The Oppressed

[Lakehead]

"The Oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom. Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility. Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly.
However, the oppressed, who have adapted to the structure of domination in which they are immersed, and have become resigned to it, are inhibited from waging the struggle for freedom as long as they feel incapable of running the risks it requires."

This is a quote by from "the pedagogy of the oppressed" by Paulo Freire, an amazing author who passed away in 97.

By oppressed he means groups like Aboriginal peoples, deaf, blind and other disabled people, as well as the poor and minority groups everywhere in the world.

Any thoughts on this little quote here?

[InternetHero]

Good quote and I'd naturally add that some of the minority groups who profess to be oppressed in many parts of the world are no longer oppressed or actually benefit from the dominant group and are perpetuating their "struggle" against the dominant group and on ideas such as freedom out of their own cultural and historical ignorance rather than any real grievances.

[ThRiLl]

Originally Posted by Lakehead

"The Oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom. Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility. Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly.
However, the oppressed, who have adapted to the structure of domination in which they are immersed, and have become resigned to it, are inhibited from waging the struggle for freedom as long as they feel incapable of running the risks it requires."

This is a quote by from "the pedagogy of the oppressed" by Paulo Freire, an amazing author who passed away in 97.

By oppressed he means groups like Aboriginal peoples, deaf, blind and other disabled people, as well as the poor and minority groups everywhere in the world.

Any thoughts on this little quote here?

Let's face facts. People who are oppressed have no power. If they really were to "rise up" they would no longer be oppressed, they would be massacred.

[Lakehead]

Originally Posted by ThRiLl

Let's face facts. Most people are oppressed because they have no power. If they really were to "rise up" they would no longer be oppressed, they would be massacred.

Well that depends on what you define as "rising up" and which oppressed peoples your talking about.

Rising up could mean taking legal action, or refusing to sit at the back of the bus, etc.
In way, your making a conquest this way, as your conquering your oppression and the oppressive laws of the oppressor!

It looks very bad and distasteful to waste disabled people, as well. In some instances, a massacre is too distasteful because the group rising up is truly innocent and powerless.

Sometimes that does not matter, of course. But sometimes it does..

[ThRiLl]

Originally Posted by Lakehead

Well that depends on what you define as "rising up" and which oppressed peoples your talking about.

Rising up could mean taking legal action, or refusing to sit at the back of the bus, etc.

That is not the point of the author however.

""The Oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom.


" Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. "

Taking legal action through the legal system OF the oppressor would clearly be playing to the oppressor's guidelines. So would peaceful protest. THey would be relying upon the oppressor bestowing freedom upon them (or gifting it to them). Clearly the author advocates violence and that was the point I was addressing.

[Lakehead]

Originally Posted by ThRiLl

That is not the point of the author however.

""The Oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom.


" Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. "

Taking legal action through the legal system OF the oppressor would clearly be playing to the oppressor's guidelines. So would peaceful protest. THey would be relying upon the oppressor bestowing freedom upon them (or gifting it to them). Clearly the author advocates violence and that was the point I was addressing.

Well, it certainly does sound that way with the quote I provided, but Freire didn't advocate violence. Turning the legal system of the oppressor to your advantage through organized struggle is not the same as relying on your oppressor to gift you your freedom.

You make an interesting point though, I'm glad I posted this quote. I'll finish the book and throw a few more gem's up here to see how you guys react. This Paulo Freire fella had a lot of revolutionary ideas in the field of education and even has an educational method named after him. Great writer too, insightful to the max

[Eugenicist]

In 99% of the developed world, envious or jealous are much more accurate words for the situation than oppressed.

[Lakehead]

Originally Posted by Eugenicist

In 99% of the developed world, envious or jealous are much more accurate words for the situation than oppressed.

Are you saying Racism doesn't exist in the developed world?

This is a quote from a fella named Henri Stiker and some of my observations, I think I can prove to you that disabled people in general are oppressed, or at least provide a compelling argument. Also most countries in the developed world are not 99% able bodied.

“It is common today to identify exclusion (at times quite subtle) and protest against it. The reason for that exclusion can be pinpointed fairly easily…We shall try here to ask the question in a different fashion: Why does society try to integrate the disabled? What is behind this intention? And more exactly, why does society want to integrate in the way that it does?”

“there is no better way to escape the fear of strangeness than by forgetting aberrancy through it’s dissolution into the social norm… In other words, the disabled are made to adapt to society such as it is.”

The desire for integration comes from fear, and an unwillingness to change society itself for the betterment of certain members.
There are some problems here: attempting to integrate the disabled into a world designed for the able is bound for failure from the start, because the objective is incompatible with the situation.
All deviation is defined by its relationship to the norm; the phenomenon of disability arises when the environment that an individual is situated in can no longer keep him as it has in the past. Here we find disability becoming synonymous with the term maladjusted. This is very problematic, as it is inevitable that there will be, without eugenics, the birth of disabled children and accidents that cause injury and bodily change. Disability cannot disappear, and so neither can maladjustment, attempting to force its disappearance is futile and bound to fail.
Stiker suggests a solution: integrate the disabled on their own terms, rather than trying to cure, rehabilitate or otherwise change them. This of course requires changing society as a whole, but as we have seen, this is the only solution if a society truly desires equality. It is society that produces the disabling character of disability, and since this is the case, the society can also eliminate, or at least elevate, the disabling character of disability. This dude stiker makes a very cool and important distinction, that being the difference between equality and sameness. Equality comes from the acceptance of difference as it is, not from attempting to mould the different into a socially constructed norm.


Until society integrates the disabled on their own terms, they are an oppressed group!

I can't believe I just wrote all that, especially considering how confident I am that nobody is going to read it
fucking sherdog

[Irish101]

Originally Posted by Lakehead

Are you saying Racism doesn't exist in the developed world?

This is a quote from a fella named Henri Stiker and some of my observations, I think I can prove to you that disabled people in general are oppressed, or at least provide a compelling argument. Also most countries in the developed world are not 99% able bodied.

“It is common today to identify exclusion (at times quite subtle) and protest against it. The reason for that exclusion can be pinpointed fairly easily…We shall try here to ask the question in a different fashion: Why does society try to integrate the disabled? What is behind this intention? And more exactly, why does society want to integrate in the way that it does?”

“there is no better way to escape the fear of strangeness than by forgetting aberrancy through it’s dissolution into the social norm… In other words, the disabled are made to adapt to society such as it is.”

The desire for integration comes from fear, and an unwillingness to change society itself for the betterment of certain members.
There are some problems here: attempting to integrate the disabled into a world designed for the able is bound for failure from the start, because the objective is incompatible with the situation.
All deviation is defined by its relationship to the norm; the phenomenon of disability arises when the environment that an individual is situated in can no longer keep him as it has in the past. Here we find disability becoming synonymous with the term maladjusted. This is very problematic, as it is inevitable that there will be, without eugenics, the birth of disabled children and accidents that cause injury and bodily change. Disability cannot disappear, and so neither can maladjustment, attempting to force its disappearance is futile and bound to fail.
Stiker suggests a solution: integrate the disabled on their own terms, rather than trying to cure, rehabilitate or otherwise change them. This of course requires changing society as a whole, but as we have seen, this is the only solution if a society truly desires equality. It is society that produces the disabling character of disability, and since this is the case, the society can also eliminate, or at least elevate, the disabling character of disability. This dude stiker makes a very cool and important distinction, that being the difference between equality and sameness. Equality comes from the acceptance of difference as it is, not from attempting to mould the different into a socially constructed norm.


Until society integrates the disabled on their own terms, they are an oppressed group!

I can't believe I just wrote all that, especially considering how confident I am that nobody is going to read it
fucking sherdog

Not trying to say your wrong or right.......

But what I got from that is that you think the majority should change everything about its way of life, just to satisfy a small minority???

Also, if the majority didnt try to integrate the minority, you would probably say the minority is being outcasted from normal society and this would also be the fault of the majority according to you thinking. You just cant win with some people (liberals).

The poster a couple posts above me was spot on....... being jealous and envious equals being "oppressed" in todays society.

[Eugenicist]

Originally Posted by Lakehead

Are you saying Racism doesn't exist in the developed world?

This is a quote from a fella named Henri Stiker and some of my observations, I think I can prove to you that disabled people in general are oppressed, or at least provide a compelling argument. Also most countries in the developed world are not 99% able bodied.

What exactly are we discussing? Race or disabled people? Or do you consider a certain race to be medically disabled? You mentioned racism here but the rest of the text seems to be about people with physical disabilities.

Does racism exist? Yes, but racism is not oppression.

As far as legislative racism, which can be oppression; obviously in the developed world, for decades, nearly all racist/race-based laws are specifically aimed against the survival of the main inhabiting culture, not against minorities.

I'm sure you've noticed, most modern claims of racism come via extremely vague, and quite frankly pathetic accusations of the nameless, faceless "establishment" holding somebody down in "subtle" ways.

Then, when a case of racism actually does happen, and a name and face is given, all of the pent-up, vague theories and scapegoating are suddenly given pretend-verification just long enough to milk it. ex; "This article is for all of you who say racism isn't a problem!!!".

Still, there is no legislation against minorities that enables anyone to claim state-sponsored oppression or anything of that sort. The US has pretty much adopted full-on suicidal subsidization with blatantly Marxist logic behind it in that area, and quite frankly, it is starting to show economically. Illogical? Yes, but still not 'oppression' in either direction.

“It is common today to identify exclusion (at times quite subtle) and protest against it. The reason for that exclusion can be pinpointed fairly easily…We shall try here to ask the question in a different fashion: Why does society try to integrate the disabled? What is behind this intention? And more exactly, why does society want to integrate in the way that it does?”

“there is no better way to escape the fear of strangeness than by forgetting aberrancy through it’s dissolution into the social norm… In other words, the disabled are made to adapt to society such as it is.”

The desire for integration comes from fear, and an unwillingness to change society itself for the betterment of certain members.

Perhaps there is some additional relevant context that helps the above make sense, but from reading just that; no. You don't "integrate" something because you fear contact with it, you segregate it if you fear it. Thats like saying someone who's scared of pineapples frantically rubs pineapples all over themselves out of fear. Again, maybe its the lack of proper context.

There are some problems here: attempting to integrate the disabled into a world designed for the able is bound for failure from the start, because the objective is incompatible with the situation.
All deviation is defined by its relationship to the norm; the phenomenon of disability arises when the environment that an individual is situated in can no longer keep him as it has in the past. Here we find disability becoming synonymous with the term maladjusted. This is very problematic, as it is inevitable that there will be, without eugenics, the birth of disabled children and accidents that cause injury and bodily change. Disability cannot disappear, and so neither can maladjustment, attempting to force its disappearance is futile and bound to fail.

Heck, that response writes itself. Eugenics (in the form of preventing people with high-frequency genetic diseases with severe symptoms from reproducing), until we have perfected gene therapy and functional replacement limbs or something similar will greatly assist in solving the problem (and in the case of genetic disease frequencies, has already shown amazing results).

Of course, by the logic of this author, the people who design these cures would be evil, because in saying disabilities should be cured, he is oppressing disabled people and subjecting them to the majorities relative standards, or some crazy shit, but this is wow:

Stiker suggests a solution: integrate the disabled on their own terms, rather than trying to cure, rehabilitate or otherwise change them.

Wait what? Rather than trying to cure or rehabilitate? So end attempts to cure or rehabilitate the disabled, and do this instead?:

This of course requires changing society as a whole, but as we have seen, this is the only solution if a society truly desires equality.

Well he makes a valid point, we should probably drop the equality nonsense if we want society to survive.

It is society that produces the disabling character of disability, and since this is the case, the society can also eliminate, or at least elevate, the disabling character of disability. This dude stiker makes a very cool and important distinction, that being the difference between equality and sameness. Equality comes from the acceptance of difference as it is, not from attempting to mould the different into a socially constructed norm.

Ok, got it. But basically you're saying that the "norm" dictated by human adaptation to our environment creates a standard which doesn't align properly with "disability", thus disability as a concept or entity exists solely because of that relationship. The problem here is that this lacks something called "objective". We hold those standards because they the object is functionality and happiness for the majority. So without explaining how you can destroy that objectivity without causing more harm than good, he hasn't really "concluded" anything, he has just asked a rhetorical question.

I can't believe I just wrote all that, especially considering how confident I am that nobody is going to read it
fucking sherdog

Honestly, I wish I hadn't.