Us and Them.

These are two very conflicting, almost contradictory, words. US being me and my family; my cohort; my language speakers; with my skin colour; with my belief system – in other words my “comfort zone”. 

 

But THEM – they are none of the above and are therefore unknown; not to be trusted; possibly dangerous; certainly to be avoided if at all possible.

 

Now I’m sure this has been so since humans formed tribes for protection purposes many, many, millennia in the past. One would hope that the antagonism, hatred, death and destruction that resulted would, by now, be something to look back on with shame.

 

Unfortunately not. Now, far from casting blame I would just draw attention to what I, personally, consider to be some of the underlying “causes” for this very, not to say, dangerous, situation:-

 

Formal religion hasn’t helped. In fact it has, in my view, been the underlying cause of much grief. Think the Crusades – those infamous campaigns to recapture the “Holy City” of Jerusalem that had been taken by the Islamic Sultanates ruling over large swathes of the “Holy Land”. Them – Bad Islamists and Us – Good Christians. 

 

Then there have been the millennia long “antagonism” between various sects of ALL religions – Catholic vs Protestant; Sunni vs Shia. Hindus don’t like Muslims (and visa versa) – so the simmering conflict between India and Pakistan continues. Then of course the Jews – they killed Jesus, you see, so no one likes them!

 

Through the great sweep of history to the present day – South America and the Spanish “conquest” of the Aztecs; the “colonisation” of North America, Africa, Australia, India and many Asian countries has been a, possibly, subconscious example of scapegoating. Then there were the religious wars - Protestant vs Catholicism  - of the 16^th and 17^th centuries and even today with the “differences” in Palestine and Israel, Turkey and Armenia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. 

 

The wall between the state of Israel and the Palestinian territories on the West Bank is a “protection”. As well as being a security fence, it also represents a psychic barrier. The danger is that people come to think that those on the "other side" are irredeemably evil and inhuman.

 

This is similar in intention to the now demolished “Berlin Wall” – the wall built between the Evil Capitalist West and the Good Communist East (the USSR).  

 

Then of course the most horrendous of all “differences”, those charged by Hitler for causing the financial collapse of Germany after the First World War (1914 – 1918) - the millions of Jews, Gypsies and mentally troubled, exterminated at the hands of the Nazis during the 1930s and early 1940s.

 

The list is almost endless.  And what has been achieved?

 

Nothing. Except a retreat to and repositioning of the old standby – the Scapegoat.

 

It’s all YOUR fault. 

Scapegoating: A Chilling Truth About Human Behaviour.

 

When it comes to interpersonal conflict, humans have long preferred to blame other individuals 

or groups rather than look, deeply, at their own behaviour. Scapegoating is when an individual or group selects another person or group to bear the responsibility for any conflict or social dis-function. The person or group that is targeted and blamed is the scapegoat.

 

This can be understood if it is believed that the person who falls into the scapegoat role would typically be a person who is the least like the in-group members who seek cohesion and conformity among each other. After all, one of the functions of conformity and cohesion in groups is survival, and outsiders who demonstrate difference from the group, may be considered a threat.

History is practically written by a narrative of scapegoating. In the Torah (first compiled in about the 6^th Century BCE), it is said that men who engage in homosexual behaviour should be stoned to death. In the late seventeenth century, some locals in colonial Massachusetts didn’t no how to settle political and religious differences, so when a few women started acting on their own, they were labelled as witches and hanged. And of course, survivors of sexual assault are frequently branded at fault by the perpetrators and by systems of power.

Some people wonder how we could be so fatally blind, but the chilling truth is that in each of these examples, the people who blamed the scapegoat genuinely believed the ‘scapegoat’ was wrong and deserved punishment. Invariably, when we hear about these instances, our own reactions are of outrage. “How could someone do such a thing? Surely, we would know better than those people?”

The thing is, our outrage at scapegoating often contains an assumption – that the perpetrators intentionally blamed or targeted the scapegoat. Thus, they are bad, and we are good. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple, and we’re all, subconsciously guilty of similar scapegoating dynamics, however difficult this is to acknowledge.

Only a quick glance at history, as previously mentioned, is needed to reveal the chilling truth that humans prefer to scapegoat and save face, than to sit with and accept their own “stuff”. This doesn’t necessarily make some people “bad” and other people “good,” but scapegoating does illustrate how complex human psychology can be. Ultimately, scapegoating will not cease to exist as long as people continue to have minds that cannot tolerate personal internal conflict or an acceptance of their own shortcomings. We all indulge in the belief that we are good human beings.

It is also a little acknowledged truth that the people we meet tend to be, almost mirrors to see ourselves reflected. What we might not like to see in our reflection, we "transfer" to the "other" as a dislike of THAT person. And so it goes on!

For all the technological progress humans have made, the progress of our social dynamics has not advanced nearly as steadily.

It is still US (good people) and THEM (bad people).

The opinionated

I wonder what the reaction would be if those who so readily express opinions about the morals and general behaviour of others were asked to express an opinion about themselves? 

 

Their opinion of their own morals and general behaviour? It might make for an interesting conversation I think.

 

But this is what we all tend to do nowadays – from political leaders, newspaper columnists, radio “shock jocks”, TV commentators, and us, lesser mortals – they, we, all express opinions. Everyone has an opinion about something. However (in my opinion!) this is never knowledge based. In any event a “knowledge based opinion” would be an oxymoron, in my opinion!

 

You see if your appearance is different – your skin colour or the shape of your eyes, or you worship God (I believe there is only one) in a different way, or speak a different language from me, or dress in a “funny way”, then, in my “opinion” you are not to be trusted. You might be a rapist, or a criminal, a fraudster, a drug addict – whatever. In my “opinion” that is. Never based on “knowledge”, or verifiable facts, only in my opinion.

 

It has been declared by some (please allow for the hyperbole) that being good (therefore more like me) you are more likely to have blue eyes, a smile with pristine white teeth and blonde hair. Being evil (or different from me) you will have you black hair, red eyes, rotting teeth, and horns!

 

You know as well as I do that this is complete hogwash – that good (and bad) people are everywhere in every society. We are all part of the human “family” – good, bad and indifferent. 

 

So why then do we so freely express our opinion? I have no real idea (opinion?) except to say that (in my opinion) it might be to cause controversy. If I was a politician it might be to please my political “base” to ensure my re-election. Possibly it might be to start a rumour that may increase the value of my shares in a particular company. There is no limit to the range of human ingenuity, particularly when it comes to looking after “me” and preening my ego.

 

Bearing all this in mind and referring back to my original question, I wonder what the reaction would be if someone was asked to express their opinion of themselves?

 

Interesting.

I wonder who?

I’m reposting this as I truly believe that Vladimir Putin is reading from the Nazi “play book”. Using the same language to stir antagonism against Ukraine. 

 

How ironic is that??

I haven’t done this before – but I’m going to post a passage from an infamous book (drawn to my attention by the author Paul Ham – in his book*) and then while I will not exactly hide the originating author of this passage – I will make it difficult to read the name – to try and get round the Facebook “censors”…. They don’t like it when this person’s name is used!! 

Here goes:-

“The art of leadership consists of consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention into sections. The more the militant energies of the people are directed towards one objective the more will new recruits join the movement, attracted by the magnetism of its unified action and thus the striking power will be all the more enhanced. The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to the one category …..”

Just for a moment please contemplate on the number of current (Putin?) and/or aspiring leaders who today subscribe to this method of rabble rousing! 

Now work out the original author and the book! 

nekaT morf 60p fo “fpmaK nieM” yb reltiH flodA

* Paul Ham is an Australian author, historian and journalist who has written extensively on WWII.

Mimesis - imitation.

Amended April 6, 2019.

Violence! Something that impacts us all in some manner. Sometimes. But why? Why do some people, groups or societies so dislike other people, groups or societies that they are prepared, indeed plan, to inflict extreme violence on those they dislike. Why?

There is of course no easy answer but there are some very plausible theories that attempt to explain why.

One theory which makes a great deal of sense to me is the “mimetic” theory. This word is derived from the Greek root of the word “mimesis” that has given the English language the word “imitate”.

Some, often those who are deeply religious, from both the “far right” and the “far left”, in fact all extremists, whatever their beliefs, seem to copy or imitate the actions of others. Should one person or group start with “all Muslims” or “all Jews” or all “non-Muslims” or all “coloured” people or those in the LGBT community, in fact any and all who are considered "heretics", “unbelievers” or “different”, are in some distorted way now deemed “unworthy” or “unclean” – and so the spawning season commences. Others pick up on the themes and each tries to out do the others in their view of why the difference matters and what to about it. 

This is mimesis – this is rampant and mindless imitation. More importantly it is the imitation of someone else's desires, particularly whenever what is desired cannot be shared that gives rise to conflict. It is a case of, "I want it so you can't have it!" 

As we have witnessed all to often in the world, violence is always the outcome. More often than not unlimited violence, leading to death, mutilation, extreme physical punishment, isolation or imprisonment. 

All this because some people will not, or cannot, accept the fact that everyone just wants to live peaceably, worship God according to their tradition, have enough shelter, food and adequate clothing together with sufficient means to raise and educate their children.

For goodness sake what’s wrong with that?

The Scapegoat – and why we use it.

Amended: October 25, 2018.

This ancient form of “displacement” activity is still very prevalent today. And it is really very simple. It is a form of aggression used to relieve frustration (in a person, a group, or society in general) that is usually directed at a weaker person (or group) that is unable to retaliate – and can thus be easily blamed for causing the frustration.

The scapegoat is usually distinct, easily identifiable and “different” from the more dominant person or group thus justifying the aggression and prejudice – “they are not us” – and so - “it is their fault!”

An intense frustration directed at some individual or group (which cannot be easily assuaged) gives rise to what is known as a “Frustration – Aggression - Displacement Hypothesis” and thus a Scapegoat is found.

We all, each one of us, thinks or believes, that we are “good” – no one believes, deep down, that they are “bad”. So if any untoward event causes us to look in the “mirror” as it were, and we see ourselves unfavourbly reflected in the face or eyes of another, we may be shocked or dismayed at what we see. This will often give rise to denial – “that’s not me!” 

We therefor blame the “scapegoat”. And more often than not there is extreme violence applied to the scapegoat – sometimes death. 

Many examples of “scapegoating” are recorded in history – the Bible is a good source. Two tragic, unfortunate but classic, more recent, scapegoat examples were the racial aggression (extrajudicial action that led to the lynching of African Americans) in the Southern States of the USA. As the price of cotton fell and the slaves were freed (causing frustration as economic opportunities for the white people were reduced) the African Americans (all either former slaves or descended from slaves) were blamed and the numbers of lynching increased as the economy in the Southern States tanked (prejudice and displaced aggression). 

The other was the anti-Semitism, the prejudice, aggression and extreme measures directed at the Jews in Nazi Germany in the period leading up to the Second World War. In this case the Jews were targeted and blamed, by Hitler, for the economic and political crisis that arose after Germany suffered the humiliation of firstly losing the First World War and then being forced to pay massive reparations as determined by the 1920 Treaty of Versailles. Again, an example of frustration leading to displaced aggression against a weaker group.

The Jews were in no position to retaliate and six million were killed, just as the African Americans had no recourse against the Ku Klux Klan and the judicial system applying at that time. It is believed that about 3500 African Americans were lynched.  

Now, today, it is Mexican “drug addicts, rapists and undocumented immigrants swarming across the border” between Mexico and the USA. 

Now, today, it is Islamic fundamentalists not willing to integrate and trying to subject Europe to Sharia Law, also taking jobs from hard working Christian Europeans. 

Now, today, it is “illegal boat people” and “asylum seekers” still trying to flood into Australia. 

Now, today, it is “criminal elements” within the ethnic minority Muslim Rohingya causing problems in Buddhist Myanmar. 

Now, today, it is immigrants causing violent crimes, taking jobs and causing the funding problems with the UK’s National Health Services.

Now today we have the Saudi Arabian Crown Prince authorising(?) the murder and dismembering of Jamal Khashoggi  in Turkey (he was a  journalist who wrote for the Washington Post and who annoyed the Prince). Khashoggi exposed corruption and the Saudi involvement in the "war" in Yemen. And this was in the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul, no less. 

They too have no recourse - none of them.

The scapegoat is always chosen because it is easy to victimize without fear of retaliation.

As the Nazi Hermann Goering ominously warned the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial (1946): “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Injustice and conflict never end – why?

Injustice will never end because there will always be people who consider themselves better than others, or different, or they will somehow justify their actions by believing they have a special need that no one else could conceivably have. Possibly more pervasive is the “belief” that a particular gender, skin colour or religious persuasion gives a “right” to persecute or denigrate those not of that gender, that skin colour or not of that religious persuasion.

This type of “injustice” happens everywhere. Take for example Israel’s flouting international law and ignoring United Nations requests for them to stop their annexation of Palestine, by stealth, with their continued building of new Jewish settlements in occupied lands. (I choose to mention Israel as their apparently intractable difference with the Palestinians affects us all and Israel is a topical issue in Australia at the moment vide “Prisoner X” and the apparent injustice of this incident).

The differences (at least in the Middle East), and the injustice, appear to stem from a strict adherence, by their followers, to the required observances written in two books – the Old Testament - the Jewish Torah, and the Koran – the book of Islam, and to the sacredness or otherwise of the land now claimed by both Israelis and the Palestinians.   

If the situation was reversed I am sure that Israelis would defend by every means at their disposal their “right” to claim what "should" be theirs. But they deny the Palestinians that very “right”.

There are always two sides to every story, as the saying goes, and the Palestinians are not blameless in this. They apparently object to a Jewish presence in their “homeland”. All this may be relevant and true but it is important to go behind the need (if that is the correct word) for injustice, whomsoever the perpetrator and wherever it takes place.

All humans are diminished – the human family is diminished - by injustice. In this regard it seems almost impossible for humans generally to accept the fact that we need each other; that we cannot live in total isolation; that our “needs”, our desires and wishes are much the same as those of everyone else.

In other words we need to observe the “Golden Rule” - to treat others as we would like to be treated. ALL religions, ALL moral teachings and ethical concepts have the “Golden Rule” as the cornerstone and principle for ALL effective human relationships.

For those who believe in the importance of “differences” this may be an unpleasant idea and difficult to accept. It is important, however, for them to realise that theirs is an intellectual resistance to Nature which seems to demand that mankind include others in their schemes lest their selfish desires lead to general chaos and destruction. But even with Nature’s inner demand and all the centuries of ethical and moral teachings it is patently evident that mankind (to paraphrase Jung) “has only very imperfectly learned that it is in his own interest to consider his neighbour and that it is impossible for him to ignore the needs of the body social of which he is a part”.

It is necessary to remember that conflict (more often than not the result of some injustice) can never be resolved at the level at which was created – at that level there can only be winners and losers – not reconciliation. Resolution and reconciliation needs a greater understanding of human nature and a higher level of awareness and education.

Resorting to laws, rules and regulations or ancient texts (however sacred) with the same mindset that held at the onset of the conflict (or the injustice) will not resolve anything.

Written on the gravestone of Paul Robeson (African American singer April 9, 1898 – Jan 26, 1976): “The artist must elect to fight for freedom or slavery. I have made my choice. I had no alternative.”

This is why without real education for all (not just “book learning”) we face the rather depressing idea that injustice will never end.

More on ethics and psychology

Just to let you all know that I know there are some very caring and very good psychologists. I do NOT dislike Psychologists or Psychiatrists. Just sometimes I think that they get too hung up on the science side of things. We are each of us quite different in our approach to life, our view of the world, the way we react to the inevitable problems that arise, and most importantly the way we view ourselves.

If someone needs help to straighten out their life – they may be depressed, or aggressive, or confused, or they may want to be a better athlete, or they may be lonely and just need someone to talk to, then do whatever you can to help! They might have been asked to do something at work which makes them uncomfortable, because of the ethics involved – the list is endless. It matters not whether you use Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Neuro-Linguistic Programming or whatever. If it works use it. If it doesn’t, then stir the pot and use what does! Mix and match!! This is never a one size fits all approach.

And some medication, in the short term, repeat short term, may calm down a client to the point when therapy may be utilised. To rely on drugs however, for insomnia as an example, indicates a lack of understanding of the human psyche, and is very unhealthy in the long term (despite what the drug companies say). Sleep is the most natural thing in the world. If you can’t sleep then get some help, talk to someone, solve the problem, but don’t take the easy way out by taking drugs.