, skill, or aptitude in a particular area.  Generally, receiving recognition for excellence required individual effort and hard work in order to attain the level necessary for such recognition.

We celebrated accomplishment and as a result this country excelled.  That is, when individuals are striving to do their best they will not only fulfill themselves but will continually improve the areas in which they are working.  As such, their society and their country will also excel and continually improve.

Of course, celebrating and awarding individual accomplishment means that some sort of ranking of individuals will result; not everyone can be number one.  At some point this started to become a problem.  People’s feelings became more important than the accomplishments of others. 

At some point we moved from celebrating accomplishment to being ashamed of and condemning it.  Those who didn’t win the top prize felt bad and, instead of saying “try harder next time” we consoled their hurt feelings with things like participation awards.  We advised winners not to be too proud.  We started removing children’s games that had winners.  We shamed those who tried too hard, who wanted to rise above the mediocre to be the best that they could be.  We made excuses for failure.  And, instead of striving to be the best we began striving for mediocrity.

And, then, we created victims; we began celebrating victimhood.

Below are three charts that show the usage of the words “accomplishment”, “victim”, and “victimhood” between 1800 and 2010.  You will note that “accomplishment” has steadily declined while “victim” began a steady rise in the 1960s and “victimhood” from almost nothing made a steep jump to the highest usage of the three beginning in the early 2000s.

Now, instead of accomplishment we celebrate victimhood.  Perhaps this change started with the over-focus on the belief that by recognizing those who perform better than others we were somehow destroying self-esteem; that is, everyone was supposed to feel good all the time.  

When someone else won and was recognized for it, that became unacceptable because someone else must be feeling bad.  We had a culture of feelings and those feelings were supposed to always be good.  Yet, what this did was also do away with the true self-esteem that comes with accomplishment.

Suddenly, it was the victims who received the attention.  People began to proclaim themselves as victims in order to obtain a variety of benefits attached to victimhood.  

Clever lawyers created defendant-victims; students began to claim one or another hardship as the reason for their lack of academic success.  

While college admissions used to look almost exclusively at academic performance, the entrance personal essay began to take center stage.  The understanding now seems to be that the applicant needs to find some sort of victimhood about which he or she can write.  Even the once objective SAT now has added a very subjective “adversity score.”

Such search for victimhood became fertile ground for those who wanted to create identity groups, groups for which, in the mold of Alinsky, one could find or create a common enemy against a community. 

Saul Alinsky, in 1971, published the book Rules for Radicals about how to successfully run a movement for change.  His book set forth how to unite less fortunate communities for social and political power.  At its core it is a way to divide people into groups of enemies with those that are less fortunate on the attack against those sitting in a better position or a position in which the less fortunate would like to be.

Politicians learned to create a victim class – an identifiable group – whose circumstances they would promise to help and improve if only they were elected.  Once in power, more often than not, they maintain this group as some form of dependent class - dependent on the politician’s retention of power and therefore instrumental in keeping that politician in office.  The politician, determined to retain power, keeps reminding this dependent identity group that it is composed of victims who are in need of the politician; that is, their victimhood becomes of prime importance while any possibility of individual achievement is forgotten.

Since the 1970s, and with the help of identity politics, we have seen groups use their victim hood to claim their entitlement to many things that in the past may have been available to only those who demonstrated superior accomplishment in a particular area.  There is far less incentive for individual achievement and that results in a lack of motivation to do one’s best. 

Now, rather than looking for ways to achieve and succeed we look for ways to be a victim and hence be entitled to something for which we have not really put in a personal effort.  

Victimhood and its celebration creates a major shift in how our society functions.  Indeed, it creates a very different country than when individual accomplishment was celebrated.  

America as we know it cannot survive if we have only victims.

Victimhood, Group-think, and Identity Politics: “MeToo” for Everyone

I have been thinking a lot about victimhood lately.  I have come to believe that we in large part encourage and have indeed become a society of victims.  This victim mentality seems to have merged with identity politics and together they seem to be pushing us to a place of superficial group-think that is a danger to our democracy.  Let me explain:

A victim is someone who is harmed or injured as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.  We have all been victims of something at some time in our lives.  There are many ways that one can deal with victimhood.  One can ignore the harm or injury completely – hard to do if it is much more than a stubbed toe.  One can seek an appropriate remedy for the injury – legal recourse, medical treatment, perhaps just an apology – and then move forward.  Or, one can bemoan one’s hard luck for a day, a week, or perhaps even a lifetime.   It is when one chooses to assume that permanent label of victim that they begin to demand attention beyond that which the actual injury merits. 

There are individuals who relish their victimhood; perhaps they emphasize or even exacerbate it simply as a way to get attention and special treatment (we will leave it for the psychiatrists to determine what was lacking in their childhood or their psyche that gave them this need for attention).  I suspect that these individuals are not very happy; I know that they can disrupt as well as make demands on the happiness of those with whom they interact.   But, what happens when we have a whole group, if not a whole society, filled with victims?

Identity politics seems to have co-opted the victim mentality.  Every group has its grievance and that grievance, they believe, gives them a permanent victim status with rights of special treatment for past wrongs. This does not mean that the original harm or injury was not real or that an identifiable group did not suffer some particular harm.  But, what groups seem to do is to choose not to seek redress and then move forward, but instead to assume the permanent label of victim seeking continuing and ever-more redress.   All those within any particular group are required to buy into the victim hood of the group or be cast out from that group identity.  Thus, we have blacks or gays or women who choose not to proclaim permanent victimhood being condemned by their respective black or LGBT or feminist groups. 

This group-think is important to the politics of identity, as is the inherent victimhood.  If one wants to use a particular class of people to one’s own advantage, one way to do so is to make those people unite in dependence on you and in opposition to some enemy.  This is a classic technique of community organization:  rile a particular community up against a caricatured evil enemy, make the community a victim of the oppressor.  Identity politics labels people according to group.  One must think and behave exactly as all members of one’s identified group.  Thus, group-think becomes required within the groups one supports and is assumed of all members of groups which one opposes. And, if a particular leader is seen as the advocate or savior of the aggrieved group, that group’s dependence on that leader will sustain the leader’s power.

Group-think is certainly an easier way to approach interactions with others than getting to know individuals.  It is also far more superficial and in the end very dangerous.  Victimhood combined with group identity and its incumbent group-think completely destroys dialog between individuals; it does not allow for differing viewpoints.  When one disagrees with a victim, they are often accused of challenging or attacking the victim.  This becomes a way for a victim to assert his or her position and/or demands without any push-back.  Because the victim is a victim their every need should be acknowledged, believed, and attended to.  Facts become irrelevant as the victim’s feelings become all important.

Here is an example from current events.  A woman claims she was a victim of sexual assault by current Senate candidate Moore when she was 14, nearly 40 years ago.  When Kellyanne Conway suggested in an interview by Martha Raddatz that we should wait for and look at the evidence, she was accused of calling the woman a liar and the conversation effectively ended.  Yet, one should be able to question allegations and seek further evidence without that being an attack of the person claiming victimhood.  This is especially true when the event alleged is 40 years old.  It is common science today that our memories are memories of memories.  One can fully believe that their recollection is accurate and as such it is true for them, but facts could prove otherwise.  That is, our memories can and do alter historical reality.  We are in a very dangerous place if the mere claim of victimhood means that anything one says or does must be accepted as true and tolerated without challenge or even discussion. (And this is so for either side in a he said-she said situation).

Permanent victims claim an inability to handle not only the past harm, but any and all future harms.  They become overly sensitive to any real or perceived words or actions that might harm them or that they find in some way offensive.  Because there is no opportunity for dialog about this, because we instead are asked to cave into every demand of the victim, we instead provide safe-spaces, trigger warnings, and try to avoid even the least micro-aggression.  We all walk on egg-shells trying to protect the victim from future harm or upset of any kind.   This does nothing but encourage more victimhood.

In our group-thinking identity groups every member of the group is encouraged to proclaim their own victimhood.  They are on the look-out for the slightest affront to which they can proclaim “me too.”  Thus we have women finding solidarity with their sisters who were raped by claiming “me too” for a cat call heard when walking down a crowded street, or a person of color claiming “me too” when they were looked at a little too long by a store clerk, thinking this gives them solidarity with a black man unjustifiably beaten because he was black.  This group-think victimhood has become a way of belonging, of joining the in-crowd instead of being left on the sidelines. 

And what this group victimhood does is perpetuate the group’s status as victim, creating anger, fear, and hatred against those outside the group who are the perceived victimizers.  Must all women hate all men because some women have been victims of sexual harassment or assault by some men?  Must all people of color hate all whites because some people of color have been victimized by some whites?  Must all Muslims be feared and hated because some Muslims have committed atrocities?  The list goes on.  But identity politics tends to force an affirmative answer to these questions. 

Those groups and those answers are useful to those seeking power through politics.  And that is why this culture of victimhood combined with identity politics is so dangerous.  Our democracy is based on education, dialog, and compromise.  All of these require free speech and none of these are possible when speech is foreclosed because someone might be upset by it.   In addition to ending the dialog necessary for democracy, victimhood can lead to a frightening police-like state that allows punishment based only on a victim’s claim, effectively destroying our justice system.  Again, Martha Raddatz in her interview with Kellyanne Conway urged an articulated standard of guilt it the court of public opinion.  Apparently, from Raddatz and other political and media urging in regard to the allegations against Moore, the claim of a victim alone should be enough for a verdict of guilty. Imagine how this can only encourage false claims of all sorts in order to remove individuals from positions of power (this is not meant to imply that the claims against Moore are necessarily false).

Group-think victimhood and its silencing of dialog and free speech also results in a superficiality that perpetuates rather than solves problems.  Take gun-control for example.  Every time there is a mass shooting the claim is for gun control, as if simply taking away the guns will solve the illness within our society that is the ultimate cause of the ever-increasing numbers of killings within our country.  We have become a society of victims and with that victimhood comes an alarming increase in hatred of those outside our victim-group, those seen as our group’s victimizers.  Taking away guns won’t fix this, though those who perceive themselves as possible victims may nonetheless believe they have the safe space they seek.

So what do we do?  First, let us stop encouraging victimhood.  Think of the child learning to walk who falls and scrapes his knee.  His mother can pick him up, brush him off, add a bandage if necessary, give him a hug, and then encourage him to get up and move on.  Or, she can fall all over his victimhood, teach him to never run again lest he be hurt again, and essentially send him the message that he is sadly unable to run like other children and needs a safe space along with all the benefits that those who are able to run, who are not victims, have.  Of course, that might be easier than getting back up and learning to run, but which would you choose for your child? 

In our society there are many individuals who have suffered a variety of wrongs.  In some instances, these individuals can be identified as belonging to a group – for example, Blacks descended from slaves who did suffer the injustice of slavery or women who have been denied equal pay.  There were unquestionably injustices and victims involved.  But permanent victimhood is not the way to respond.  And encouraging victimhood as a way of belonging to a group is also not the way to respond.  Looking for a safe and protected space where one will never be hurt again is also not useful (and probably impossible).  Better is to help victims to deal with their victimization appropriately and in a timely manner, resolving the situation, and then moving forward.  In the case of individual harm, this might mean a lawsuit, a complaint of some sort, medical attention, etc.  In the case of an injustice directed at a particular group, for example refusal to pay women equally, the remedy may involve both individual and class lawsuits, lobbying for laws or regulations, etc.  But in all cases the point is to promptly deal with the harm and then move forward, not wallow in one’s victimhood.

If society consists of perpetual victims always looking for their next injury, no matter how slight, then we will be stuck in a world where all dialog is silenced for fear of affront, where everyone demands their own safe space, where feelings, especially feelings of hurt are the driving and ruling forces, countered by fear and hatred between groups.  The individual will become lost in the group-victimization-think, as will our intellect, reason, and judgement.  Easier as it may be to fall and cry for others to pick you up while crying “woe is me,” it is more rewarding to pick yourself up and move forward.   Politicians seeking power would rather keep others as victims so that they will be dependent upon the politician’s power to carry them.   We need to see the danger of all this and stand up, each and every one of us, and refuse to support a society of victimization and divisive group-think.  Instead of crying “woe is me” we need to scream “we can be” – we can be ourselves, we can be problem solvers, we can work together with those unlike us, we can listen, we can think, we can be!   In the democracy that is America, the democracy that gives us our individual freedom, the “me too” victimization and group-think of identity politics is not for everyone; indeed, it should not be for anyone.

Not Me Too

I have been wondering what has been bothering me about the #MeToo campaign.  Certainly it is not the fact that it is bringing to light the number of people who have been or believe they have been the subject of some form of harassment.  Certainly it does not bother me that this may bring about some form of dialog about how we do and how we should respect one another as individuals.  So, what is it then that troubles me?

The problem with the #MeToo trend is first, that it is just that:  a popular trend (more about that below).  The second and more troubling aspect is that this trend seems to create and then celebrate victimhood.  Yes, the (mostly) women who are posting or tweeting or just shouting “me too” suffered some form of harassment or assault and so are indeed a victim.   But, if we think that just saying “me too” is enough, then aren’t we actually saying that it’s just fine to be a victim?  And, the fact that this seems to be a socially popular trend is making it not only OK, but indeed popular to be a victim. 

Harassment and assault are serious.  The focus should be on the crime and the violation as well as the demeaning disrespect that such acts reflect.   And, if we are going to identify individuals, shouldn’t the focus be on the who that perpetrated the act rather than on the me who became the victim?

I realize that there are a variety of reasons why an individual who suffers some form of harassment choses to or to not come forward.  These are very personal incidents and the decisions that each victim makes about their aftermath and how to handle it is also very personal.  I do not condemn those who choose to keep it hidden, nor do I condemn those who choose to make the incident public or to bring charges against the perpetrator.

But what I do find troubling is that so many have suddenly jumped onto the “me too” bandwagon, that regardless of when their “me too” incident occurred they have suddenly chosen to proclaim that they are victims.  But victims of what?  The “me too” is the proclamation of the rape victim, but also of someone who has been whistled at while walking down the street.  Are these really the same? Do we want them to be?  Because what we seem to be doing is simply creating a giant class of victims, of people who are proud to proclaim their victimhood and be done.  Are we really going to have any sort of meaningful dialog about this when the point seems to only be to say what huge number of people can post “me too”?   And those who post the phrase are now part of the fashionable group upon which others will focus attention and sympathy until the next exciting news story comes along (perhaps this is their 15 minutes of fame).

None of this solves the underlying problem that creates the ability of so many to post “me too.”  That, alone, is not good.  But what is dangerous is that it glorifies victimhood.   Moreover, it just seems to be another short act in the series of superficial acts and outrages that almost pass as entertainment today.  And this seems to cheapen and further demean the very real claims and hurt of those who can claim “me too.”   Social media or the news media or some other similar force starts a trend and all the trendy people jump on board. (I am not saying that everyone who in this instance posted “me too” was doing so just to be trendy; I realize that for some even that proclamation was deeply troubling as it recalled seriously hurtful incidents).  The trends don’t last long, boredom or over-indulgence sets in, and so the masses move on to the next subject of hysteria.

What we need instead, and certainly in regard to the underlying culture that allowed so many to have a “me too” event in their life, is a real consideration and discussion of the issue.  In this case, why do so many men seem to feel that it is OK to treat women in a demeaning and disrespectful manner?  Are some women overly sensitive to or resentful of what others might see as normal flirtations?  Do men also suffer similar forms of disrespect, in the workplace or elsewhere? Are behaviors sometimes misinterpreted?  Is the victim always blameless, and, if not, should that matter?  Do people sometimes use their victimhood as an excuse?  These are all uncomfortable questions, but ones that should be part of any discussion.  But, beyond these questions which focus on the currently newsworthy harassing behavior towards women are the even deeper questions that should be part of any conversation.  Questions such as: why do people not respect one another’s humanity?  What causes some people to believe they have a right to demean others, or to believe that they are in some way superior with an accompanying right to take advantage of those they see as inferior?  Why do some who are demeaned feel that they must keep it hidden; why do they fear coming forward with their complaint?

The underlying causes of the “me too” posts are complicated and cannot be solved in a day or a week or even a year.  But what we could do, rather than just making it trendy to claim victimhood and move on, is to open the discussion, teach those who are victims that they have both rights and power beyond victimhood and help them to overcome that victimhood.    I  wish for a day when no one would have cause to post “me too”; but, until that day comes I would like to see people encouraged not to claim victimhood but instead be empowered and encouraged to find both the inner and outer strength and courage to proclaim “I have overcome.”