By
Obododimma
Oha
One of the
great books of the Holy Bible that I like reading is the book of Job. It is not
that one is in love with tragedy or that one enjoys reading about misfortunes
that befell Job. Indeed, some enjoy the narratives of misfortunes that befell
others. That is very sad. Perhaps, psychologists would tell us better about
these people and their inclination. What I take interest in really is the fact
that Job’s close friends came to him and started blaming and mocking him,
holding him responsible for the misfortunes.So, they were blaming him for what
he did not cause, directly and
indirectly. So, what do we make with this interest in blaming from a
professional angle, at least?
Blaming is a
pragmatic and rhetorical act. The "blamers" were hurting Job the more. That was a serious offensive the act. But also we know that Job did not cause the tragedies, and that he was
only a victim!Blaming Job was a way of
1. making him
an undesirable character we should not associate with;
2. transferring
guilt to him, which was unjust;
3. making self
(as a blamer) become one who takes sides with injustice;
4.turning language into a weapon of hurt, instead of being a kind of balm and medication;
5. turning
Job, who was a mere victim of tragedy, into its author!
These days
when people continue blaming the white slave merchants for the persistence of
black backwardness, I shudder and ask: were there no black accomplices who
were kidnapping, shackling and selling their brothers and sisters into slavery to facilitate the trade?
Today, when colonial masters are blamed for coming to colonize parts of Africa
and other parts of the world, I ask quietly: where were Africa’s rulers and
warriors when this brigandage was taking place? What of their powerful charms
that could mesmerize even spirits? Why was it that they could not deploy them
to kill the brigands and, at least, maim the devil? I hear that, in some cases,
the colonial masters even handed over the colonies to proxy-colonizers who
continue to dominate and exploit the
lands! Why should these proxy-colonialists be given a chance at all? Is the
foolishness the type that Charly Boy refers to as “Carry-come mumu”?
So, you see
that when one is pointing at another in blame, four folded ones at pointing back
at one! This is why it is not always good to blame another, the victim.
We can blame
others, and rightly so. But we cannot continue to blame others or make blaming a
career. It is proper to blame the foreign slave merchants and colonialists, and
it is another thing to try and correct the postures to life that allowed these
things in the first place. The bottom-line is that blaming cannot continue for good life to
abound.
We have seen
that blaming the victim, who is supposed to be justified and consoled, is gross
injustice. Even regular blaming is not admirable. Blaming the victim also does
these:
1. it gives a
bad example;
2. it sends a
wrong signal that one is saying that being on the side of good is bad and could attract a punishment!
3. It makes
the blamer who who hardly thinks;
4. It makes
one who blames the victim as an apostle of evil-doing!
These and
many other implications should make one not join in blaming the victim. But they require us to be able to tell victimhood from its opposite, and not say that
white is sometimes black.
Comments