Lana El-Farra

In Pedagogy of the
Oppressed, Paulo Freire wrote about the oppressed and the oppressor;
their characteristics, thoughts, and actions. "In order for this
struggle to have meaning, the oppressed must not… become in turn
oppressors of the oppressors, but rather restorers of the humanity of
both." This really made me reflect on a quote that touches upon how the
true struggle for humanity is when the minority becomes the majority. I
saw the parallel in this in that both the oppressed and the minority
tend to be one of the same.

Another part of this article that
truly stood out to me was how "the egoistic interests of the oppressors
(an egoism cloaked in the false generosity of paternalism) and makes of
the oppressed the object of its humanitarianism, itself maintains and
embodies oppression." When the oppressor uses the oppressed to project a
"false generosity", this only in turn fuels oppression even further,
keeping the oppressed in that position forever. Freire goes on to even
argue that the oppressor cannot actually be a part of the liberation of
the oppressed. The oppressed must do it themselves, for themselves.
Freire also says that "violence
is initiated by those who oppress, who exploit, who fail to recognize
others as persons…" I think this is a true statement in that those who
cannot acknowledge that all humans have value, that every human being
has a purpose, that everyone is here for a reason, they are truly
imposing violence on society. It saddens me that oppressors see only
themselves as "human beings", "others are 'things'". This perception of
others as "things" stems from the oppressors ability to "transform
everything into objects of their purchasing power…" Everything and
everyone who is not a part of the "oppressor" are therefore considered
unworthy of "human status" and are subjected to be a "things" to buy, to
help out through fake generosity, and to make each oppressor feel as if
they can help others. The oppressor feels that those who don't have,
who aren't as "successful" (according to their own terms), they are
merely lazy and unworthy of "having".