On the matter of 'oppressed versus oppressors' - this can be a difficult criteria to operate by as it is often so subjective.

In Zimbabwe for example, it is very easy to see that opponents of Zanu PF are amongst the ranks of the Oppressed.

However, Robert Mugabe would turn round (yes he's a mad fool and I don't support one iota of his opinon) and say that Zimbabwe was oppressed by the west, and that his vision was to free zimbabwe from that oppression, and in order to do so he had to lock down political dissent.

You and i would look at that and say - well Mugabe is nuts ... so who cares what he says ...

But then you could ask who is oppressed and who the oppressor in Cuba - a slightly greyer area - I happen to like Cuba for its health service and education, and for its culture of community responsibility - something that Castro can take responsibility for.

However, Castro was a pretty ruthless dictator in other ways and I do not agree with oppression of anyone.

If you accept the principle of sacrificing one persons well being to facilitate anothers in one context, then why not in an opposing context.

A third case is that of the USA where the culture is one of absolute freedom of enterprise and protecting the conditions in which 'freedom' can flourish.

Taxes and environmental regulations and gun laws represent 'oppression' if you have that mind set, evn though many of us would see that mind set as resulting in the effective oppression of the poor.

And it is perhaps ironic that Americas 'free' society owes its existence to slavery and conquest - so one wonders whether it can ever really claim t be a free country at all.

But you get my gist I think that one mans oppressor is another mans oppressee (if there is such a word).


A more useful yard stick could be just "do you give a shit about peoples suffering or not"?

A lot of people don't and will quite happily stick the boot into the weakest of people if it helps to feather their nest just a little more.