I was just thinking about something. Often when people notice an injustice, they like to focus on whatever aspect of it makes a cause they're ardent about
seem to be victimized. My mother is a very devout Catholic. Once, I was reading a book about the Armenian Genocide while both she and my youngest sister were
present. When my sister asked, "What's the Armenian Genocide?" I opened my lips to answer, but was cut off by my mother. "It was when the
Muslims killed the Catholics." Upon hearing this, I was sort of taken aback. What was I supposed to say in response? In theory, I could have said,
"Don't listen to her, she's lying," but that would have been lying, because it was an instance of Muslims killing Catholics, even if most
people don't look at that angle of it.
Another such instance is in an article by Orson Scott Card, about Republicans being blamed for the current economic crisis. ( http://www.ornery.org/ess...arwatch/2008-10-05-1.html ) "Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months." In context, it is clear that he's trying to make Palin a victim on account of her political party. This makes sense, as Sarah Palin is a Republican, and John Edwards isn't. But what else is Palin that Edwards isn't? A woman, for one. I would say that it's more likely to be sexism, (even though I'm not a woman.)
What I think happens is that when faced with a conflict, they see a victim, and a perpetrator. They fear that others may somehow see one of their causes or mindsets as being a motivator of the perpetrator, so they try to prevent this. They want to give the impression of innocence, and show that they are the victims, not the perpetrators, by associating themselves with the victim.
Another such instance is in an article by Orson Scott Card, about Republicans being blamed for the current economic crisis. ( http://www.ornery.org/ess...arwatch/2008-10-05-1.html ) "Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months." In context, it is clear that he's trying to make Palin a victim on account of her political party. This makes sense, as Sarah Palin is a Republican, and John Edwards isn't. But what else is Palin that Edwards isn't? A woman, for one. I would say that it's more likely to be sexism, (even though I'm not a woman.)
What I think happens is that when faced with a conflict, they see a victim, and a perpetrator. They fear that others may somehow see one of their causes or mindsets as being a motivator of the perpetrator, so they try to prevent this. They want to give the impression of innocence, and show that they are the victims, not the perpetrators, by associating themselves with the victim.
