My only qualification for my opinion is I've lived 60 years. Through observation it seems obvious to me, yet many my peers who worship the gods of football, beer, money and possession they seem not to have noticed.
My surname is Condon and you can probably guess at how much other kids liked to laugh at how close it is to condom. Even before kids discovered condoms I was a shy and introverted kid with a mother that doted on me. She protected me too much, and spoiled me too much for my own good. This made me ripe for the local bully (Mark Slaughter) to make my life a misery from about 4 years old until 11 years old. I can remember thinking at the time "what does he get out of this?" I wasn't his only victim and he was shunned by most of the other kids down my street (this is in the 1950's/60's when you could play in the streets).
I can't say a I worked out why he did it then and have no Freudian insight to his home life that might explain it. However, I noticed at secondary school the tendency for the bully to pick on the weakest and most vulnerable. It seemed as if they liked an easy target. Someone easy to intimidate and/or unlikely to fight back.These bullies would normally have a gang of three or four others that followed them around.
What was curious to me was that no one apparently taught them to do this. Maybe they had an older sibling that dominated them at home and seemed to have get away with it. They simply copied what appeared to be a successful tactic when they got the opportunity. Who knows?. They did however, learn from the "success" of their bullying that not only did they get to the front of the queue, get the sweats/toy, but they also got adoration from their followers (some followed for the protection they got). I also noticed that one bully would sometimes bully another bully and the latter would immediately (or as soon as they had licked their wounds) find someone to bully, as if they needed to re-establish their position in a hierarchy that they had created.
What was obvious was that their status was artificial. They never picked on those that would fight back (as if they were outside the self constructed hierarchical structure). They preferred to bully with others present to magnify any humiliation and their status. Bullies often had nothing and simply picked on those with even less as if to show "well at least I'm better then you". As school progressed bullies seemed to change, a few were motivated by something to study, but most didn't see education as a way to improve themselves (after all they had got to there current lofty heights trampling on others), but as a weakness to pick on even more. I should say this is within a boy/male paradigm. I have know idea what girls went through.
When I first left school at 16 I became an apprentice. The selection process meant that bullies with their lack of education simply were not qualified to apply and so as a "working class" boy I suddenly left the working class bullies behind.
I can't say I came across bullying to any great extent again until after I got an attack of career, achieved an MBA and moved into management. I was shocked when some graduates that came straight into management turned up with superior attitudes. Not only did they not value the work of the people they managed, but they were more intent on their own careers than doing a good job. They seemed to perceive that they had arrived at the bottom of management and they needed to move up. Amongst those that had worked their way up the ranks this was rarer, although not entirely absent. Like those that switch who they vote for just because they own their house, there were those that had personality changes once they moved into management.
These ambitious bullies would make almost incredible promises, or accept impossible targets. Like stock brokers and accountants they looked at past performance and predicted the future without reference to a changing environment. To reach their goal they would bully those below to go faster, work harder and became less and less rational as their target became obviously unachievable. In this case these bullies are not peers but leaders with power. When they said do X most feel they need to do it. When it didn't work you got a bollocking, so you stayed late and got in early to get the work done. Just like the bully waiting behind the bike shed to give you a thrashing if you don't hand over your dinner money. If you achieved the target this would inspire the next target to be even harder and reinforce the bullies paradigm that pushing and threatening people worked.
As I moved up the management structure many of these people fell by the wayside. This was because those that could moved on, leaving the unit to decline and fail totally. I'd say that I found most director level people that had worked their way up (not necessarily from the bottom) had a pragmatic approach. However, accountants seem to run (if indirectly) most companies and their lack of commercial knowledge and most others people's lack of numeric knowledge means unrealistic and/or unsustainable targets are set.
Back to the bullies at the top. The bullies at the top have a great survival technique. They take on an unrealistic target. e.g. I will open 4 new branches, as each current branch generates £1m of revenue our revenue will grow by £4m. Sometimes the not all the branches don't get opened. Then that is the fault of Strategy, Marketing, Operations or other department for failing to identify the right locations/build the branches. Or the branches get opened but some or all achieve less then £1m revenue. Then that is the fault of Sales, Marketing or other department for failing to bring in customers. Regardless the fault lies elsewhere and the fault was the original target. This bullying of peers forces them (and the company) into directing resources to a flawed plan in order to avoid blame. It's another bizarre behaviour and can lead these management peers to start to bully their own teams to get results.
The original bully survives as the misdirection of blame distracts from the route cause, at least for a year or two. By which time the whole division or company is in terminal decline. But don't worry, they did an excellent PowerPont presentation. Style over substance, another of my pet hates.
So to get back to the title, "Why do we blame the poor?". It's because it distracts us from the route cause of the problem and solving it. The Nazis did it with the Jews and is one of the most extreme examples, but there are may examples where one part of society blames another for its woes.
Society is broken in as much as the rich have become the super rich and the poor are poorer than ever and using food banks. Do we blame those in charge, the Government? Do we blame those with power, the Banks, the International and Multinational business that sway government policy? No! for some bizarre reason we blame those without power, the poor and the immigrants. Yep, it must be their fault.
Why do the general public not see this lie for what it is? Maybe its because we are all a little bit of a bully and when we are all under pressure its easier to pick on the defenceless and hope we escape, than those that might fight back.
For most of recorded history (since the Egyptians at least) there have been the "haves" and the "have nots". The difference between the top and the bottom has been huge. Slaves at one end and rich dead people being buried with gold. In Victorian times slavery may have been abolished in that one person could not legally own another, but freedom is the ability to make choices. Without money there are few choices to be made. The poverty of the Victorian era saw the poor being blamed too. Statistics was a civil services invention to prove that the poor were inferior to the rest of society and deserved less. It actually proved that they were the same...Back to the point.. for most of the last 2000 years the difference between the poor and the rich has been enormous. In Europe the two world wars levelled people as class was set aside to win the war. People fought and died side by side regardless of class. After the war there was a greater voice from the workers and their unions. Sadly some union leaders went too far and enabled Thatcher to eroded their power. Greed became good and every man for himself replaced the comradeship of the war and post-war years. Slowly and surely we appear to be returning to what has been the normal state that has endured for 2000 years with the super rich and powerful and the super poor and powerless.
My surname is Condon and you can probably guess at how much other kids liked to laugh at how close it is to condom. Even before kids discovered condoms I was a shy and introverted kid with a mother that doted on me. She protected me too much, and spoiled me too much for my own good. This made me ripe for the local bully (Mark Slaughter) to make my life a misery from about 4 years old until 11 years old. I can remember thinking at the time "what does he get out of this?" I wasn't his only victim and he was shunned by most of the other kids down my street (this is in the 1950's/60's when you could play in the streets).
I can't say a I worked out why he did it then and have no Freudian insight to his home life that might explain it. However, I noticed at secondary school the tendency for the bully to pick on the weakest and most vulnerable. It seemed as if they liked an easy target. Someone easy to intimidate and/or unlikely to fight back.These bullies would normally have a gang of three or four others that followed them around.
What was curious to me was that no one apparently taught them to do this. Maybe they had an older sibling that dominated them at home and seemed to have get away with it. They simply copied what appeared to be a successful tactic when they got the opportunity. Who knows?. They did however, learn from the "success" of their bullying that not only did they get to the front of the queue, get the sweats/toy, but they also got adoration from their followers (some followed for the protection they got). I also noticed that one bully would sometimes bully another bully and the latter would immediately (or as soon as they had licked their wounds) find someone to bully, as if they needed to re-establish their position in a hierarchy that they had created.
What was obvious was that their status was artificial. They never picked on those that would fight back (as if they were outside the self constructed hierarchical structure). They preferred to bully with others present to magnify any humiliation and their status. Bullies often had nothing and simply picked on those with even less as if to show "well at least I'm better then you". As school progressed bullies seemed to change, a few were motivated by something to study, but most didn't see education as a way to improve themselves (after all they had got to there current lofty heights trampling on others), but as a weakness to pick on even more. I should say this is within a boy/male paradigm. I have know idea what girls went through.
When I first left school at 16 I became an apprentice. The selection process meant that bullies with their lack of education simply were not qualified to apply and so as a "working class" boy I suddenly left the working class bullies behind.
I can't say I came across bullying to any great extent again until after I got an attack of career, achieved an MBA and moved into management. I was shocked when some graduates that came straight into management turned up with superior attitudes. Not only did they not value the work of the people they managed, but they were more intent on their own careers than doing a good job. They seemed to perceive that they had arrived at the bottom of management and they needed to move up. Amongst those that had worked their way up the ranks this was rarer, although not entirely absent. Like those that switch who they vote for just because they own their house, there were those that had personality changes once they moved into management.
These ambitious bullies would make almost incredible promises, or accept impossible targets. Like stock brokers and accountants they looked at past performance and predicted the future without reference to a changing environment. To reach their goal they would bully those below to go faster, work harder and became less and less rational as their target became obviously unachievable. In this case these bullies are not peers but leaders with power. When they said do X most feel they need to do it. When it didn't work you got a bollocking, so you stayed late and got in early to get the work done. Just like the bully waiting behind the bike shed to give you a thrashing if you don't hand over your dinner money. If you achieved the target this would inspire the next target to be even harder and reinforce the bullies paradigm that pushing and threatening people worked.
As I moved up the management structure many of these people fell by the wayside. This was because those that could moved on, leaving the unit to decline and fail totally. I'd say that I found most director level people that had worked their way up (not necessarily from the bottom) had a pragmatic approach. However, accountants seem to run (if indirectly) most companies and their lack of commercial knowledge and most others people's lack of numeric knowledge means unrealistic and/or unsustainable targets are set.
Back to the bullies at the top. The bullies at the top have a great survival technique. They take on an unrealistic target. e.g. I will open 4 new branches, as each current branch generates £1m of revenue our revenue will grow by £4m. Sometimes the not all the branches don't get opened. Then that is the fault of Strategy, Marketing, Operations or other department for failing to identify the right locations/build the branches. Or the branches get opened but some or all achieve less then £1m revenue. Then that is the fault of Sales, Marketing or other department for failing to bring in customers. Regardless the fault lies elsewhere and the fault was the original target. This bullying of peers forces them (and the company) into directing resources to a flawed plan in order to avoid blame. It's another bizarre behaviour and can lead these management peers to start to bully their own teams to get results.
The original bully survives as the misdirection of blame distracts from the route cause, at least for a year or two. By which time the whole division or company is in terminal decline. But don't worry, they did an excellent PowerPont presentation. Style over substance, another of my pet hates.
So to get back to the title, "Why do we blame the poor?". It's because it distracts us from the route cause of the problem and solving it. The Nazis did it with the Jews and is one of the most extreme examples, but there are may examples where one part of society blames another for its woes.
Society is broken in as much as the rich have become the super rich and the poor are poorer than ever and using food banks. Do we blame those in charge, the Government? Do we blame those with power, the Banks, the International and Multinational business that sway government policy? No! for some bizarre reason we blame those without power, the poor and the immigrants. Yep, it must be their fault.
Why do the general public not see this lie for what it is? Maybe its because we are all a little bit of a bully and when we are all under pressure its easier to pick on the defenceless and hope we escape, than those that might fight back.
For most of recorded history (since the Egyptians at least) there have been the "haves" and the "have nots". The difference between the top and the bottom has been huge. Slaves at one end and rich dead people being buried with gold. In Victorian times slavery may have been abolished in that one person could not legally own another, but freedom is the ability to make choices. Without money there are few choices to be made. The poverty of the Victorian era saw the poor being blamed too. Statistics was a civil services invention to prove that the poor were inferior to the rest of society and deserved less. It actually proved that they were the same...Back to the point.. for most of the last 2000 years the difference between the poor and the rich has been enormous. In Europe the two world wars levelled people as class was set aside to win the war. People fought and died side by side regardless of class. After the war there was a greater voice from the workers and their unions. Sadly some union leaders went too far and enabled Thatcher to eroded their power. Greed became good and every man for himself replaced the comradeship of the war and post-war years. Slowly and surely we appear to be returning to what has been the normal state that has endured for 2000 years with the super rich and powerful and the super poor and powerless.
