Should oppressed groups just "get over it" meaning oppression?

[Paradoxum]

Of course it does.

Sometimes, but it can't be assumed to be true. Japan no longer oppressed China and South Korea.

Which is why it so insensitive and culturally couter-productive to tell people to get over it.

Why? Why is an outside perspective assumed wrong? Isn't an outside perspective often a good thing? Of course someone on the outside sometimes lacks experience to understand the problem. But sometimes it's just a cultural issue.

For example, my parents see France as 'other' and 'different'. Reflecting our past wars. By my generation tends towards seeing Europe as 'us'.

It's just stupid culture.

Really, saying "get over it" for anything shows a lack of true concern, no similar shared experience and very little compassion. I understand tough love, but it isn't love if you tell someone to change their behavior, outlook and feelings just because YOU think they should.

There's no lack of concern if I think their complaint is unjustified. I'm not expecting people to change their view as if I'm God of existence.

To me, I feel bad for people who say, "get over it," because life has an interesting sense of humor - and it is all but a guarantee that person will be in a position in which s/he will experience someone telling them to "get over it."

It is even worse when someone says, "get over it," and they don't even know what is going on.

I've been wrong in the past. I'm not sure why me getting over something is a bad thing. Some times people (me too) care about irrelevant things.

I pretty much expect to be wrong. I've been wrong before. I used to be anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc. I suspect some of my current opinions will be wrong.

 

[Jack of Spades]

It is not all in the past for Native Americans or other people of color. Native Americans are still being marginalized, oppressed, and discriminated against.

I'm not "getting over it" until those Jim Crow nostalgists are dead.

I think it's important to not get over a fight, before it's over.

As an example of a both would be my people, Finns, historical relationship with our neighbours Swedish and Russians. Sweden has changed, they're not going to have a war with us again, so there is no reason to hold on to historical grudges. It's really time to get over it.

Russia on the other hand, might very well do it again, so I find it important to keep the readiness to fight alive. There is no point to shake hands with someone who haven't backed off from their part of the fight. That would be self-destructive.

But, even so, and with all due respect to everyones struggles, I think there is a real risk of being consumed by a wrong kind of bitterness over a very real, very justified grudge. But I can't really name any universal solution to this particular problem...

 

[RDKirk]

I think it's important to not get over a fight, before it's over.

As an example of a both would be my people, Finns, historical relationship with our neighbours Swedish and Russians. Sweden has changed, they're not going to have a war with us again, so there is no reason to hold on to historical grudges. It's really time to get over it.

Russia on the other hand, might very well do it again, so I find it important to keep the readiness to fight alive. There is no point to shake hands with someone who haven't backed off from their part of the fight. That would be self-destructive.

But, even so, and with all due respect to everyones struggles, I think there is a real risk of being consumed by a wrong kind of bitterness over a very real, very justified grudge. But I can't really name any universal solution to this particular problem...

I had thought for twenty years that the US had transitioned out of it. The last eight years has taught me differently, and that's been a painful realization.

The last time I had to sit in a segregated movie theater was in a suburb of Tulsa OK on July 20, 1969. I found it grimly interesting that when Obama first won the presidency, the newspaper of that same town refused to run the story.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I had thought for twenty years that the US had transitioned out of it. The last eight years has taught me differently, and that's been a painful realization.

The last time I had to sit in a segregated movie theater was in a suburb of Tulsa OK on July 20, 1969. I found it grimly interesting that when Obama first won the presidency, the newspaper of that same town refused to run the story.

I'll be honest here and say that I have no idea how that is like...

It's one thing to have a change in policies and public life, but for the attitudes to die, it takes generations. I suppose.

 

[keith99]

I had thought for twenty years that the US had transitioned out of it. The last eight years has taught me differently, and that's been a painful realization.

The last time I had to sit in a segregated movie theater was in a suburb of Tulsa OK on July 20, 1969. I found it grimly interesting that when Obama first won the presidency, the newspaper of that same town refused to run the story.

Hmm,

I'm betting that paper had Babe Ruth extending his career home runs record as the headline of the sports section on May 26, 1935 unlike almost everyone else.

(Hint. Perhaps the most remarkable one day achievement in the history of sport occurred on May 25th).

 

[Dave-W]

(Hint. Perhaps the most remarkable one day achievement in the history of sport occurred on May 25th).

You mean April 2, 1931?

When a 17 year old girl named Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Geherig back to back?

 

[Dave-W]

It's one thing to have a change in policies and public life, but for the attitudes to die, it takes generations. I suppose.

Indeed. Deeply held opinions and biases die hard.

 

[keith99]

You mean April 2, 1931?

When a 17 year old girl named Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Geherig back to back?

Nope I had the date right. I'll give another hint. It involved 4 feats in under an hour. (BTW striking out Ruth is no big deal, like most power hitters he had a very high strikeout percentage).

 

[Dave-W]

(BTW striking out Ruth is no big deal, like most power hitters he had a very high strikeout percentage).

I used to watch Ernie Banks as a kid so I understand the power hitter/strike out dynamic.

But striking out Ruth and Gerehig back to back? By a teen ager lefty GIRL???

 

[Dave-W]

I'll give another hint. It involved 4 feats in under an hour.

OK - I know about Ruth's last 3 homers in that game.

Not sure of the 4th feat you refer to.

I still think a teen age girl striking out the 2 best sluggers of the day in a major league game counts higher.

When else has a female pitcher struck out anyone in a major league game?

 

[keith99]

I used to watch Ernie Banks as a kid so I understand the power hitter/strike out dynamic.

But striking out Ruth and Gerehig back to back? By a teen ager lefty GIRL???

Yea it is interesting and a major thorn in the side of those who think all females are simpering wimps. It is also the kind of thing that tends to happen when someone isn't taken seriously.

Or is it?

This was an exhibition game. Some sources report it was staged. If it was honest why was she pulled after facing only 2 batters? Perhaps because the next one up had no intention of playing along?

And this April 2 game was a reschedule because of rain the day before!

 

[keith99]

OK - I know about Ruth's last 3 homers in that game.

Not sure of the 4th feat you refer to.

I still think a teen age girl striking out the 2 best sluggers of the day in a major league game counts higher.

When else has a female pitcher struck out anyone in a major league game?

Babe Ruth DID NOT get the headlines the day after he set the final career home runs record. That belonged to an athlete in another sport. (Hint: An athlete who would not have been allowed to play major league baseball.)

 

[Hetta]

I was reading up on how the Belgians treated the Congolese over a century ago. I can't speak for all Europeans at that time, but King Leopold was an evil monstrous person. I am sorry if I sound rather unChristian. What bothers me about some of this racism and other evils done is that the Jews and especially black people are told to "get over it". Why would anyone tell a Jew, Armenian, an Australian Aborigine, or an East Asian to get over it? To me, how can anyone just get over what happened to their ancestors? The roots of what has been done to our ancestors are being felt today. For thousands of years up until now, men and women have been oppressed and humiliated for whatever reason, but are not told to "get over it".

Why is it okay for some groups to "get over it" and not for others? Today, how should we educate people or learn from the past so that slavery and oppression will never happen again? It isn't just Europeans that oppressed people but East Asians, Middle Easterners and Turks who have been the oppressors as well. How is it that only the Europeans are the bad guys; have historians been whitewashing history, at those descendants of those groups deny history?

For instance, the Japanese decades ago have oppressed other East Asians. Should the Filipinos and Chinese get over it? That is just an example of groups who either have been told this, but their descendants as well. My question is should we deal with what is going on today and learn from the past? Should we learn and tell the truth about and expose what oppressive groups have done? Should black people, for instance, get over slavery and segregation? That is my view. Whatever the reason, I don't think that any people should be told, "get over it"; I just think it is rather rude. I am interested in your opinions.

You seem to assume that oppression is in the past. It's not. So, no.

 

[Hetta]

French people got over Nazi Germany.

To a certain extent.

 

[Dave-W]

Some sources report it was staged. If it was honest why was she pulled after facing only 2 batters? Perhaps because the next one up had no intention of playing along?

Good questions. But all the participants are long dead and gone now so perhaps we will never get the full picture.

I could see some chagrined MLB execs and owners saying it was staged to save face. But maybe it was. There may have been financial or physical incentives for the coach to pull her. She may have injured herself. There are any number of reasons.

 

[Dave-W]

Babe Ruth DID NOT get the headlines the day after he set the final career home runs record. That belonged to an athlete in another sport. (Hint: An athlete who would not have been allowed to play major league baseball.)

Right. Jesse Owen destroying the track and field record book at the UofM track. (Love seeing U of M eat dust, even if it was by Ohio State)

As to whether he would have been allowed, that depends on whether you count the Negro Leagues as "Major." They were not at the time, but there have been moves in recent years to get that changed.

 

[keith99]

Right. Jesse Owen destroying the track and field record book at the UofM track. (Love seeing U of M eat dust, even if it was by Ohio State)

As to whether he would have been allowed, that depends on whether you count the Negro Leagues as "Major." They were not at the time, but there have been moves in recent years to get that changed.

I'm sure you know the details. For the audience:

He tied the world record for the 100 yards
He broke the world record for the long jump that stood for 25 years.
He broke the world record for the 220. 220 yards is slightly longer than 200 meters and his time was faster than the 200 meters world record.
He broke the world record for the 220 low hurdles. Again faster than the corresponding metric event. Probably the spacing of the hurdles would be off enough that this could not count as a record at the metric distance.

So reported as breaking 3 and tying 1 world record in under an hour with 2 more possible depending non how things were ruled.

EDIT: I did not have the events memorized. I was sure of 3 out of 4. In checking the Wiki I found some things of interest and relevant to this thread.

Owens had to work part time because he did not have a scholarship.

He had to live off campus (how things have reversed these days, now living off campus is often a privilege).

When traveling he had to either eat take out or find a restaurant that server Negros.

So being the greatest track athlete of his era was not enough to make him more than a second class person.

 

[Lik3]

You seem to assume that oppression is in the past. It's not. So, no.

I can't disagree with that one. Some oppression is still occurring to this day. There are still people who are still being marginalized, preyed upon, and discriminated against until this very day. That would still include black Americans, Native Americans, and Haitians. I don't think that people should be blamed for what their ancestors have done, but many if not all of those same stereotypes and racism from the past still remain today.

Telling someone to get over it or that no one wants to hear or read that is counterproductive as it has happened or it is still happening as those things are and have been happening in the world. I also believe that those who oppress people will die for their own sins, yes, but more can be learned from the ills of the past, such as making sure those ills such as genocide never happen again. There are people who do say that no one should get over it and in my opinion, they are right.

While moving forward is something we all like to do, the effects of the past still remain. For instance, I still think that the Jews and those in Rwanda should commemorate what happened to their loved ones. I think that it would be remiss to forget what happened to one's ancestors yet I have a sickening feeling that a lot of what has been taught about world history has been swept under the rug. Before we can get over it, which would be impossible to do, we have to really learn ALL about what has happened, no matter how uncomfortable it is to see images of people being lynched, slaves with limbs cut off, whole communities being starved to death, families taken apart, or seeing your wives raped and your kids being hacked to death by someone who sees you as less than.

 

[Paradoxum]

To a certain extent.

I'd bet they'd never be in a political union though.

 

[Verv]

Why? Why is an outside perspective assumed wrong? Isn't an outside perspective often a good thing? Of course someone on the outside sometimes lacks experience to understand the problem. But sometimes it's just a cultural issue.

For example, my parents see France as 'other' and 'different'. Reflecting our past wars. By my generation tends towards seeing Europe as 'us'.

It's just stupid culture.

I am not sure how much your parents or grandparents generation seriously view the French as a perennial enemy.

The 100 years war stemmed from major issues about trade and the occupation of Gascony by the British. Not long after even these bitter feelings faded, there was a very significant divide between Protestant England & Catholic France. The two naturally competed against one another -- sometimes due to the wrong actions of the French and sometimes the English... Then, of course, Napoleon... The only point being: there has been a historic rivalry that is unsurprising and interesting.

Do they seriously think that Catholic France will start a war with Protestant England? No....

Do they think Humanist & Republican Napoleonic France will start a war with the constitutional monarchy of England? Lol, no. I guess that is one of the ironies -- Napoleon caused massive bloodshed & horrors under a humanist government.

They cheer against them and rightfully view them as having a different culture... and that rivalry isn't a good example.

I think you are, oddly enough, misperceiving your own parents and unjustly characterizing their concerns.

It's nice you think of yourself as a 'European' but you see this dream is collapsing right before your very eyes.