Half thought out idea about the "Blame the victim" mentality

[Bucky]

I put the following in a post in another thread. I'm too busy to think this through just now, but I'd appreciate any other thoughts, expansions, or critiques yall in the history hobby have about it.

"Blame the victim" is always wrong. Society used to actively pursue that "blame the victim" mentality because, sadly, the "winners" in society are so often the perpetrators of injustice--bank fraudsters in the 2000s, Wall Street junk bonders in the 1900s robber barons in the 1800s, land swindlers in the 1700s, colonial conquistadors in the 1600s. The opinion leaders of the world formulated that "blame the victim" notion because they needed to rationalize their inhumane treatment of fellow human beings.

[zbdent]

1. Bullies ...

I mean, in any other context, they are perpetrating illegal acts.

If not physical harm, they are intimidating victims.

If it was a black person hanging out at the "allowed perimeter" for smoking outside the polling office, it's cause for a federal investigation.

If it's one kid beating up another, it's "toughening them up".

[rrneck]

2. I mostly agree.

Nobody does anything for just one reason. It is possible to leverage victimization for profit. But in the example you gave regarding economic injustice yes, blaming the victim is an example of corporate risk distribution, in this case exporting the liability of moral hazard down the economic ladder.

[JimDandy]

3. Agree.

"...blaming the victim is an example of corporate risk distribution, in this case exporting the liability of moral hazard down the economic ladder"