stella41b
Posts: 4258
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: SW London (UK)
Status: offline
|
When did capitalism truly become sacred and why have so many of us chosen to simply apportion the blame to the victim? Is it really borne out of anxiety and uncertainty over the future? Is it perhaps that we know that we are also vulnerable? Recent discussions on being poor and on the situation in Iowa made me think about this, and made me stop and wonder. What is the ideology, and is there a hidden agenda somewhere?
It's one of the characteristics of blaming the victim that the capitalist systems we live in are always without blame, beyond question, but rather the blame for certain suffering and social problems is instead shifted to become a problem inherently characteristic of the victim. It is this middle class status quo attitude which appears to lie at the very core of victim blaming, and which has now passed over into both sides of the political spectrum. Both sides want to preserve the status quo, since they themselves benefit greatly from the way things are, but at the same time they are disturbed by the suffering and poverty along the margins of society. What neither side wants is any sort of fundamental change which might result in a reduction of privilege for themselves, and at the same time they do not want poverty and injustice in the world, and perhaps subconsciously, or perhaps because they themselves fear this injustice and poverty, they begin to gravitate towards 'solutions' which involve blaming the victim. Such solutions are not always transparently obvious as 'victim blaming' and can even superficially appear to be 'progressive'. This is not surprising since it is important to the middle class mindset to incorporate a self image as one who is not an oppressor. Yet all the while civil liberties are eroded through democracy and a totalitarian regime is born.
A classic example of victim blaming ideology which preserves the status quo while purporting to solve some social problem is Third World poverty, particularly the sterilization campaigns which were such a big deal in the middle of the last century. These arguments surfaced again in the 1980's when AIDS was discovered spreading through Africa and again we can hear it coming round again. Now the problem with hunger is a problem with economic inequality. Research from FoodFirst.org indicates that there is actually enough food produced on this earth to give every human being 3,500 calories a day which is enough to make evreybody fat. Only paupers starve to death in famines, and people do not die in famines because food is not available, but rather because they are the poorest of the poor.
Now this argument for sterilization rests on the premise that the large number of poor people in poor countries around the world are 'destroying the environment' and 'depleting resources'. It is true that when driven to desperation people can be rather harsh on the environment. However when people put pressure on the environment they do it because they are impoverished and poor and a real solution would be to address that poverty. This would involve a more equitable sharing of the world's available resources, and since this could be seen to threaten the privileges of the middle classes, they don't go there. The same can be true in our own cities. In a short space of time we could solve homelessness and we could find solutions to unemployment, simply through giving someone access to shelter and to some sort of occupation, but again people won't go their because they are thinking of how much it is going to cost them. This is why we have this 'pseudo-solution' which involves blaming the victim, and calling for sterlization to reduce the numbers of the poor and also to reduce stress on the environment. However the poor cannot afford food, let alone birth control, so therefore some people take it upon themselves to undertake this charitable duty to provide the poor with access to birth control, since this is the most simple and cost effective solution.
But when you actually look at the facts and turn the argument around, you can probably take Americans and sterilize all of them and this would have a far greater effect on both the environment and resources of this planet. They use up on average one third of the world's resources, and here we're just talking 5 per cent of the world's population. It is amazing the way that perpetual consumption works in a classic capitalist society such as America. America releases the lion's share of CO2. When you look at statistics you will find such amazing things as the fact that America consumes a third of the world's copper and other such astonishing statistics. The typical American puts as much stress on the environment and consumes as much of the environment as about 100 of the poorest people on earth. Therefore if birth control is necessary to eradicate hunger and poverty, protect the environment and preserve the world's resources, and this argument really holds water, why not start with Americans?
Blaming the victim isn't just restricted to the political parties, it also affects charities and aid agencies who are supposed to be helping ... the poor. This blaming the victim is always - ALWAYS - found to be in direct correlation with a pro-status quo attitude which deflects blame away from the system and therefore blames the victim. Let's take Columbia for example. Three quarters of the arable land is held by a small oligarchy, a few families, who also control an equally large proportion of the wealth in that country. There is a small middle class, and then millions of impoverished people who live in squalor and malnourishment. The poor are poor because they are poor, not because they exist, and not because there is something inherently wrong with them. The poor of Columbia are poor because of the inequality that exists in Columbia, and therefore you can only help the poor by levelling the playing field which means challenging the status quo. Currently, the official policy is to finance military repression (under the code name 'the war on drugs' which is a way to arm the militias). Columbia is currently the most dangerous country on earth in which to be a trade union or human rights activist. Such people are gunned down on a daily basis and a bloody revolution has been in the offing for decades with death squads roaming the countryside, keeping the poor both poor and terrified.
Now let us examine some of the blame the victim ideology that is often peddled by the aid agencies. We are told that for less than a cup of coffee a day we can help little Susan. She is a deserving child since she works hard carrying water and doing chores for her mother. We can't help all the Susans of the world but we can help one hardworking and deserving poor child. Your dollar a day will see to it that Susan gets a nutritious snack, clean water to drink, and a chance to go to school, and the promise of a brighter future for Susan. Sometimes we might be told that if we give Susan a fish, it will feed her for a day, but if we teach Susan to catch fish, she will feed herself for the rest of her life.
Now we won't be told that the poor in countries around the world are so poor because of the gross inequality and oppressive violence that exists in poor countries around the world. Most of the little Susans shown on television around the world are black or brown-skinned, and it is often the case that the richer elite are lighter skinned people, descendants of those who exploited the poor during the colonial age and are now enjoying a permanently entrenched and privileged position at the top of the wealthy heap. This we don't get to see. Rather what we will be presented with is poverty without the context, and the very subtle suggestion that the poverty is caused by the victims of poverty. For example Susan's problem is either that she has to work carrying water and thus can't get an education at school, and so rise out of poverty, or perhaps she is just too stupid to know how to catch a fish and requires the donations of the generous white people to provide the funds to teach her how to fish.
So then poverty, we are told (falsely) is caused by low education or general ignorance. What we are never told is that there is no place for Susan to catch fish (all the fish have been 'privatized' after all) and if she gets out of her school classes she can then join the millions of other poor people trapped permanently in the slums, or she can join the army of millions of prostitutes on the streets, since these are the only options open to the poor.
Therefore these sorts of aid agencies and church groups of this type (who never provide the context and therefore disempower social change) merely end up becoming part of the status quo which they facilitate, the trustees of the charity become like the board of a corporation, and they actually harm the cause of the poor more than they help, by blaming the poor for the poverty (spreading a false myth), preserving the status quo (by hiding the root causes of poverty) thus keeping the poor in poverty, and by constantly disempowering people by telling them 'you can't help the poor' and then offering them the sop of helping one little kid to ease their conscience. This last destructive lie of blame the victim ideology is particularly virulent and harmful to the poor, since they can be helped, it's just that the will to help them simply doesn't exist. The means exist, only the will to act is missing, and this fact is covered up by lies, by victim blaming aid agencies and churches (try visiting FoodFirst.org which is a really good group that can provide you with the kind of information that will empower you instead of disempowering you by telling you it's hopeless when it's simply not true).
The above example demonstrates just how brutal this particular sort of ideology can be, and if you watch some of those appeals for funding (or votes), you can also be struck by just how deceptive this victim blaming ideology can be. It masquerades as a campaign to help the poor while it viciously cuts the ground out from under their feet, doing it all while covered with the gloss of compassion and concern - remember to watch for the complete lack of context of the root causes of poverty, listen for the part where the victims get blamed (usually the suggestion of ignorance on the part of the poor) and then wait for the vicious attack on the poor ('you can't help them, there's nothing that can be done for them all, and all you can do is help just one small child'). It's brutal, it's excellent at both preserving and protecting the privileged status quo, while keeping the poor viciously oppressed, and it runs right through politics, charities, and the media.
This isn't anything new. Blaming the victim first arose in the 1960's with the Moynihan Report, and further in the blistering attack on the liberal Democrat ideology by a black American William Ryan in his book entitled 'Blaming the victim'. But through since the 1960's it has managed to seep it's way right through into society via political parties, charities, cop-orations and the media, often so much so that it would appear from a certain perspective to be part of society, part of the national psyche. But is it really?
It is known that it is official policy in the capitalist culture of America to have a permanent unemployment rate of 5 per cent, and it would appear that many Western countries have adopted this strategy. The actual rate of unemployment is typically higher than the official rate. When the unemployment rate drops below this level the Federal Reserve will step in to 'cool down the overheated economy' by jacking up interest rates until more people lose their jobs and the rate of unemployment is once again fixed at its ideal rate. The ideal rate of unemployment is one that keeps a steady supply of workers available while keeping their wages down - in other words rather than a 'seller's' market where workers could set their price, unemployment is permanently maintained in the economy so as to establish a permanent 'buyer's' market which favours the employer who can offer less in wages, even demand cuts in wages, backed up by millions of unemployed people who provide a kind of surplus which keeps workers in line, as they can be easily replaced. Here again you see the victim blaming strategies, blaming people for being on welfare, unemployed, being caught in welfare traps and so on, and this is heavily supported by the media.
Thoughts and comments please..
_____________________________
CM's Resident Lyricist
also Facebook
http://stella.baker.tripod.com/
50NZpoints
Q2
Simply Q
|
Should all Americans be sterilized? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread