The Left and the Cult of Victimhood: Case Study Israel?
Here is an interesting Australian opinion piece on the part of the Left that is fixated on the cult of victims (and, by extension, oppressors).
I know I've ranted before on this depressing obsession that overwhelms any sensible, dispassionate, rational assessment of the real world. The cult of victims boils down to this: you are either a victim or an oppressor. There is no middle ground. Heck, I myself have been called an "oppressor" before because I refuse to be a victim. Yes, me, an oppressor! (Have I turned into "The Man"? If so, then "The Man" now wears high heels, lipstick, and a bad attitude.)
Oh, you surely are aware of how you too can change from victim to oppressor, yes? This magical metamorphosis takes place as soon as you work hard, take responsibility for yourself, and become successful, happy, self-confident, and independent -- while not blaming all your problems, setbacks, and failures on somebody else (like dead white European males -- that favorite scapegoat).
Well, if "being successful and happy" = "being an oppressor," I guess I'm an oppressor, then, and I have no desire at all to be a victim, no matter how trendy and chic it is. In fact, the entire "American Dream" is basically the pursuit of this magical, Kafka-like transformation into oppressors. Why not? The "American Dream" is all about working hard and being successful. (Hm, does this partly explain why some radical leftists hate America and everything it represents? Hmmmm.) So! Gentle reader, come and be oppressors with me! Also, an opinion: I am more or less convinced that some extreme victim-worshipping lefties cannot stand to see actual, meaningful success by minorities.
Anyway, the writer of the article makes Israel an informal test case for the cult of victims and oppressors. It's a long article, so I excerpt a few relevant pieces for you:
Traditionally, the Left's favoured victims were the proletariat or working class who were oppressed by the hated bourgeoisie, aristocrats, landholders, factory owners, small businessmen and managers. Only recently, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the shrinking of the working class in developed economies, have numerous other groups become the Left's favoured victims. These include indigenes, welfare dependents, homosexuals, refugees (especially if they are illegal immigrants) and displaced populations of dysfunctional states primarily in Africa and South America. Failure, in addition to class, has become a desired prerequisite for joining the Left's brotherhood of victims. Through its support of those it deems less fortunate, the Left assumes a moral high ground from which it feels self-righteously justified in attacking those it designates as oppressors. At the conclusion of World War II, the Jewish people were added to the Left's list of stereotypical victims. After 1500 years of religiously inspired anti-Semitism that culminated in the Nazi Holocaust, Jews were an obvious choice; they were poor, mainly working class, discriminated against, often landless and powerless. Implicit in the Left's stereotyping of Jews was that, despite incidents such as the Warsaw ghetto uprising, they were incapable of defending themselves . . . Designated a victim-state by the Left, Israel did not live up to expectations. To begin with (and despite being under constant Arab attacks from the day of its foundation in 1948), Israel has been internally stable and politically mature. Unlike most post-war emerging states that followed decolonisation, it did not experience widespread corruption, dictatorship or military takeover. From the beginning it was the only democracy in the Middle East, and through hard work, planning and foreign aid its people built a thriving economy. Worse still, the Left's stereotype of Jews was proved wrong. Jews were prepared to fight back and defend their lives and homes. Paradoxically, the state's success has been the reason the Left turned against Israel. Within a few years of its foundation, Israel had broken the first commandment of the Left's ideology: "Thou shalt not succeed." Success is anathema to the Left because it puts an end to victimhood; without victims the Left has no reason to exist. In the eyes of the Left's supporters, Israel's great accomplishments meant that the country no longer qualified as a victim. Israel, through being successful, effectively turned its back on the role chosen for it by the Left. From the Left's rigidly dialectical viewpoint, the world is made up solely of victims and oppressors, and if Israel is no longer a victim it has to be an oppressor. The consequence is that the mantle of victimhood once thrust on Israel now cloaks the Palestinians; it is a cloak they may come to regret . . . In short, Israel has become the aggressor; terrorists or so-called insurgents, by contrast, are the darlings of the Left. . . . If there is a lesson to be learned from this, it is that where morality is concerned, the Left is value free. It draws no distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, justice and injustice. Hence, in the minds of leftists, the terrorist becomes a freedom fighter and murderers are transformed into heroes. This should surprise no one. In the past century the Left gave rise to national socialism and international socialism; today it continues to function without a semblance of moral rectitude, offering support of any group it designates as victims. |
"Victim designation" can appear to be almost . . . arbitrary. Goodness knows it seems to take place without much consideration for history and context in any form. Anyway, the utterly simplistic view of the world (either victims or oppressors) is so painfully puerile that I can't even begin to express my frustration. Besides, this turns any debate into a big festival of hatred. You pick the group/people to call "oppressors," and then you indulge in a frenzy of hate-filled, finger-pointing outrage (either on the street or in elite circles). It's one more instance of how emotion has overshadowed reason. And emotion is notoriously easy to manipulate, as guilt has become a weapon of choice.
Anyway, the article isn't perfect (I'm wary of the argument on anti-Semitism, for instance, and also the writer makes Israel seem too "perfect" and doesn't acknowledge Israeli mistakes in dealing with the Arab problem), but it's worth a look. The whole idea of victimhood/oppression has had -- and is still having -- a deeply pernicious influence on any attempt to analyze (much less have a rational debate about) the Arab-Israeli crisis. That influence is just as pernicious and noxious in all kinds of other debates foreign and domestic, ranging from illegal immigration to welfare reform to racially discriminatory school policies affirmative action.
Digression 1: I wonder if it's possible to be both an oppressor and a victim at the same time. Hm. Wouldn't this wreck the either-or dichotomy? See, in grad school, my professors oppress me, but I oppress the undergraduates whom I teach, no? Hmmmm!
Digression 2: Why is it that extreme manifestations of leftism have ended up creating millions of victims? Why is Communism still chic for elites, even though Stalin and Mao (just to name 2) together killed over 100 million of their own peoples? This might make an interesting thought-experiment on whether extreme leftism ends up creating both oppressors and victims.