I don't condone their actions but i tend to think that perspectives on the "bad guy" are usually a bit one sided, and fail to consider situational, social, and societal factors which affect someone's actions and decisions.
Does your definition include both dictators and mall cops?
True. How do we get up close to these kind of people to figure out what made them this way? It seems they are usually surrounded by "soldiers" who a) are afraid of them, but will call the fear "respect" or b) willing to do anything they say for the purpose of fitting in. Both of these are very dangerous in my opinion.
I do. Even sympathy.
And I mean any type of oppressor.
I think it's because I know there was some negative turning point in the life of the oppressor to cause this type of thinking/way of life.
Discuss???
I seek to understand their motives and to figure out why they act the way they do. Depending on the context I can typically understand why the situation occurs. If I don't understand the motives, I seek to know why.
The best solutions and understanding typically come from taking into perspective all sides of the issue. One of the biggest problems in analysis is that both sides hide vital information like irresponsible children.
I am not sure if this fits your definition of empathy.
Okay ... you put "soldiers" in quotation marks, so I probably would feel a little bad for that guy.
The more mismatched the people are, the less I give a damn about the childhood history of the guy in charge. If it's just a situation between people whose power gap is real only because both parties decided to treat it like it is, the less I feel like anyone is actually oppressed.
If someone is trapped and powerless ... with no realistic option to escape victimhood ... and the other person has control over that person's situation and exploits their weakness, then my compassion isn't with him in any way that actually matters. I wouldn't want him to be harmed (so you could call it empathy ... I wouldn't want harm for anyone), but I would want the situation to shift by any means necessary.
But then psychological warfare is a whole nother ballgame.
I think that oppressors eventually fail at their oppressing because of the type of soldiers they have. I don't even know why I keep using that word, but it's only what makes sense to me. Oppression is a regime as far as I'm concerned.
Yep.
Well, suppression of rights, freedoms, and liberties is a "war", a battle of the mind, to descent, to force submission and deny potential for retaliation, so yeah, the term "soldier" works. It means there is a system in place to reinforce the oppression, because it is not simply located in the individual but in the influence they have over a large group, who submits their will to an oppressive figure, who seems to be in control.
In accepting the role of the oppressed, they are feeding into the oppression. It's a two way street. In almost every case (except maybe systematic rape) the oppressed always have the option to say no. It might cost their lives, but in choosing to live in an oppressed way, they are accepting the role.
I'd agree. Sadly though, oppression seems to be infectious. Those soldiers who are oppressed often times turn around and become oppressors themselves (partially because they don't know differently). Oppression seems to be a nasty cycle that's pretty hard to break.Thinking: within the regime, the soldier is oppressed also. Is it when the soldier figures this out, that oppression starts to crumble? The betrayers so to speak? Does the ultimate oppressor ever figure that it was his/her own who betrayed him/her, so to speak?
I don't think it matters if they know they are doing it or not. They're still accepting it (and are probably in a shitty situation...I'd probably chose to be oppressed rather than dead. I don't fault them for accepting it, but I think it's a two way street)What if the oppressed didn't know they were accepting the role?
Thinking: within the regime, the soldier is oppressed also. Is it when the soldier figures this out, that oppression starts to crumble? The betrayers so to speak? Does the ultimate oppressor ever figure that it was his/her own who betrayed him/her, so to speak?
I've always understood 'oppression' as a three-fold practice; injustice on the personal level, the social level, and the institutional level. I've always felt that anything without those three is discrimination (just as bad) but not real oppression.