Enslaved to malevolence
By Melanie Philips, Substack.
There’s a crucial distinction between victimisation and “being” a victim.
The Labour party leader, Sir Keir Starmer, has got himself into trouble over slavery. Commonwealth leaders have demanded that the UK make reparations to countries that were historically affected by slavery and colonialism. After first rejecting such a demand and then desperately trying to change the subject, Starmer weakly conceded that Britain would discuss it next year.
The reparations demand is obviously preposterous. Slavery has existed across the world in society after society, perpetrated for centuries across Africa, Asia and elsewhere by their indigenous peoples. Britain was the first country to end its participation in the slave trade and encouraged others to do so.
In addition to these obvious objections, however, slavery also raises the issue of victimisation and victim status. Like slavery itself, “victim culture” is being used to demonise the west and fry its collective brain.
There is an enormous difference between victimisation and “being” a victim. Failure to appreciate this distinction has led in some cases to the former being denied, while those who make victims of others are excused or ignored.
Victimisation occurs when an aggressor attacks someone. That someone is therefore inescapably a victim. They don’t choose to be a victim. They simply are by virtue of being attacked.
“Being” a victim, by contrast, is a matter of choice. It means someone chooses to think of himself or herself as a victim, or behave as one.