Are oppressed peoples more qualified to comment on oppression?

[The Giver]

We all know that a common SJW line is the old "Black people can't be racist and women can't be sexist" line of nonsense.

Obviously this is utter bullshit, but does it contain a kernel of truth? Does living as part of an oppressed group put you in a better position to comment on said oppression?

In some cases, I'd say this isn't as absurd a proposition as it seems at first glance. Consider the number of spoiled rich kids that have no concept of poverty or what it is like to live in poverty. In some sense, it seems as though their lack of experience of poverty has limited their ability to think intelligently about money.

To look at it from the other end, the experience of being poor creates an awareness within the poor individual of how poverty actually effects someone's life. Without this experience, it isn't as easy for the rich person to understand how poverty actually effects one's life. At the least, it seems we could plausibly argue that the rich person needs to put forth more effort in order to achieve this awareness, since the poor person has acquired it naturally simply by being poor.

Personally, while I think this way of thinking about oppression has a ton of problems (It absolutely drips Marx, and has all the associated problems), I'm not sure that it is completely bullshit either. So, what do my fellow Kiwis think?

 

[Observatory]

I say, to a degree you are right. People that have never encountered a problem can not comment on the problem aside from their outside view on it.
BUT
A big but right here too. If someone actually takes their time to look into the issue, an outside view can be very helpful. Someone who is outside of it, can take an objective look at the problem, go through several accounts of what people say about it, maybe read up on stats (depending on what issue they are tackeling.) and so on.
People that are caught up in the issue, are more likely than not to see themselves as the "opressed" ones, regardless of it being true or not, regardless of how severe the issue is, because they view it from the place of the problem. Someone from outside could easily tell, with enough research, if that is true or not.

So while people from "inside" can tell their stories, they will always be a bit biased on it, in my opinion. I will not deny that what they feel is true to them, but it might not be so true in general.

A good example would be Sophie Labelle, from Assigned Male, a trans person (at least she claims so) who makes comics about trans issues. Except they aren't really issues. They at least wouldn't be, if she didn't make them issues. To her, everyone needs to see just how transphobic the world is and how "cis" people are generally evil to trans people. Esspecially men.
Instead of seeing just how small the population of transgender people is, and how her answering curious questions from "cis" people with vile and angry answers is what is really the issue here.
To her, everyone is being an ass to her, because she is opressed and trans and everyone hates her for that. But in reality, from an objective standpoint, most people dislike her because she has a poor grasp of biology, is an ass to everyone that wants to know more about transness and because she groups certain people as "evil" by default. (Among other things)

 

[AnOminous]

We all know that a common SJW line is the old "Black people can't be racist and women can't be sexist" line of nonsense.

Obviously this is utter bullshit, but does it contain a kernel of truth? Does living as part of an oppressed group put you in a better position to comment on said oppression?

It's sort of a matter of common sense that actually experiencing something tends to give you knowledge that would make your input on the subject more valuable. However, that's a tendency. There are plenty of people, for instance, who served in the armed forces who are stupid as shit and their general opinions are worth not all that much despite personal knowledge.

Similarly, an ignorant buffoon in an oppressed group is still an ignorant buffoon.

It isn't some magic ticket to have a monopoly on the entire subject.

A lot of the stupidity committed by SJWs currently amply demonstrates the fallacy of assuming the source of comment is more important than the content of comment. Only in an environment where arrant nonsense was tolerated could some of this shit thrive.

 

[sugoi-chan]

It's been my experience that the "only oppressed people can talk about oppression" card is usually flipped over when someone is trying to silence another's perspective and/or control a conversation. An oppressed person's perspective might be worthwhile to pursue when trying to learn about how the oppression appears to them: the way a poor urban black male interacts with a cop might come as a shock to someone who has only experienced cops in upper-middle class suburbia, for example, but it's never the whole story.

 

[AnOminous]

It's been my experience that the "only oppressed people can talk about oppression" card is usually flipped over when someone is trying to silence another's perspective and/or control a conversation.

Good point, and that's exactly the opposite of how it should be used.

A valid way to use the general principle is, for instance, when a member of the oppressed group is the one being silenced and being talked over.

The unethical use is only to drag it out once you're losing the argument.

 

[Andy27]

I don't think there is necessary a greater value in the opinion of a member of an oppressed group even on issues regarding that group - especially considering how that can be manipulated to silence dissent. Such a person might be in a better position to describe an inner viewpoint of the situation or associated problems (provided that he can be trusted not to 1) deliberately lie 2) unconsciously present a less-than-accurate depiction of the situation) but that doesn't make his opinion (i.e. analysis of the situation and conclusions) more valid.

The rich kid in OP's example might not have a clue about poverty but that doesn't mean that poor people know the "correct" solution to how society should deal with poverty. They might have an inner viewpoint of poverty and provide a more fact-based picture by sharing their experiences, but their opinions aren't necessarily more valid - especially since they are naturally personally attached to the issue.

Just one more comment on the association of oppression with Marxism: I am as anti-marxist as someone can get but I don't think every single thing Marx said must be discarded. The idea that there are "oppressed" (i.e. unfairly disadvantaged) groups in society seems like a fact to me, provided that we are talking about truly disadvantaged groups (i.e. people born poor vs people born rich) not made-up oppressshhion ones (women vs men). Recognizing the above doesn't mean subscribing to other tenants of Marxism and start dreaming about proletariat revolutions.

 

[Tokitae]

There's a comfortable balance to be had, if you ask me. Personally I'm not straight, and I know that as a not-straight-person in a same-sex relationship that I have experienced things people who aren't in my position simply don't. It's shitty and sometimes I want to talk about how shitty it is, and sometimes I do find that people who are straight find my experiences (even really simple ones) incredibly hard to believe, even when they're sympathetic.

For example, one time I was talking about harrassment against LGBT folks and was talking about bullying in schools. I actually knew quite a few people, including myself, who experienced this, so when the friend I was talking to said "yeah that's awful, good thing it doesn't happen here tho lol!" I was kind of like ummm... what? I explained that no, it definitely did, and gave a few examples, but it took a bit of convincing for her to be like "oh shit this is actually a legit problem".

On the flipside, I'm also a white person in a mostly white country with non-white friends and sometimes it is hard for me to believe the experiences they tell me about as well. I guess when you're part of a majority and are a decent person, sometimes it's hard to believe not everyone else in the majority is a decent person as well--after all, they're "normal" like you. Similarly when you're part of a minority it is hard to explain to people who haven't experienced what you have and likely never will--so in a situation where you're discussing oppression it is easy to be like "uhhhh no these guys don't get it" especially if you are used to even sympathetic friends and family not always "getting it".

So it's complicated. But ultimately I think the best thing to do is just try to treat everyone with openness and empathy. It is usually pretty easy to tell when someone is being actively harmful vs. simply ignorant if they're part of a majority and you're not, and likewise pretty easy to weed out people in minority groups who are genuinely concerned about actual issues vs. trying to score points in the pity olympics. And in general I think that while of course people who aren't part of minority groups should be involved in discussing oppression, I think it is more in the role of "here's what these people go through, let them tell you about it and then work to solve it together" rather than "here's what these people go through, look how ~enlightened i am for being aware of it! let's save these poor suffering petals because obviously they cannot do it themselves". The latter is just kind of condescending and creepy, and doesn't really do much for minorities in terms of allowing them to explain what they actually legitimately need fixed rather than what majority groups think they need fixed.

I mean, it's just true that if you are in a minority group and want to make changes to society, you will need the majority group's acceptance at the very least so that said changes aren't immediately reverted by popular vote. I see a lot of people these days getting pissy and being all like "NO WE DOnT NEED WHITE PEOPLE/MEN/CISHETS" but that sort of carry on is just counterproductive BS. I don't know. Andy raises a legit point about how oppressed people do not always know the best solution to their problems, but with that said it's also not okay for the people with power to just decide what's best for ~poor oppressed people~ and make decisions on how to deal with it without consulting them. It is a matter of give and take and people, I dunno, listening to each other and being reasonable on both sides. But if it was really that easy, I'm sure the world would be a much, much simpler place.

 

[Dr. Boe Jangles Esq.]

It's been my experience that the "only oppressed people can talk about oppression" card is usually flipped over when someone is trying to silence another's perspective and/or control a conversation. An oppressed person's perspective might be worthwhile to pursue when trying to learn about how the oppression appears to them: the way a poor urban black male interacts with a cop might come as a shock to someone who has only experienced cops in upper-middle class suburbia, for example, but it's never the whole story.

Agreed. This is an argument used by people whose argument can't hold up to scrutiny.
I have enough respect for people in a rough situation to have faith in their ability to construct a cohesive argument from their experiences. Arguing that they should be given some kind of free pass from clarifying their ideas is patronizing at best.

 

[Mark Corrigan]

Arguing that they should be given some kind of free pass from clarifying their ideas is patronizing at best.

That's a typically Marxist approach. Karl Marx believed that the working class is completely unaware of how much it was being exploited, so it was up to communist like him to raise their awareness so that they could organise. There is a very thin line, however, between fighting actual oppression and creating a sense of enitlement among specific groups of people which can then be used for political purposes ("you are oppressed, but you don't know it. let us tell you how oppressed you are so that you could vote for us"). Ultimately, the people who benefit the most from this are lawyers.

 

[Sanshain]

I think that oppressed people are most certainly more qualified to talk about their oppression than any number of armchair psychologists. However, I also believe that oppressed people should not be allowed to control the debate; equal weight has to be given to unbiased parties who can weigh in on the subject with views that represent the majority. To an oppressed person, their oppression is something that must be lifted as expediently as possible - a noble goal in and of itself, but often short-sighted. It's like asking a clinically depressed person to determine their own treatment; they can offer insight, but they're fundamentally unfit to be given exclusive control over the healing process. Giving an oppressed group full control over debates about their own oppression simply creates a vocal minority that invites compassion fatigue.

 

[QI 541]

Are poor people more qualified to give out financial advice?

 

[KingGeedorah]

Are poor people more qualified to give out financial advice?

Only if girlfriend free boys can give out relationship advice.

 

[Vitriol]

Personally i think the issue comes down to who is best informed. An 'oppressed' class may have half a perspective and therefore is better informed than someone who knows nothing about a situation however i believe most people are capable of empathy to the point that the difference between the value of the opinion of the informed insider and the informed outsider is negligible. This of course may be a result of personal bias- if ' the oppressed' truly have a better insight than the informed outsider then our judiciary should all have a criminal record which rather damages my career prospects!

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I think that oppression is better understood as a charge rather than as something that is clearly present. If a group is oppressed then that means that they are qualified to comment but we shouldn't assume that they are oppressed until proven otherwise because that is making the "oppressors" guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Pickle Inspector]

Someone who has personal experience on a subject might give a better insight but I don't think it makes their opinion more qualified or valid based on that alone.

A problem I see with that in regards to oppression is some people are basing how privileged they are solely on one aspect and ignoring all the others so you see for example sons and daughters of millionaires who claim to be oppressed because of their skin colour, gender, religion, sexuality or whatever else and assume to talk for everyone of that particular group when they aren't qualified to do so.