JUST PHILOSOPHISING - ON THE SHALLOWNESS OF SEEING THINGS ONLY IN 'BLACK AND WHITE.' PART 3.

They might be neither 'the oppressed' or 'the oppressor', since both of those are more likely to be found at the extremes of both categories. 

It is more likely that they 'belong' to the group which is being oppressed, and the group doing the oppression. 

With belonging not being the same as being 'oppressed,' or being an 'oppressor.'  

Except when speaking in generalities, which, of course, rarely, if ever apply in all or most specific cases.

They might also feel that they should be feeling 'guilty and responsible.'  

If they are identified as belonging to the dominant ethnic groups, and 'aggrieve', if they belong to the 'oppressed' and/or 'wronged group/s.' 

When, arguably, there is little point in the descendants of  the past 'oppressors', feeling guilty for the 'sins of their fathers.' 

And here, we might ponder why 'mothers' have been omitted from being responsible for 'guilty.' 

Although it seems reasonable to hold men as being mostly responsible for man's injustices to their fellow humans. But, I digress.

Yes, unless such feelings of guilt were to induce them to make whatever amends they can, or is a prerequisite for them doing so. Neither is it likely to merit the descendants of the 'oppressed.' 

For any of them to spend their time admonishing the descendants of the past oppressors to 'feel guilty' and/or to make amends.  

Unless it can clearly be shown that the oppression is continuing in the present. In which case it would need more than 'admonishment' to change the nature and balance of that relationship. 

To be continued!