Victims

[sowhatifit'sdark]

I think as long as one mostly identifies with things other than being a victim - I can respect that. I think excessive self-pity tends to snowball into a spiraling vortex of badness.

Just to quibble, I think this depends on the context. In a concentration camp...
children chained to radiators...etc.

Also for periods I think one should not be judged, even by oneself, if one feels a victim in certain circumstances. Take a PTSD sufferer who is having flashbacks - perhaps not yet at the stage where they actually know why (say a victim of childhood sexual abuse. They may feel like a victim for quite a while. This is OK. Hopefully there will be some kind of evolution. Shifts in emotion. Insights. Grief, anger. Whatever.

So: as long as you are in fact being victimized
and
in certain kinds of transitional periods.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

"for any absolute social system or 'deen' can it have doctrine that values itself without demanding supremecy over all that is?"

The Amish?
Certain native american tribes?
Quakers?
Back to nature off the grid permaculture hippie vegans?
Zen Buddhists?

 

[wesmorris]

Just to quibble, I think this depends on the context. In a concentration camp...
children chained to radiators...etc.

Of course, but that's already a spiraling vortex of badness right?

Also for periods I think one should not be judged, even by oneself, if one feels a victim in certain circumstances. Take a PTSD sufferer who is having flashbacks - perhaps not yet at the stage where they actually know why (say a victim of childhood sexual abuse. They may feel like a victim for quite a while. This is OK. Hopefully there will be some kind of evolution. Shifts in emotion. Insights. Grief, anger. Whatever.

So: as long as you are in fact being victimized
and
in certain kinds of transitional periods.

That quality nitpicking. Lol, and I know nitpicking! I agree and think it actually helps frame the bigger picture:

Badness vortexes (i gotta find a better name for that, but I sort of like that one as you likely noticed) don't die down with the wind. It takes time for ones "shit to get back together" (assuming whatever state similar it was in before the victimization).

So yeah I think you're right and it meshes fine with what I felt I meant.

 

[wesmorris]

The Amish?

Hmmm. Deen you think? Probably so, yeah okay I give it to you for now but reserve the right to try to wiggle out of it by saying it isn't a deen.

Certain native american tribes?

Weak I think, but maybe.

Quakers?

Really? I dunno enough about them.

Back to nature off the grid permaculture hippie vegans?

Absolute social system? Is there a standardized religious component and "doctrine", holy symbols? All that? I'd say yes to amish maybe, still thinking it through - but nah hippie vegans don't make a deen I don't think.

I guess though I'm abusing the term "deen" in applying it as I have, so I suppose my last few posts - as so many, many other I've posted are probably pretty full of crap, but representative of questions I was pondering at the time. Damn these engrams. Lol.

Zen Buddhists?

Hmm. Okay I now think I need to at least consider a loose definition of "absolute social system" more carefully before putting my head farther into my ass.

From my limited, skewed by television, midwesterners and talk radio (and whatever I took from interactions here with a former scimember 'ghassan khanafani', who was apparently an islamic scholar type person) perspective - islam - the deen seems like I guess a "strong (almost totalitarian) social system" "absolute". I'm not sure what role personal identity plays in this system, if you have any insight please share. I don't think it's much if any really, duty is to the deen in its perfection is the impression I got.

Hmm. "cumulative effect of the impact of strong social systems on individual behavior" seems like the dynamic I'm considering here, and probably should be put in a different thread, but I'll go here for now.

Bah I can't refute the buddist and amish thing, so I'll concede the point, as pursuing it seems like it leads to a pointless game of defining, redefining and blah blah fleh.

So I suppose maybe it depends on how the dominion is defined within the system.

Hypothesis: When a dominion claim in a strong social system includes doctrine that can be interpreted as demanding domination, some will - and THOSE guys are the ones we have to watch out for, especially if they're charming! Lol.

I got nuthin still. sheezus.

 

[greenberg]

I suppose I think it really bad for mental health to identify with the label "victim" (nodding to greenburg), even though one's circumstance may warrant the correct application of the term.

I suppose whoever was correct though, I think it was sowhatifitsdark. One can be many things. I think as long as one mostly identifies with things other than being a victim - I can respect that. I think excessive self-pity tends to snowball into a spiraling vortex of badness. Nobody likes a spiraling vortex of badness.

I think the notion of victim/being a victim/victimhood strongly ties in with the indvidual's conception of the meaning of life.

If the person hasn't yet decided about what the(ir) meaning of life is, I think they will feel strongly victimized by the hardships of life and be less ready to move on with their life in face of hardship.

Also, if the individual has decided about what the(ir) meaning of life is, and they conceive of this meaning of life something like this
I am a good person. My goal in life is to be happy. Others should respect me. I am entitled to lead a good and safe life and others and the Planet owe it to me to ensure this.
- I think such a person will strongly feel victimized by the hardships of life and be less ready to move on with their life in face of hardship.

On the other hand, I think someone who is more of the conviction In life, sometimes good things happen, and sometimes bad things happen. Such is life. Let's seek out the good. will feel less victimized by the hardships of life and be more ready to move on with their life even in face of hardship.

There is also the apathetic pessimist. I think such a person will feel less victimized by the hardships of life, but also be less ready to move on with their life in face of hardship.

 

[S.A.M.]

Regardless, I think the middle-east thing is a load. If the zionist and palastinians (both the same group really) can't separate church and state they're doomed to blow the crap out of each other until they change thier minds or cease to exist.
.

The Palestinians want a state with rights for all citizens of all religions. To me that classifies as separation of church and state. The zionists want a Jewish state with a Jewsih majority. The last requirement means that all the people they massacred/displaced to get their religious majority must be denied justice. Especially when the Zionist plan from the beginning was to just take over Palestine.

In 1938, during earlier partition proposals, Ben Gurion stated, "when we become a strong power after the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and spread throughout all of Palestine."5

I don't think this is as true today as it might have been before 9/11. You can't pick up a newspaper without encountering a feature article on the history of the Middle East all the way back to Gilgamesh. We're familiar with the circumstances of the founding of the modern state of Israel, as well as the irony that the Palestinians are arguably more closely related to the Jews genetically than to the Arabs. (They may well be the descendants of the faction of the Canaanite people who simply chose not to adopt Judaism.)

Not really

Unbiased Coverage - Part 1

Unbiased Coverage - Part 2

Unbiased Coverage - Part 3

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Of course, but that's already a spiraling vortex of badness right?

Sure. But we have to be very clear when communicating to the parties who is most responsible for shifting the dynamic. To tell one of these victims that their expressions of feeling like victims is problematic is, well, problematic.

I also think we need to be careful about literalizing speech and thought. Verbal expressions can be expressive rather that rigorously descriptive. The person who has gone through something shitty may not be making metaphysical claims about the nature of reality.

 

[wesmorris]

The Palestinians want a state with rights for all citizens of all religions.

Hmm. I'd agree if that's really the case but find it hard to really believe. You say the palestinians don't want and islamic state? Seriously?

So the PLO is fighting for religious freedom, not islamic freedom? Sounds like a load to me. They teach hate in their schools based on a horrific interpretation of islam. They teach martyrdom to fucking children in the name of Allah - not "religious freedom". (at least so it appears in multiple documentaries I've seen on the topic) Zionists might do the same were the tables turned - I'll grant you that, maybe not, dunno. But regardless, ick.

You have any supporting evidence?

 

[S.A.M.]

Hmm. I'd agree if that's really the case but find it hard to really believe. You say the palestinians don't want and islamic state? Seriously?

So the PLO is fighting for religious freedom, not islamic freedom? Sounds like a load to me. They teach hate in their schools based on a horrific interpretation of islam. They teach martyrdom to fucking children in the name of Allah - not "religious freedom". (at least so it appears in multiple documentaries I've seen on the topic) Zionists might do the same were the tables turned - I'll grant you that, maybe not, dunno. But regardless, ick.

You have any supporting evidence?

When the Arabs rejected the partition plan it was to demand a binational state with equal rights for all citizens, something no one discusses.

1947:

The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) of 1947 recommended a partition of the land into two separate states (one Jewish, the other Arab Palestinian). Jerusalem was to be a free city. Under the plan the proposed Jewish state would acquire 54 percent of the territory despite comprising only 30 percent of the population and only owning 6 percent of the land. The Arab state would incorporate 45 percent of the area despite their being 70 percent of the population. The Zionists accepted the plan though they saw it as too limited territorially. The Arabs rejected the partition idea and advocated a single binational state based on democracy and equal rights, though certain restrictions made this plan unacceptable to the Jews.

The certain restrictions were limits on immigration by Jews from all over the world.


The PLO Charter 1968:

Article 16: The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual point of view, will provide the Holy Land with an atmosphere of safety and tranquility, which in turn will safeguard the country's religious sanctuaries and guarantee freedom of worship and of visit to all, without discrimination of race, color, language, or religion. Accordingly, the people of Palestine look to all spiritual forces in the world for support.

At this point, they referred to Palestinians:

Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.

Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

In 1974, the PLO adopted the Ten Point Program, which notably called for the establishment of an Israeli-Palestinian democratic, bi national state

And now:

Fayyad: “The Palestinians are seeking a democratic state”


Palestinian Prime Minister, Dr. Salaam Fayyad, stated on Wednesday that the Palestinians are seeking the establishment of a Democratic Palestinian State, based on law and security, and that this state needs a serious commitment from Israel, the Palestinians, the US, the Quartet, Arab countries and the International Community.

http://www.imemc.org/article/52753

Noam Chomsky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXSZlvjNTgA

Naeem Ateek, Palestinian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_5d-ZmUA9Q

Jeff Halper, Israeli <very good overview of whole situation>
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1346564443419748239

You can watch the links I gave Fraggle for reporting bias.



Israeli position:

Unless the Palestinians recognize Israel as "a Jewish state," Olmert announced on November 11, the Annapolis-related talks would not proceed. "I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the Jewish state. This will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian state."

He confirmed these points a day later, describing the "recognition of Israel as a state for the Jewish people" as the "launching point for all negotiations. We won't have an argument with anyone in the world over the fact that Israel is a state of the Jewish people."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546752404&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

 

[wesmorris]

Okay perhaps I'm simply jaded, but the evidence you provided seems like little more than political manuevering from each side at the time. I respect that from either party to some extent, as it is the duty of the leaders of whatever organization to represent what they think is in the best interest of "their people". - and to be totally tangential this I think it part of my rationalization for a distaste of "cultures". Should be "in the best interest of people", but it's really just "our people" meaning "the people over whom we have power" or at least "these one's here inside this imaginary line".

However, I don't want just anyone coming to live in my house with me, so it's not hard to understand how this simple sentiment balloons and warps as a social scale or power base becomes larger. It's basically "the more you have, the more you have to protect" x 6 billionish (besides a small few I'd guess, okay maybe up to a third or so).

The fact seems pretty simple. The jews got screwed, gained sympathy and then many constituents of the UN screwed the palestinians who'd also recently been screwed in the form of losing a war to britain so it seemed like an easy solution to do the "humanitarian thing for the jews" and from a really skewed perspective used to justify the reasoning "allow palestinians some of their land in sovereignty" (perhaps it could be sold that way to some who were on the fence considering the rush job in 47 to get people on board).

So the jews are correct really, via their zionism and the UN's allowance or intent to "form a jewish sate" to hold that as a sticking point because they feel like their at a power advantage so like "what you gonna do about it eh?". And the Palestinians would be correct to say "we got screwed out of our homes and shit" and I think have a valid claim to the land that really could only be actualized by military strength - at least in the world predating mass media. Otherwise the american indians would kick the shit out of the US eh? Now though, terrorism is possibly a much more effective tool I think that before the advent of mass media - so perhaps it may eventually (or perhaps already has) enhanced the effectiveness of the tactic to the point that maybe it could have an effect ... if it weren't for maybe ...

That terrorism is worse than war, and I think it can act as a source of resolve on the opposing side to completely annihilate those who would utilize it openly. Meh I just think the social impact for everyone aware of it is pretty unpredictable. Not that I could say beyond doubt that I wouldn't approve of it in extreme circumstances that don't currently exist for me.

But if you can't mount a war, do you just take down as many of the bastards as you can, children, women, whoever you can brutalize? Tough call I suppoze, especially if your own child or wife or whatever was brutalized as well. What a horrible cycle of badness.

I really don't buy that the palestinians would settle for less than an islamic state in the long term. Sure they'd take democracy in the short term just to gain ground. Hell yeah. Well maybe they'd stop there, but if you were responsible for the nation of israel and honestly thought the charter to include "the formation of a jewish state", even if you thought it wrong - it's not just you you're deciding for. I think it'd be hard to back down from that position unless the pertinent power brokers in their system miraculously decided to just trust that the PLO could live side by side with jews and things would be better for israelis than the current state of affairs.

At the same time, it's the responsibility of the PLO to push for something for allah's sake, and apparently they twist islam or perhaps utilize it as intended (from the lovely warlord) to justify the hopefully "last resort" of terrorism. (as a side note, I think if it was intended as such, that's actually more consistent with the notion of religion and/or real no-bullshit faith in your deen).

So it seems that any perspective that embraces either side (which is the mandate really of either government) puts the other in "fuck you" status from the perspective of the other. For instance - you say you have the right to control my computer - but to me it's my computer so you just told me "fuck you". Funny how this "spirit of fuck you" seems to dominate the governments of the 'holy land'. I guess it's probably just that most governments are that way from some perspective in or outside of that government. Lol. Complicated apes, all of us.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Palestinians are a group of Arabs
some are christians, for example, a significant minority in fact
the Jews are united by one religion
despite the fact
that many of them
could care less about it.

 

[S.A.M.]

I really don't buy that the palestinians would settle for less than an islamic state in the long term.

Then you do them a disservice.

http://www.fosna.org/

 

[everneo]

Both Israelis and Palestinians were victims of circumstances that had orgins much prior to the currnet generation.

To get out of the vicious cycle of terrorism, the sensible and permanent solution is peace between Israelis and Palestinians through UN again.

1. UN to take control of Jerusalem with jews, muslims and christians signing a pact to honour UN peace keeping of the heritage city.

2. Israel to spend for developing a contiguous tract of land with good infrastructures in palestine and invite the palestinians to move into the land based on a peace treaty. Israelis need to invest, share their industrial, agricultural technologies and continued cooperation in trade, industries, agriculture, defence, education etc. Making a mutually honorable peace with palestinians is far better than eternal lookout for threats from everywhere.

 

[wesmorris]

Palestinians are a group of Arabs
some are christians, for example, a significant minority in fact
the Jews are united by one religion

But the israeli's are just like the palestinians no?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Palestinians are a group of Arabs.

Recent DNA analysis shows that this is not really true. The Palestinians are in fact more closely related to the Jews and the Lebanese than to the Arabs. It's been hypothesized that the Palestinians are the descendants of the people among the Canaanites who chose not to adopt Judaism.

The Jews are united by one religion despite the fact that many of them could care less about it.

That is really not true, especially in the modern era. I don't think you've interviewed enough Jewish people to understand them as a community. They are more united by their history, and especially by their recent history.

Moreover, there is considerable disunity among them. A significant faction was and is opposed to the creation of Israel, and objects to the use of Hebrew as a vernacular language. Many object to theocracy in principle, regardless of whether it is Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Many people whom outsiders would automatically categorize as "Jewish" go to great lengths to distance themselves from the Jewish culture and community of their family and immerse themselves in the secular Gentile culture and community.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Recent DNA analysis shows that this is not really true. The Palestinians are in fact more closely related to the Jews and the Lebanese than to the Arabs. It's been hypothesized that the Palestinians are the descendants of the people among the Canaanites who chose not to adopt Judaism.That is really not true, especially in the modern era. I don't think you've interviewed enough Jewish people to understand them as a community. They are more united by their history, and especially by their recent history.

Moreover, there is considerable disunity among them. A significant faction was and is opposed to the creation of Israel, and objects to the use of Hebrew as a vernacular language. Many object to theocracy in principle, regardless of whether it is Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Many people whom outsiders would automatically categorize as "Jewish" go to great lengths to distance themselves from the Jewish culture and community of their family and immerse themselves in the secular Gentile culture and community.

Good points all and thanks for the correction. I do feel however that despite what you are saying my main point stands. A Jewish state will focus on one religion, though be fairly secular, but a palestinian state needs to avoid alienating a significant non-Muslim minority.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

But the israeli's are just like the palestinians no?

Just to throw in a quibble: you can be an israeli arab.

 

[wesmorris]

Just to throw in a quibble: you can be an israeli arab.

that's kind of what i meant. sure jews are jews and muslims are muslims, but palestinians and israelis each comprise a group made of of more than jews or muslims.

 

[MetaKron]

There are real victims and victims who play the victim card to try to get people to support them or to go along with their idea of how things should be done. Unfortunately a lot of people don't exercise good judgment about this.

One of the first things that a victimizer learns is how to make the victim appear to be in the wrong. If the victimizer is good at it he or she becomes a politician, a lawyer, a police officer, a school principal, or head nurse at a nursing home, to name a few. They learn demagoguery to get groups of people to name the groups that they don't like so that someone can "police" them or "keep social order." When the bullies at school were allowed to destroy my life, that was for practice.

In general I think that the victim card should be played to push humane goals, and not to try to get more people victimized. You don't improve any society by inflicting more harm on its citizens. Even if some kind of reduction in crime is achieved it's at too high a cost, the cost that we fought Germany and then the Soviet Union to avoid paying, just to wind up paying it to other parties closer to home.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Pardon I just finished watching an HBO documentary "To Die in Jerusalem".
If you are victimized by an oppressor and fight back, are you still a victim?
.

If you'RE oppressed by political policies/governmental edict (of your own or forgien) and fight back does that make you a terrorist.