c. 1997 Religion News Service

(Andrew M. Greeley is a Roman Catholic priest, best-selling novelist and a sociologist at the University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center. Check out his home page at http://www.agreeley.com or contact him via e-mail at agreel(at)aol.com.)

UNDATED _ There is a new kind of pride. Sociologists might call it the pride of demographic victimization.

You see it when a person argues from a demographic attribute such as race or ethnicity _ an attribute one person in the argument possess and the other does not. Such racial or ethnic attributes, when linked to past oppression, convey an implied moral superiority and thus the power to demand confession, penitence and restitution from the other person.

Here’s an absurd illustration: An Irish person encounters an English person. The former announces that the English have oppressed the Irish for seven centuries (give or take) and, therefore, this particular English person is an oppressor and this particular Irish person a victim.

It follows, then, the argument goes, that the Irish person is morally superior to the English person and holds the moral balance of power in the relationship. No matter how much the English person strives to defend against the charge, the verdict of guilt has been delivered.

A Christian intervening in such an exchange might accuse the Irish person of prejudice and bigotry, insisting no one should be written off as morally inferior simply because of national background. Quite the contrary, the Christian would say, paraphrasing St. Paul, we are neither English nor Irish but all one in Christ Jesus.

The illustration is absurd, not because the Irish are not a victim people; they have been and continue to be. It is absurd only because the Irish are not fashionable victims.

Arguments about past victimization and present guilt, however, abound from members of other groups whose victimhood has more cachet than the Irish.

Take this as an example: I am from the Third World. You are from the First World. You have exploited us for centuries. Therefore, you are guilty of exploitation, indeed of exploiting me. Therefore, I am morally superior to you and have power in our relationship.

Or, I am a woman. You are a man. Men have oppressed women always. Therefore, you are an oppressor. In fact you are oppressing me. Confess your guilt, not that it will do you any good.

Or, I am an African-American. You are a white American. Your ancestors brought mine here as slaves. You are responsible for the sufferings of African-Americans and for my suffering. Do not try to defend yourself. As a white person you are by definition a racist.

In response, one could argue that my ancestors were being oppressed in another part of the world by the same people who oppressed your ancestors, but such an argument is foolish. All white people are responsible for slavery, even those whose ancestors themselves were sold into slavery.

And finally, I am an Native American. You are a white American. Your people committed genocide against my people. You must confess your own personal responsibility for that sin and concede me my moral superiority.

However, sometimes it’s tricky to figure out who the victim really is. In the United States right now a very unfashionable victim is the illegal Mexican immigrant, even though such a person has Native American genes.

St. Paul again paraphrased: Neither gay nor straight, Irish nor English, black nor white, male nor female, Arab nor Jew, but all one in Christ Jesus.

At one time that was the rational, liberal, sophisticated position, as well as the Christian position. No one was to be judged by anyone else on the basis of demographic characteristics.

No longer. Now victims _ at least fashionable victims _ are superior. The rest of us must concede them moral power.

However popular such an argument is, though, it remains immoral and sinful to judge anyone by a demographic characteristic, even one that includes past victimhood.

MJP END GREELEY