Is the point of view of the oppressed more significant than the point of view of the oppressor?

Question

If you can be certain that one group has oppressed another group would you say that the record of the event given by the oppressed is more significant than that of the oppressor. Assuming they can not be given equal wieght.
I'm asking the question in general. I am specifically looking at first person accounts of american slavery.

Answer 1

well I would say the view of the opressed is more significant. as the oppressor is more likely to attempt to exhonerate themself by thier own account.

The account of the oppressed, though not free from exxageration, is likely more of an accurate account.

here is an interesting one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Ibrahim_Ibn_Sori

Answer 2

History is usually written by the winner or the oppressor, so the amount of literature on a subject is slanted in that direction. There are few, if any, points of view published (most are suppressed) by the victims of oppression. However, if you are looking for an interesting first hand written record of American slavery, try The Bondwoman's Narrative by Hanna Crafts.

Answer 3

Each account is valid but only when one speaks of their role in the relationship. The oppressor cannot say how the oppressed feel and the oppressed cannot say how the oppressor feels.

But then there are those cases when the oppressed are their own oppressors and in modern times I find this to be more prevalent.

Answer 4

Thich nhat Hahn once said, "All views are wrong views". Meaning the point of view is irrelevent, a delusion of your mind. Do what needs to be done in this very moment. Stop the oppression.

Answer 5

Well that generally depends on whatever subject is at hand, in some cases theoppressor's view is more significant and in other cases the oppressed view is, also it depends on whom is looking at the views.

Answer 6

both would make good storys and both sides should be told