I like your reframe, Steve. The generations later framing is more analogous.
But the hypothetical scenario was misleading from the start - if we pause a moment, we can see that it conflates the rational concept of self defense (which can include protecting oneself from grave bodily harm) with the emotional concept of revenge.
I like your reframe, Steve. The generations later framing is more analogous.
But the hypothetical scenario was misleading from the start - if we pause a moment, we can see that it conflates the rational concept of self defense (which can include protecting oneself from grave bodily harm) with the emotional concept of revenge.
To see the difference, suppose that the three women had managed to escape to safety when the captor was off site, and deliberately never reported it to the police, but then a week later they armed themselves and went back to slice up their former captor, as revenge for the terrible things he had done. In our legal system, that would not be justified self defense, but in some revenge oriented societies that would be fully justified. By putting the escape and the revenge in one event, the reader is guided to emotionally give in to their revenge instincts, while rationally justifying it as self defense. Because of the emotional charge the setup created, most readers would answer "yes" based on revenge instincts, without it even occurring to first ask the rational question "was it necessary to kill him in order to escape?". Who cares, it felt good to take revenge, don't be a wet blanket.
Revenge is not a small part of the human psyche. There's a whole genre of action movies where a peaceable but super dangerous man has his family harmed, and turns into an extreme killing machine to destroy everybody in the organization who did that. He can take the audience to an orgy of violence porn which they are free to wallow in because - revenge! So the desire for revenge based on harm to one's family or tribe (even many years ago), is very humanly understandable - but that doesn't mean that systemically indulging it results in creating a better society.
I mention this because a lot of the sentiment of the "generations later" frame come down to some emotional need for a form of inter-tribal revenge, rather than a rational question of engaging all societal stakeholders in finding the most effective policies for creating a better shared future. That desire for revenge is closer to honor killings in motivation - your tribe has done something bad to our tribe in the past, and we need to punish you in order to restore our self respect and make other tribes fear us. If it's going to be money, it's got to be enough to hurt.
In that covert revenge context, it can seem "generous" that "we only want money, you should be very appreciative that we are not looking for blood, which we would morally be entitled to, given our grievance". But the "up to $1.2million per person" that the California reparations panel is suggesting, or the "$5 million per person + 250 years of income boosts to median income + pay off all debts + buy housing for $1 + exemption from taxes" that the San Francisco reparations committee wants, can still feel like they are really entitled to far more so they are letting the perps off easy.
There's a video of a hearing in which a man testifying to the panel angrily tells the room that Black people deserve at least $200 million each for the indignities they (or their ancestors) suffered.
Having followed the deliberations of those panels, I see no real sense that they seek or can even foresee ever "repairing" relations and letting go of the grievances they use to define themselves, even if they got the compensations they demand. No amount of money would heal the wounds they cling to; at most it would be treated like a down payment - or like the first payment to a blackmailer who still retains the photos. They might love to get a bonanza of money (unlikely in a state and city facing large structural deficits and multiracial electorates unsympathetic to the proposed funding), but I believe their real world expectation is to use the radical "amount due" as a multigenerational club and moral high ground reinforcement in a thousand other disputes.
Appeasing a tribal need for revenge is nearly impossible. All the more so if holding onto the grievance instead continues to pay off indefinitely.
"we can see that it conflates the rational concept of self defense (which can include protecting oneself from grave bodily harm) with the emotional concept of revenge"
Yeah, maybe my revenge instincts are stronger than yours, but I honestly can't bring myself to object to this. Yes, the law says it's wrong, and I fully understand *why* the law says it's wrong, but I couldn't begin to condemn those women for going back and taking revenge.
I fully recognise that it's not self defence. I think Wilma would probably recognise that too. But in my heart of hearts, I'd be cheering for them to get their revenge on somebody who hurt them so badly if that's what they wanted. The issue is, who are they taking revenge *on*?
Slaves who killled their "masters," even if they did so after they were freed, it's very hard for me to find fault there. But if they Kellie their master's children? That's a whole other matter. Never mind their masters' great-great grandchildren. It's this irrational leap that I have a problem with. Which is also why the reparations conversation is such a mess.
Don't get me wrong, black people absolutely deserved reparations when they walked off the plantations. The fact that they didn't get them is a hideous injustice. And if I could see a sensible way to correct that injustice, I'd advocate for it fiercely. I just don't see any sensible way 158 years after the fact.
Let's note that we are not disagreeing about 158 years later, OK? Take that point as a given.
We are perhaps trying to nuance around concepts of revenge and self-defense, thoughts inspired by but not contradicting your main point above.
I am human, and I recognize the tug of revenge justification in the scenario in myself as well. However, I can feel the tug of a lot of emotions or conditionings which I decide not to follow as a path (not just speaking about actions, but also where I choose to direct my mind).
I have read contemporary accounts of lynchings, and typically the emotions involved are very similar to the ones in the three women scenario, amplified by crowd dynamics - regardless of the race of the person being lynched. (Keep that in mind - I'm talking about lynch dynamics in general, not just racial ones!!)
Often the perceived offense as indeed horrible (not just a minor slight, the extreme case that activist like to imagine typical in order to inspire outrage and overriding of critical thinking), and people's revenge reflexes over-rode their rationality and humanity. Not rarely, they may well have hung an actually guilty party, even somebody who could have been convicted and executed, but of course the revenge seeking emotional state often doesn't want to pause and assess facts or alternatives - so they too easily may harm somebody who is innocent, or exact disproportionate revenge.
In that light, I'm wary of the human propensity to imagine atrocities in order to indulge revenge fantasies. I have mentioned the movie genre. But this hypothetical is similar - three women who had escaped to safety, but rather than going to police to have society deal with it, decide to exact personal revenge by "slicing up" their captor. I can *understand* that (just as I can understand the lynch mob's passions, or a road rage), but I don't *endorse* it.
But going one step further, I don't seek to imagine scenarios which are extreme enough to allow me to set aside all civilized restraint and exact personal revenge. Like combining "prolonged" "kidnapping" "rape" "torture" to create the most extreme case imaginable to feed to one's revenge instincts. For me that's like the extreme gun nut who imagines using their weapons to kill Arab terrorists who were in the process of abusing his daughter.
And this is just me describing my own reflections, please don't think I'm imputing any similarities or dissimilarities to other people.
"We are perhaps trying to nuance around concepts of revenge and self-defense, thoughts inspired by but not contradicting your main point above."
No, as I said, I fully recognise that this hypothetical isn't self defence. I just honestly don't care all that much. I'm speaking as an individual, not the legal system.
We're not talking about perceived offences or imagined slights. Or at least I'm not. Those are separate issues that we'd probably agree on. But Wilma's example was specifically about slaves killing their masters or women who have been raped and tortured killing their tormentor. She asked how I felt about those specific examples. But I then pointed out that her examples were poor analogies for black people hating white people 158 years after slavery.
This is very astute. I have often said that woke is about revenge more than anything else. You unpacked my broad assertion nicely. Thank you!
Also, as a victim of child abuse, I have to say, overcoming a victim mindset, no matter the genesis/catalyst, is a very tough spiritual path. Particularly if the people who abused you aren't willing to admit it or repent - which would make forgiveness much easier because at least the harm would be "acknowledged."
I recently confronted one of my abusers (there were several since I had bio, foster, and adoptive parents) to no avail. So, now it's on me to figure out how to move forward without the harm ever being acknowledged. I know the right path is to forgive and move on. But, I don't feel this in my heart. It's a tough nut to crack.
I get the desire for revenge. I also see that it's not a solution. Justified rage is seductive and feels good - probably a chemical high in the brain.
> "I have to say, overcoming a victim mindset, no matter the genesis/catalyst, is a very tough spiritual path"
This. And especially if much of the culture encourages you to hang onto it.
I have come to consider "foregiveness" as letting oneself off the hook, rather than letting the other person(s) off the hook. It's not "earned" by them, it's something the harmed person does for themselves - reducing the ongoing harm to their own psyche. That doesn't mean it's easy. And I'm not speaking down as superior!
Superior - of course not. We are chewing on this, exchanging catalyzed thoughts and feelings. No worries on that front. And you have a good point. Repentance is typically a precursor to forgiveness. But, it can't always be had. What do you do then? You have to find a way to let go so that focusing on your pain doesn't consume you.
One of the reasons I am so impacted by woke ideology is because I know the path of overcoming significant harm and I have deep, deep empathy for anyone who is struggling with this path. Particularly those who are stuck in rage, a justifiable and natural response to harm, particularly if the perps won't admit it (which some in our culture won't).
But I also know you can throw your life away if you stay stuck and that you have to move out of this emotion in order to heal and create anything new. That is the carrot that helped me. I am an artist and wish to create. In order to do this, I have to open to receive - ideas and inspiration - and if I am stuck in rage, I can't do this.
I wish we could do a truth and reconciliation effort like they did in South Africa - where people who were harmed came forward and publicly told their stories and shared their grief. I know it didn't heal everything and there are still many problems in SA related to apartheid. But, there was catharsis for a great many. And catharsis is what we need in order to move toward forgiveness.
I also think we should fund free therapy for black communities as part of any reparations package.
I wish you well on your path to healing; it's clear that you are making it a spiritual journey, for positive growth not just healing.
Many people have had to do their forgiveness and self healing with no chance of repentance or even engagement - because the other person is no longer alive. Sometimes people use chair work, or a proxy. That didn't work for me (at least in my limited experience), but it does for some.
As for your last sentence - alas, I would not necessarily trust the kind of therapy such funding would likely favor. I've been seeing stuff about social justice ideology taking over therapy, too. Not all therapists, tho, I'm sure.
One of my parental units is dead, so I get that. It is harder but confronting them doesn't always lead to emotional catharsis (as I discovered recently). My spiritual studies suggest the moving the emotion around the wound is the key - whether the person caused the harm is there or not. You have to tell the truth about how you feel - to yourself, or an enlightened witness, or a therapist - whomever. Once you feel heard, you can grapple with what to do next.
And, yes. I have deep concerns about therapists using shaming techniques with patients who are already struggling with shame. I think they will lead some to suicide. I hope they get sued for malpractice. I think this is the only way to stop the toxic zealotry. License for therapists to dehumanize people - to ignore people's humanity. Who would have thunk it in the modern era? The world is upside down.
I like your reframe, Steve. The generations later framing is more analogous.
But the hypothetical scenario was misleading from the start - if we pause a moment, we can see that it conflates the rational concept of self defense (which can include protecting oneself from grave bodily harm) with the emotional concept of revenge.
To see the difference, suppose that the three women had managed to escape to safety when the captor was off site, and deliberately never reported it to the police, but then a week later they armed themselves and went back to slice up their former captor, as revenge for the terrible things he had done. In our legal system, that would not be justified self defense, but in some revenge oriented societies that would be fully justified. By putting the escape and the revenge in one event, the reader is guided to emotionally give in to their revenge instincts, while rationally justifying it as self defense. Because of the emotional charge the setup created, most readers would answer "yes" based on revenge instincts, without it even occurring to first ask the rational question "was it necessary to kill him in order to escape?". Who cares, it felt good to take revenge, don't be a wet blanket.
Revenge is not a small part of the human psyche. There's a whole genre of action movies where a peaceable but super dangerous man has his family harmed, and turns into an extreme killing machine to destroy everybody in the organization who did that. He can take the audience to an orgy of violence porn which they are free to wallow in because - revenge! So the desire for revenge based on harm to one's family or tribe (even many years ago), is very humanly understandable - but that doesn't mean that systemically indulging it results in creating a better society.
I mention this because a lot of the sentiment of the "generations later" frame come down to some emotional need for a form of inter-tribal revenge, rather than a rational question of engaging all societal stakeholders in finding the most effective policies for creating a better shared future. That desire for revenge is closer to honor killings in motivation - your tribe has done something bad to our tribe in the past, and we need to punish you in order to restore our self respect and make other tribes fear us. If it's going to be money, it's got to be enough to hurt.
In that covert revenge context, it can seem "generous" that "we only want money, you should be very appreciative that we are not looking for blood, which we would morally be entitled to, given our grievance". But the "up to $1.2million per person" that the California reparations panel is suggesting, or the "$5 million per person + 250 years of income boosts to median income + pay off all debts + buy housing for $1 + exemption from taxes" that the San Francisco reparations committee wants, can still feel like they are really entitled to far more so they are letting the perps off easy.
There's a video of a hearing in which a man testifying to the panel angrily tells the room that Black people deserve at least $200 million each for the indignities they (or their ancestors) suffered.
Having followed the deliberations of those panels, I see no real sense that they seek or can even foresee ever "repairing" relations and letting go of the grievances they use to define themselves, even if they got the compensations they demand. No amount of money would heal the wounds they cling to; at most it would be treated like a down payment - or like the first payment to a blackmailer who still retains the photos. They might love to get a bonanza of money (unlikely in a state and city facing large structural deficits and multiracial electorates unsympathetic to the proposed funding), but I believe their real world expectation is to use the radical "amount due" as a multigenerational club and moral high ground reinforcement in a thousand other disputes.
Appeasing a tribal need for revenge is nearly impossible. All the more so if holding onto the grievance instead continues to pay off indefinitely.
"we can see that it conflates the rational concept of self defense (which can include protecting oneself from grave bodily harm) with the emotional concept of revenge"
Yeah, maybe my revenge instincts are stronger than yours, but I honestly can't bring myself to object to this. Yes, the law says it's wrong, and I fully understand *why* the law says it's wrong, but I couldn't begin to condemn those women for going back and taking revenge.
I fully recognise that it's not self defence. I think Wilma would probably recognise that too. But in my heart of hearts, I'd be cheering for them to get their revenge on somebody who hurt them so badly if that's what they wanted. The issue is, who are they taking revenge *on*?
Slaves who killled their "masters," even if they did so after they were freed, it's very hard for me to find fault there. But if they Kellie their master's children? That's a whole other matter. Never mind their masters' great-great grandchildren. It's this irrational leap that I have a problem with. Which is also why the reparations conversation is such a mess.
Don't get me wrong, black people absolutely deserved reparations when they walked off the plantations. The fact that they didn't get them is a hideous injustice. And if I could see a sensible way to correct that injustice, I'd advocate for it fiercely. I just don't see any sensible way 158 years after the fact.
Let's note that we are not disagreeing about 158 years later, OK? Take that point as a given.
We are perhaps trying to nuance around concepts of revenge and self-defense, thoughts inspired by but not contradicting your main point above.
I am human, and I recognize the tug of revenge justification in the scenario in myself as well. However, I can feel the tug of a lot of emotions or conditionings which I decide not to follow as a path (not just speaking about actions, but also where I choose to direct my mind).
I have read contemporary accounts of lynchings, and typically the emotions involved are very similar to the ones in the three women scenario, amplified by crowd dynamics - regardless of the race of the person being lynched. (Keep that in mind - I'm talking about lynch dynamics in general, not just racial ones!!)
Often the perceived offense as indeed horrible (not just a minor slight, the extreme case that activist like to imagine typical in order to inspire outrage and overriding of critical thinking), and people's revenge reflexes over-rode their rationality and humanity. Not rarely, they may well have hung an actually guilty party, even somebody who could have been convicted and executed, but of course the revenge seeking emotional state often doesn't want to pause and assess facts or alternatives - so they too easily may harm somebody who is innocent, or exact disproportionate revenge.
In that light, I'm wary of the human propensity to imagine atrocities in order to indulge revenge fantasies. I have mentioned the movie genre. But this hypothetical is similar - three women who had escaped to safety, but rather than going to police to have society deal with it, decide to exact personal revenge by "slicing up" their captor. I can *understand* that (just as I can understand the lynch mob's passions, or a road rage), but I don't *endorse* it.
But going one step further, I don't seek to imagine scenarios which are extreme enough to allow me to set aside all civilized restraint and exact personal revenge. Like combining "prolonged" "kidnapping" "rape" "torture" to create the most extreme case imaginable to feed to one's revenge instincts. For me that's like the extreme gun nut who imagines using their weapons to kill Arab terrorists who were in the process of abusing his daughter.
And this is just me describing my own reflections, please don't think I'm imputing any similarities or dissimilarities to other people.
"We are perhaps trying to nuance around concepts of revenge and self-defense, thoughts inspired by but not contradicting your main point above."
No, as I said, I fully recognise that this hypothetical isn't self defence. I just honestly don't care all that much. I'm speaking as an individual, not the legal system.
We're not talking about perceived offences or imagined slights. Or at least I'm not. Those are separate issues that we'd probably agree on. But Wilma's example was specifically about slaves killing their masters or women who have been raped and tortured killing their tormentor. She asked how I felt about those specific examples. But I then pointed out that her examples were poor analogies for black people hating white people 158 years after slavery.
This is very astute. I have often said that woke is about revenge more than anything else. You unpacked my broad assertion nicely. Thank you!
Also, as a victim of child abuse, I have to say, overcoming a victim mindset, no matter the genesis/catalyst, is a very tough spiritual path. Particularly if the people who abused you aren't willing to admit it or repent - which would make forgiveness much easier because at least the harm would be "acknowledged."
I recently confronted one of my abusers (there were several since I had bio, foster, and adoptive parents) to no avail. So, now it's on me to figure out how to move forward without the harm ever being acknowledged. I know the right path is to forgive and move on. But, I don't feel this in my heart. It's a tough nut to crack.
I get the desire for revenge. I also see that it's not a solution. Justified rage is seductive and feels good - probably a chemical high in the brain.
I think you are right.
> "I have to say, overcoming a victim mindset, no matter the genesis/catalyst, is a very tough spiritual path"
This. And especially if much of the culture encourages you to hang onto it.
I have come to consider "foregiveness" as letting oneself off the hook, rather than letting the other person(s) off the hook. It's not "earned" by them, it's something the harmed person does for themselves - reducing the ongoing harm to their own psyche. That doesn't mean it's easy. And I'm not speaking down as superior!
Superior - of course not. We are chewing on this, exchanging catalyzed thoughts and feelings. No worries on that front. And you have a good point. Repentance is typically a precursor to forgiveness. But, it can't always be had. What do you do then? You have to find a way to let go so that focusing on your pain doesn't consume you.
One of the reasons I am so impacted by woke ideology is because I know the path of overcoming significant harm and I have deep, deep empathy for anyone who is struggling with this path. Particularly those who are stuck in rage, a justifiable and natural response to harm, particularly if the perps won't admit it (which some in our culture won't).
But I also know you can throw your life away if you stay stuck and that you have to move out of this emotion in order to heal and create anything new. That is the carrot that helped me. I am an artist and wish to create. In order to do this, I have to open to receive - ideas and inspiration - and if I am stuck in rage, I can't do this.
I wish we could do a truth and reconciliation effort like they did in South Africa - where people who were harmed came forward and publicly told their stories and shared their grief. I know it didn't heal everything and there are still many problems in SA related to apartheid. But, there was catharsis for a great many. And catharsis is what we need in order to move toward forgiveness.
I also think we should fund free therapy for black communities as part of any reparations package.
I wish you well on your path to healing; it's clear that you are making it a spiritual journey, for positive growth not just healing.
Many people have had to do their forgiveness and self healing with no chance of repentance or even engagement - because the other person is no longer alive. Sometimes people use chair work, or a proxy. That didn't work for me (at least in my limited experience), but it does for some.
As for your last sentence - alas, I would not necessarily trust the kind of therapy such funding would likely favor. I've been seeing stuff about social justice ideology taking over therapy, too. Not all therapists, tho, I'm sure.
One of my parental units is dead, so I get that. It is harder but confronting them doesn't always lead to emotional catharsis (as I discovered recently). My spiritual studies suggest the moving the emotion around the wound is the key - whether the person caused the harm is there or not. You have to tell the truth about how you feel - to yourself, or an enlightened witness, or a therapist - whomever. Once you feel heard, you can grapple with what to do next.
And, yes. I have deep concerns about therapists using shaming techniques with patients who are already struggling with shame. I think they will lead some to suicide. I hope they get sued for malpractice. I think this is the only way to stop the toxic zealotry. License for therapists to dehumanize people - to ignore people's humanity. Who would have thunk it in the modern era? The world is upside down.