Victims or cause?

Victims

Where do you start to look?

It seems, if you are unwise enough to take any notice of any section of the media; as if everyone is a victim or supports self proclaimed victims. If you believe the politically correct “ultra woke” brigade (as differing from “woke” people who have a genuine concern for the welfare of others) all females are victims, all nonwhite are victims, all non heterosexuals are victims, everybody is a victim, even overpaid, privileged celebrities are victims!! Even minor royalty who have £millions and have led a protected and ultra privileged life, are victims!

Dictionary definition of “victim”---a person or thing that suffers harm, death, etc.

Dictionary definition of “harm”--physical or mental injury-- to cause injury physically, morally or mentally.

Dictionary definition of “Injury”—physical damage or harm.

If we, as a collective species, do not start to go back to some sort of actual and genuine (not TV version) real existence, then the chances of humanity surviving the next 1000 years are very low. We will turn into a totally negative and introvert society, controlled by a fear of giving offense, buried under a mountain of self loathing and guilt. This will lead to stagnation, the total absence of creative thought, the inability to cope with, let alone overcome, any problem. Stagnation leads to death and decay, this is a basic law of nature.

One of the central claims regarding being a victim, relates to historic slavery. Slavery is and was, abhorrent. It is still practiced and it is a vile abuse of humans. This is a modern view. It is an understanding of our time, one every right thinking person agrees with. Yet there is still slavery today. The protests are not about the slavery that is taking place; it is about slavery that was imposed on some black people many years ago. It is time for some rational and not emotional, discussion. Inter tribal warfare in Africa involved enslavement. Way before white colonization of Africa- with hindsight a seriously bad idea-- White nations fought and enslaved other white nations. Black nations fought and enslaved other black nations. The Romans took slaves from the Celtic tribes living in Britain, the Irish Celtic tribes took slaves from the Celtic tribes living in Britain. When the Romans left the Saxons invaded and took slaves, when they were weak, the various viking raiders came and they took slaves. The Normans invaded and enslaved great sectors of the British population. This same succession can be recorded for every land on earth. The Moguls took slaves, the various tribal Chinese took slaves, the city state of Athens, the cradle of democracy, had an economy that depended on slave labour. Where do you draw the line and say from this point on, people are victims of slavery for the next 20 generations?

Sexual encounters are now viewed with hindsight, but what is deplored now as exploitative manipulation, was at one time an accepted norm. This does not make it right but it does not mean that everyone involved was either a perpetrator or a victim. Nothing is that simple. We all live in the time we are born into. No one can live their life claiming that in 50 years time they will be thought right, so now everyone must obey their new rules. People make mistakes, being human involves acceptance of imperfection. Alcohol fueled encounters make everyone involved, both male and female, make mistakes. Waiting a few years then claiming some wrongdoing, is a distortion of the reality that existed at that moment. This is not an excuse for violent and bad behavior, it is an expression of a reality of the time the event took place.

The choice of words used in frivolous exchanges, especially between young people, should not be examined 10 years later, as if making some great expose of an underlying defect in the nature of those involved. The exchanges are what they were then, not what they are now. Claiming victimization because you lost an argument, because you did not get your own way, 20 years ago, is not constructive. But then claiming victim-hood is never meant to be constructive, it is a destructive weapon to use against others. There have been notices posted in some homes, proclaiming “I am the victim not the cause.” The person making such a statement, may need to examine their motivation. It is such an obvious attack on the many others who have been involved in the earlier life of the person, that it is reasonable to ask; is such an attack the work of a victim or of someone wishing to wipe out their own past errors and failed manipulations? Is this an attempt to refuse acceptance of the consequences of their own past decisions?

In the distorted way we view things now, those who provoke a reaction are the victims of that reaction. On a sports field a person reacting to provocation gets punished while the cause does not. Those who get their own way for days at a time, are victims when they have to concede to someone else for an hour. There are those who destroy peace and tranquility then complain they are victims of disturbance. People provoke violence then claim compensation because they get hurt. Who is the real victim?

Consider a hypothetical situation, a medical analogy but it is applicable to many other situations. A person goes to a hospital, claims they feel unwell but can not offer any explanation, the only additional information they offer is that it is pain in their “tummy;” they indicate that they mean the whole abdominal area. The medical staff order emergency blood tests and ECG ( Electrocardiogram checks on heart function) These take time and effort from highly qualified medical staff and so cost money. The blood test, taken at 3pm, shows a higher then expected level of alcohol but the patient claims they had a “medicinal” brandy before coming to the hospital. They also claimed they did not smoke and try to live a “healthy” lifestyle. Physical examination and all the tests show the patient is below optimal levels of fitness, may be 15 years older than their birth date would suggest, but they do not show any cause for immediate alarm. The patient then states that the pains have faded and they feel OK. What the medical staff are not told is that the patient drinks a bottle of vodka every evening between 5pm and midnight, never take any exercise and only ever eat junk food. The patient is discharged. 3 weeks later they die and their family claim they are victims of malpractice by the hospital.

So who are the victims? The dead patient? The family who accepted the suicidal life choices the patient made? Or the medical staff?

This type of claim of victim-hood can be restated in police procedural situations, in the work place and on many other situations. If the person claiming to be a victim has acted in a way that is likely to result in some form of self harm, they should not have the right to claim others are responsible for any outcome. This is not to excuse excessive violence, it is not a reason to ignore the welfare of that individual. It is a plea for a rational look at cause and effect. Most harmful events are the results of either bad choices or accident. The consequences of bad choices are the responsibility of the person making them. That person should not claim they are a victim, when they created the situation that harmed them. A drunken violent attack on another who happens to be both sober and physically better trained and equipped, is going to result in the attacker getting hurt. The drunk is not the victim; unless a rational examination shows that after the attack was stopped and further attack had been prevented, the drunk was then assaulted while not being able to defend themselves.

Emotional victim-hood, that is people claiming to be victims of emotional harm inflicted on them by others; is a complex area and far too often rational study is sacrificed to appease the claimants sense of anger and self pity. A neglected child, who is locked in a dark cupboard for many hours as a punishment for some trivial misdemeanor, is a victim. Rational examination of cause and effect clearly shows the punishment is excessive and everyone should be able to recognize the emotional and mental harm it could cause. But consider another hypothetical situation; a 14 year old teenager sent to a boarding school by parents desperate that their offspring should learn some self discipline, some motivation to strive towards personal achievement; in other words they are desperate that their child be made ready to face the realities of modern life. Move on 20 years and the now 34 year old “child” claims their life is ruined, they are a victim because they were sent to a harshly disciplined boarding school. This could divide opinion but firstly consider the behavior of the teenager, their choices that made the parents so desperate that they paid for expensive further education. A 14 year old who refuses to study, smokes, swears at parents, expects the parents to do everything for them except may be wipe their bum after defecation; is not going to make a career in a competitive world. Some action is needed. Who is the victim? The aggrieved 34 year old or their parents, who sacrificed their own needs to meet the cost of private education; to try and save their child from a life of indolence and worse?

Claims of emotional victimization are so dependent on each persons personal view. Consider the definitions at the start of this essay. Self inflicted injury still leaves the inflicted person suffering with an injury, but they are perpetrators not victims. If emotion and preexisting opinions are removed; if the circumstances of the original situation and governing decisions, are examined, then many claims- (but not all) of being “harmed” can in fact be shown to be the result of their own choices, made in their past. What is emotional harm? Being punished for non compliance with rules laid down by parents or educational facility, is just what it says; it is the following of procedures intended to ensure future compliance. This compliance may be to ensure the safety of others, the protection of the individual concerned, or to ensure the efficient operation of the social group imposing the rules. If the demand for compliance, and so punishment for failing to comply; is within the laws of the nation and would be viewed as reasonable by the majority of people, then the punished person is punished because of their own choices. They can not later claim to be a victim. They are the perpetrator.