![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What I can't STAND is when people say about some particularly inhumane viewpoint held by some individual in another place/time, "Well, you can't really blame them, that was just the environment they were in."
Actually, I can blame them.
The idea that peoples held in slavery were intrinsically weaker or stupider than the peoples who enslaved them was and is a pernicious lie. Individuals who chose to believe that lie made a choice: there were folks who spoke out against slavery at every different time - the extent that they were listened to was directly inverse to the amount of benefit the enslavers got from the practice of slavery.
The idea that women were the property of men, or should live always under the guidance and control of men (have you looked at the 1960s financial situation of women in the U.S.?) was and is a pernicious lie. Individuals who chose to believe that lie made a choice: there have been both men and women in most countries and times who chose not to believe that lie. There haven't always been a lot of them, but at least enough to enter the historic record.
It's not that I expect everyone to be some saint/philosopher/bodhisattva. I acknowledge that economic pressures, time pressures, exploitation, and limited access to information can conspire to create a situation where it is very likely that people will believe cruel things and not question those beliefs. I don't automatically assume that those people are evil. But I do think they are less good than people who have found the compassion, pursued the information, and made the sacrifices to espouse kinder beliefs.
Also: the fact that you are a victim of exploitation along one axis of injustice does not make it ok that you enact exploitation along another axis. There's that bit in Stranger in a Strange Land where one monkey beats up a smaller monkey who turns around and beats up a smaller monkey and Valentine sees this as some big insight into human nature. Nope. It's not ok to beat up the smaller monkey. We as people can be better than that. Is it Aristotle who talked about how there's a moral struggle in people not to rubberneck at the execution (or, to use a modern example, to stare at the car crash?). The fact that someone has been victimized by others makes it much harder for them not to victimize others in turn. In some cases there really are no good choices. But that doesn't mean we're not still responsible for the results of the choices we do make.
If all this sounds a bit irritable, it's because I've spent the morning reading about the founding of the De Beers diamond company and King Leopold's "development" of the Congo. There was a bit... no, I'll spare you all that one. I'm sure I'll be much much more cheerful after I'm done with this book. Until I start reading about the East Indian companies. *sigh* I have to vent that stuff over the phone to my friends with a high tolerance for the way I summarize politics. I am the one who summarized the WTO as the rules for a fair race between a bunch of people, provided that one group of people had first stolen the other group of people's shoes (and, as my friend added, shot them in the feet). The WTO rules ensure that, from that point forward, no one racing does anything unfair, such as perhaps group B trying to steal their shoes back so they wouldn't have to run barefoot.
Actually, I can blame them.
The idea that peoples held in slavery were intrinsically weaker or stupider than the peoples who enslaved them was and is a pernicious lie. Individuals who chose to believe that lie made a choice: there were folks who spoke out against slavery at every different time - the extent that they were listened to was directly inverse to the amount of benefit the enslavers got from the practice of slavery.
The idea that women were the property of men, or should live always under the guidance and control of men (have you looked at the 1960s financial situation of women in the U.S.?) was and is a pernicious lie. Individuals who chose to believe that lie made a choice: there have been both men and women in most countries and times who chose not to believe that lie. There haven't always been a lot of them, but at least enough to enter the historic record.
It's not that I expect everyone to be some saint/philosopher/bodhisattva. I acknowledge that economic pressures, time pressures, exploitation, and limited access to information can conspire to create a situation where it is very likely that people will believe cruel things and not question those beliefs. I don't automatically assume that those people are evil. But I do think they are less good than people who have found the compassion, pursued the information, and made the sacrifices to espouse kinder beliefs.
Also: the fact that you are a victim of exploitation along one axis of injustice does not make it ok that you enact exploitation along another axis. There's that bit in Stranger in a Strange Land where one monkey beats up a smaller monkey who turns around and beats up a smaller monkey and Valentine sees this as some big insight into human nature. Nope. It's not ok to beat up the smaller monkey. We as people can be better than that. Is it Aristotle who talked about how there's a moral struggle in people not to rubberneck at the execution (or, to use a modern example, to stare at the car crash?). The fact that someone has been victimized by others makes it much harder for them not to victimize others in turn. In some cases there really are no good choices. But that doesn't mean we're not still responsible for the results of the choices we do make.
If all this sounds a bit irritable, it's because I've spent the morning reading about the founding of the De Beers diamond company and King Leopold's "development" of the Congo. There was a bit... no, I'll spare you all that one. I'm sure I'll be much much more cheerful after I'm done with this book. Until I start reading about the East Indian companies. *sigh* I have to vent that stuff over the phone to my friends with a high tolerance for the way I summarize politics. I am the one who summarized the WTO as the rules for a fair race between a bunch of people, provided that one group of people had first stolen the other group of people's shoes (and, as my friend added, shot them in the feet). The WTO rules ensure that, from that point forward, no one racing does anything unfair, such as perhaps group B trying to steal their shoes back so they wouldn't have to run barefoot.
