Which systematic oppression, where? Directed by whom, against whom? In order to do what? Why?
Any discussion of "systematic oppression" that characterizes "systematic oppression" as if it's some kind of cancerous disease that spreads everywhere in homogenous form is going to be flawed from the get-go. The strategies used by the post-Reconstruction American South to keep poor blacks and poor whites at each others' throats are going to be much different from the much softer strategies used by modern Hollywood to make Asian people feel like second-class citizens, and both are going to be much different from the much harder strategies used by the Ottoman Empire to hold occupied Bulgaria.
Acts themselves are value-neutral without that greater context. One group might be on top in one area, and another group in another; a Croat shooting a Serb might be a valiant freedom-fighter on one side of the border and a bloodthirsty oppressor just ten miles away.
Or the rest of the hierarchy might vary; for example, Jews got a much warmer welcome in the American South than they did in the North (because "at least they weren't black") even though the planter class stayed on top. A Jewish person trying to organize a mob to go after an Irishman might be administering well-deserved vigilante justice in one area and keeping the uppity poor down in another.
Oppression might be situation-dependent; a white prisoner calling a black guard a "n*gger" might be an act of defiance in a prison system intended to dehumanize and degrade felons to the point of breaking.
There can even be systems of overlapping oppression; "Tutsis" might oppress "Hutus" by being wealthier and controlling the economy of a country, while "Hutus" might oppress "Tutsis" through democratic power structures and/or by being more numerous and better armed.
The OP, I think, ignores all this in favor of some kind of flowchart hierarchy, where "the minorities" are on the bottom and the more "minority" you are, the more oppressed you are by all areas of society (which of course all act in concert), and the less likely you are to have an "ace up your sleeve." That's a fundamentally flawed way of looking at things.
Hm. I think your judgement of OP's opinion is a bit harsh but I also find a lot of common ground here between us all.
Would it not be agreeable for us all to say that name-calling, stereotyping, and bigotry is morally reprehensible and should be avoided?
Regardless of how such and such specifically effects so and so, we can see that resorting to picking at someones race, creed, religion, sexual preference, or social status is a weak way to argue a point, offensive, demeaning, and frankly childish. Can we not all agree that these types of actions should be frowned upon in society? Can we not also agree that we have a moral obligation to rise above such behavior and set a better example?
This would be perfect, however bias would still remain within those who have had traumatic encounters with the aforementioned biased group. You can't just wish away bias in society. If such changes were to be fate, society as a whole would have to agree to and enforce this idea.
Thank you for raising the question of context. Since my remarks were born out of a discussion specific to a U.S.-specific contexts, I was referring to the structure of the U.S. (and similar societies) in the OP specifically. I agree that who is the minority depends on the context of culture, history and geography. But I stand by what you refer to as "some kind of flowchart hierarchy" because there always is one. The players might change based on context, but there is always a specific group in possession of power. The subversive group is almost always oppressed in some fashion. Might I suggest reading some Foucault on power?
I've read a couple of his essays, but haven't found them particularly compelling. I think he tries to imagine a forest where there isn't one, and misses the few, very large, trees right in front of him.
I honestly think that's a symptom of problems with the sociological field as a whole. The necessary education is a huge, expensive barrier to entry, and there's a lot of competition for not very many and not very well-paying jobs, so it ends up becoming a rich man's (or woman's) field because only they can afford to play. (Anecdotally, all the sociology grads I met through law school were by far the worst of the "jet-setting" crowd, though you may have had different experiences.)
As a result, oppression becomes a nebulous social force that manifests itself in the problems faced by rich people, rather than something generally perpetuated by rich people. So we have this weird scenario where oppression isn't the state's governor telling you that "your kind" isn't fit to rule yourself, and disbanding your elected government, like happened to (poor and black) Detroit. (Or at least there's no interest in talking about it that way.) And oppression isn't the local chemical company seeing you as subhuman scum and negligently poisoning your water supply, like happened to (poor and white) West Virginia. (Or at least there's no interest in talking about it that way.) Instead, oppression is the supermarket cashier being rude to you -- clearly because she has a biopolitical motive to control you.
It really, really seems like rich people have latched onto a justification for being able to say "I'm oppressed too." It's better than "I have to pay more taxes," but only very slightly.
Your view is fascinating. I can't say that I am compelled to agree but it is fascinating, none-the-less.
In an attempt to address your post, I am going to lay out my interpretation of what you stated, please correct me if I have misrepresented your views:
1. So, in a way, you believe in the "flowchart" of social hierarchy much like OP does but instead you see the rankings of this chart defined in dollar signs rather than color, gender, etc.
2. Your argument states that personal action, attitude, and speech is trivial by comparison to larger, more powerful forms of oppression like that seen in law, business practices, and governing bodies of all kinds
3. Addressing Societal Oppression as a problem in the context of everyday communication is merely a way for wealthy people to find something to complain about and/or make themselves a minority for the benefits of getting special recognition, sympathy, and/or political gain.
Assuming that I have correctly understood your post, I think you have a valid point in that it may not be the highest priority when it comes to fighting against oppression but I think you may have missed the larger picture that it feeds into.
There are still many civil rights issues that minority groups face in law, governing bodies, religious institutions, businesses, etc. These things are real and not subjective. An example: Atheists cannot hold public office in South Carolina and many other states. This is obviously oppression. Communication plays into these oppressive policies and circumstances by feeding the minds that agree with them. Many people don't mean it when they tell a racist joke, but a racist person who hears that joke may actually feel validated by it. The same is true in the context of the Ellen Pao controversy. If someone attacks her race in anger with no real racism meant, it may re-affirm another person's racism. This is what I believe OP was hitting on when she stated:
Any behavior that contributes to the culture of oppression, sometimes in seemingly insignificant or innocuous ways, perpetuates a societal structure of oppression.
Online posts and random comments here and there may seem innocuous and/or insignificant but they actually give validation to people who want to advance an agenda based on oppression.
I concur, however how will these racist jokes die? One may think that they are not throwing fuel onto the fire and continue to do so. At what point should this behavior be curbed?
Which systematic oppression, where? Directed by whom, against whom? In order to do what? Why?
Any discussion of "systematic oppression" that characterizes "systematic oppression" as if it's some kind of cancerous disease that spreads everywhere in homogenous form is going to be flawed from the get-go. The strategies used by the post-Reconstruction American South to keep poor blacks and poor whites at each others' throats are going to be much different from the much softer strategies used by modern Hollywood to make Asian people feel like second-class citizens, and both are going to be much different from the much harder strategies used by the Ottoman Empire to hold occupied Bulgaria.
Acts themselves are value-neutral without that greater context. One group might be on top in one area, and another group in another; a Croat shooting a Serb might be a valiant freedom-fighter on one side of the border and a bloodthirsty oppressor just ten miles away.
Or the rest of the hierarchy might vary; for example, Jews got a much warmer welcome in the American South than they did in the North (because "at least they weren't black") even though the planter class stayed on top. A Jewish person trying to organize a mob to go after an Irishman might be administering well-deserved vigilante justice in one area and keeping the uppity poor down in another.
Oppression might be situation-dependent; a white prisoner calling a black guard a "n*gger" might be an act of defiance in a prison system intended to dehumanize and degrade felons to the point of breaking.
There can even be systems of overlapping oppression; "Tutsis" might oppress "Hutus" by being wealthier and controlling the economy of a country, while "Hutus" might oppress "Tutsis" through democratic power structures and/or by being more numerous and better armed.
The OP, I think, ignores all this in favor of some kind of flowchart hierarchy, where "the minorities" are on the bottom and the more "minority" you are, the more oppressed you are by all areas of society (which of course all act in concert), and the less likely you are to have an "ace up your sleeve." That's a fundamentally flawed way of looking at things.
Hm. I think your judgement of OP's opinion is a bit harsh but I also find a lot of common ground here between us all.
Would it not be agreeable for us all to say that name-calling, stereotyping, and bigotry is morally reprehensible and should be avoided?
Regardless of how such and such specifically effects so and so, we can see that resorting to picking at someones race, creed, religion, sexual preference, or social status is a weak way to argue a point, offensive, demeaning, and frankly childish. Can we not all agree that these types of actions should be frowned upon in society? Can we not also agree that we have a moral obligation to rise above such behavior and set a better example?
I think so.
This would be perfect, however bias would still remain within those who have had traumatic encounters with the aforementioned biased group. You can't just wish away bias in society. If such changes were to be fate, society as a whole would have to agree to and enforce this idea.
Yeah, I'm for it. Mean people suck.
Thank you for raising the question of context. Since my remarks were born out of a discussion specific to a U.S.-specific contexts, I was referring to the structure of the U.S. (and similar societies) in the OP specifically. I agree that who is the minority depends on the context of culture, history and geography. But I stand by what you refer to as "some kind of flowchart hierarchy" because there always is one. The players might change based on context, but there is always a specific group in possession of power. The subversive group is almost always oppressed in some fashion. Might I suggest reading some Foucault on power?
I've read a couple of his essays, but haven't found them particularly compelling. I think he tries to imagine a forest where there isn't one, and misses the few, very large, trees right in front of him.
I honestly think that's a symptom of problems with the sociological field as a whole. The necessary education is a huge, expensive barrier to entry, and there's a lot of competition for not very many and not very well-paying jobs, so it ends up becoming a rich man's (or woman's) field because only they can afford to play. (Anecdotally, all the sociology grads I met through law school were by far the worst of the "jet-setting" crowd, though you may have had different experiences.)
As a result, oppression becomes a nebulous social force that manifests itself in the problems faced by rich people, rather than something generally perpetuated by rich people. So we have this weird scenario where oppression isn't the state's governor telling you that "your kind" isn't fit to rule yourself, and disbanding your elected government, like happened to (poor and black) Detroit. (Or at least there's no interest in talking about it that way.) And oppression isn't the local chemical company seeing you as subhuman scum and negligently poisoning your water supply, like happened to (poor and white) West Virginia. (Or at least there's no interest in talking about it that way.) Instead, oppression is the supermarket cashier being rude to you -- clearly because she has a biopolitical motive to control you.
It really, really seems like rich people have latched onto a justification for being able to say "I'm oppressed too." It's better than "I have to pay more taxes," but only very slightly.
Your view is fascinating. I can't say that I am compelled to agree but it is fascinating, none-the-less.
In an attempt to address your post, I am going to lay out my interpretation of what you stated, please correct me if I have misrepresented your views:
1. So, in a way, you believe in the "flowchart" of social hierarchy much like OP does but instead you see the rankings of this chart defined in dollar signs rather than color, gender, etc.
2. Your argument states that personal action, attitude, and speech is trivial by comparison to larger, more powerful forms of oppression like that seen in law, business practices, and governing bodies of all kinds
3. Addressing Societal Oppression as a problem in the context of everyday communication is merely a way for wealthy people to find something to complain about and/or make themselves a minority for the benefits of getting special recognition, sympathy, and/or political gain.
Assuming that I have correctly understood your post, I think you have a valid point in that it may not be the highest priority when it comes to fighting against oppression but I think you may have missed the larger picture that it feeds into.
There are still many civil rights issues that minority groups face in law, governing bodies, religious institutions, businesses, etc. These things are real and not subjective. An example: Atheists cannot hold public office in South Carolina and many other states. This is obviously oppression. Communication plays into these oppressive policies and circumstances by feeding the minds that agree with them. Many people don't mean it when they tell a racist joke, but a racist person who hears that joke may actually feel validated by it. The same is true in the context of the Ellen Pao controversy. If someone attacks her race in anger with no real racism meant, it may re-affirm another person's racism. This is what I believe OP was hitting on when she stated:
Online posts and random comments here and there may seem innocuous and/or insignificant but they actually give validation to people who want to advance an agenda based on oppression.
I concur, however how will these racist jokes die? One may think that they are not throwing fuel onto the fire and continue to do so. At what point should this behavior be curbed?