1. An abused child.
2. One of a repressed minority.
They’re both unpleasant. A fuller explanation won’t be
forthcoming. Sorry.
In the process of contemplating the above, I also came to
understand something that has puzzled me all my life – why the British public
school system treated its young male charges in such a cruel and unjust
manner during the days of Empire. The reason given by the Establishment – that
it toughens them up – was obviously a lie. It was done to condition them to the
view that treating the disempowered (like women and indigenous peoples) in a
cruel and unjust manner was normal and even right.
But enough for now. It’s been a bad weekend and I’m not at
all happy.
2 comments:
My mother said the exact same thing when we were watching Another Country. I asked something like, "Why do the older students at this school treat the younger ones like such crap, when they're all part of the gentry?" And she said, "They [the older students] are learning how to treat their future underlings." Ruthless contempt for those below you in the social hierarchy isn't an in-born trait; it has to be learned.
What most addled my brain cells when I first heard about it as a kid was the fag system. How can the concept of vicarious punishment possibly be justified? It isn't only abusive, it's IRRATIONAL.It's taking elitism to ridiculous lengths, which probably laid the foundation of my distrust of the Establishment.
Good to see you, Mad. Regards to those above you in the familial hierarchy.
Post a Comment