 The Nature Of Man (Human Evaluation)~ The UT Instinct ~Chapter 12: The Oppressed - The OppressorsIf this is your first visit to this site please read the Glossary Please note: there is an introduction and 17 chapters in this section. If you have not read the introduction and all the chapters preceeding this one you will not understand the points I am trying to make. To gain understanding you should start - at the beginning Chapter 0.
IntroductionThe oppressed are not any morally better because of the fact that they are being oppressed. Likewise the oppressors are usually not any morally worse because of the fact that they are the oppressors. It just so happens that there is a more dominant UT Group taking advantage of their dominance. Often groups which are being oppressed are, at the same time, oppressing others. Whether oppressed or oppressor the UT Instinct is in control in both groups in exactly the same measure. Many oppressed male workers didn't consider their spouses (or females, in general) as being equal and oppressed them - they would consider this attitude as being ‘natural’, certainly NOT selfish. They would consider their oppression by the employers as being unfair but would consider their oppression of the females as being fair. It is the same evaluation mechanism persuading the employers that the ‘arrangement’ (workers oppression) is fair as is persuading the male employees that the ‘arrangement’ (wives/females oppression) at home is fair. Each can only evaluate from within their own subjective blinkered UT Group. The Middle-EastA striking example at present is the conflict in Israel. The Jewish people have for generations been oppressed and yet when they obtained ‘their own’ nation, by taking from others, they oppressed and subdued the Palestinians. The rights of the Palestinians are trampled upon and as yet there is no justice for them. And, to the Israelis, they can justify their actions! Of course, they can! The Hightribe would understand their arguments totally! The only difference between the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s (the oppressed), and those of today (the oppressors), is that the Jews today now, because of the State of Israel, have the opportunity to misuse their power - to abuse others. It is not that the Jews of today are less civilised than their parents; it is just that the opportunity has changed. There are different UT Groups in conflict now, yet in logical terms within this conflict there still remains the Hightribe and the Lowtribe. There is a very important point to understand here and that is that the only difference between the Hightribe and the Lowtribe is power and opportunity. In ‘moral’ terms both tribes are exactly the same. It merely depends on which UT Group is the dominant UT Group - that is all. Voting RightsHumans (mostly the males) have been fighting for rights (voting and other) for centuries. But it is always those who have those rights who want to confine those rights to themselves - their own UT Group. Voting (organising the government), for example, used to be in the hands of those powerful people at the top tier of society, and they could argue that those ‘below’ not only shouldn't get the vote but couldn't actually use their vote properly - those at the top should make these responsible difficult decisions. Then the rich landowners got voting rights and they thought it fair that those ‘below them’ didn't get the same rights - that they didn't deserve those same rights! The attitude would have been ‘they wouldn't be able to use the vote sensibly’. Then, when the house-owners got the vote they considered that those below them didn't deserve the right to vote, that they wouldn't be able to use the vote sensibly. Then when the common man got the vote they considered that the females shouldn't and ‘couldn't’ vote; then the females etc; then the under 21s etc. At every stage there is a demand for rights for oneself (and one's own UT Group) and yet a reluctance to let others have those same rights. There are many variations on the above, I chose the levels arbitrarily, it could also have included different races, ethnic groups etc. The UT Group never wants to give those rights which they consider due to them on the very basis of being a member of a ‘responsible’ UT Group to those outside that UT Group for reasons already explained. FemalesIn the case of females it is plain to see that although most females have been oppressed no matter what level of society they belonged to, they, just like the males, had the same evaluation mechanism and thought little of those who were ‘below’ them. Females may have been oppressed but wealthy females had housemaids whom they certainly did not consider as being equal. In the countries where slavery was acceptable the wives of the slave owners, although, in theory, themselves being the property of their husbands, nevertheless considered the female slaves as not deserving the equality with them. One very important UT Phrase which crops up in every ‘conflict‘ or UT Group evaluation mechanism ‘excuse’ when comparing exactly the same actions is ‘that's different’ even when in objective terms the action, or judgment, or situation, is exactly the same. If the Hightribe member attacks or abuses a member of the Lowtribe it is because the member of the Lowtribe is not seen as being equal and therefore deserves it - the action demonstrates both the superiority of the Hightribe and also the inferiority of the Lowtribe (according to the Hightribe, of course!). If a member of the Lowtribe attacks a member of the Hightribe it is seen as an inferior person attacking a superior person and therefore demonstrates that the Lowtribe is a savage brute and the member of the Hightribe is superior (according to the Hightribe, of course!). If a person points out, to the Hightribe, the fact that the the member of the Hightribe is doing the same action as the member of the Lowtribe the phrase used will be ‘that's different’. And to a member of the Hightribe it will genuinely appear to be totally ‘morally’ different. This is the UT Instinct at work. The only reason why this totally illogical judgment. or evaluation, can take place is because humans are totally irrational so even ‘simple truth’ is seen in an unbelievably ridiculous way - though this thought process judgment is totally subconscious. The members of the Hightribe will be totally convinced that their opinion is correct - that it IS different! ExamplesThere are numerous examples in real life, in fact most likely thousands of billions of them. I will mention just two here. Please note I am not judging these ie I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with any of the following actions. So please keep your subjective judgments in check. The first one is connected with the middle east. When the Jews were using terrorism to gain an independent Israel their fighters (terrorists) were seen in a heroic positive light (by the Jews). When the Palestinians were using terrorism to regain the freedom of the occupied territories they were seen in an unheroic terrorist negative light (by the same Jews). Yet, objectively, terrorism is terrorism - the killing of innocent people in order to achieve something for themselves. The second is something I remember from back in the 1970s or so. Bobby Sands, a member of the IRA terrorist army went on hunger strike in order to force the British government to treat the Irish terrorists as being ‘political prisoners’ rather than criminals. He ended up dying on hunger strike. Mrs Thatcher (the British Prime Minister at the time) displayed her contempt of the IRA and Bobby Sands and said that ‘he hadn't any regard even for his own life‘ (a negative trait of an inferior UT Group). But I suspect that during the Falklands war she would have had great respect for soldiers who fought bravely with little regard for their own lives. This she would have seen in a very positive light and as very honourable, commendable and praiseworthy. That is why it is so stupid, so pointless, so unproductive and so irrational to judge others - especially in moral terms. Your opinions are merely your own UT Instinct demonstrating just how subjective you are. That is not to say that in society there should not be standards and regulations/laws etc. Lou Gogan
published: 2006
|
If you want to contact me if there is a specific point you want to make or you want to ask a question about an incident in life which you would like explained within the UT Instinct theory. If you intend to argue a point, or correct an error in the logic - if there are any ;0) PLEASE ONLY DO SO AFTER YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ EVERYTHING IN THE RELEVANT SECTION. Use the form (if visible) on all the Chapters and Articles pages or email me (especially if it is a longish piece of text).
|