Oppression Olympics is a critical term for a type of perceivedvictim mentality that viewsmarginalization as a competition to determine the relative weight of the overall oppression of individuals or groups, often by comparing race, gender, religion, sexuality, socioeconomic status or disabilities, in order to determine who is the worst off and most oppressed. This characterization often arises within debates about the ideological values ofidentity politics,intersectionality, andsocial privilege.[1][2][3]
The term arose among somefeminist scholars in the 1990s and is used to criticize the view of marginalization as a basis for competition rather than cooperation. The first potential recorded use of the term as a way to theorize comparing oppression was byChicana feministElizabeth Martínez in a conversation withAngela Davis at theUniversity of California, San Diego in 1993. Martínez stated: "The general idea is no competition of hierarchies should prevail. No 'Oppression Olympics'!"[4]
The Oppression Olympics have been described as a contest within a group to "assert who is more authentic, more oppressed, and thus more correct".[1][2] This may be on the basis of one's class, race, gender, disability (mental or physical), sexuality, among otherstated or ascribed identities.[1][2]
A person's stated or ascribed identity "become[s]fetishised" within the group and judged in preconceivedessentialist terms.[1] There is a dynamic "of agreeing with the most marginalized in the room".[1]
According to Stoyan Francis, "The gold medal of the Oppression Olympics is seen as the commanding spot for demanding change, for visibility and allocation of resources".[3]
The term is coined after theOlympic Games and their focus on medals and other competitive achievements. Elizabeth Martínez, in a conversation with Angela Davis on May 12, 1993, responded to a question about coalition building as follows: "There are various forms of working together. A coalition is one, a network is another, an alliance is yet another. ... But the general idea is no competition of hierarchies should prevail. No Oppression Olympics!"[4] Davis supported Martínez's characterization and stated, "As Betita has pointed out, we need to be more flexible in our thinking about various ways of working together across differences."[4]
Martínez would later write more extensively about the "Oppression Olympics" in her 1998 monographDe Colores Means All of Us: Latina Views for a Multi-Colored Century. In a foreword for the book, Angela Davis writes that Martínez evoked "a term that will be recognized by many who have heard her speak" and states that Martínez "urges us not to engage in 'Oppression Olympics' [or create] a futile hierarchy of suffering, but, rather, to harness our rage at persisting injustices in order to strengthen our opposition to an increasingly complex system of domination, which weaves togetherracism,patriarchy,homophobia, and globalcapitalist exploitation".[5]
In his bookThe Holocaust in American Life (1999), historianPeter Novick derived a related term, "Victimization Olympics", to describe how persecuted groups have "competed" to portray themselves as the most grievously oppressed, withHolocaust victims "intent on permanent possession of the gold medal".[6] To illustrate the competition, Novick quotes an excerpt from an essay published by African-American authorJames Baldwin in 1967:
One does not wish...to be told by an American Jew that his suffering is as great as the American Negro's suffering. It isn't, and one knows that it isn't from the very tone in which he assures you that it is.... For it is not here, and not now, that the Jew is being slaughtered, and he is never despised, here, as the Negro is,because he is an American. The Jewish travail occurred across the sea and America rescued him from the house of bondage. But Americais the house of bondage for the Negro, and no country can rescue him.[7]
The dynamics of the Oppression Olympics have been criticized as being "intellectually lazy, lacking political depth", and "leads towardstokenization".[1]These dynamics surrounding identity politics have been criticized withinanarchist thought for their social hierarchy building, as anarchism is fundamentally against notions of hierarchy.[1]
AcademicAnge-Marie Hancock has criticized the energy spent upon the Oppression Olympics within progressive circles as being an impediment to wider collective action in furthering social change.[8] She opines that "Thanks to the Oppression Olympics and the political complexity facing the twenty-first century, standing in solidarity for wide social transformation is increasingly difficult to begin and challenging to pursue."[8]
In her article "Dialogical Epistemology—An Intersectional Resistance to the 'Oppression Olympics'",[9]Nira Yuval-Davis addresses the issue of Oppression Olympics and argues that categorical intersectionality provides an enhancement to this problem.[vague]
In her workSolidarity Politics for Millennials: A Guide to Ending the Oppression Olympics,[10] Ange-Marie Hancock argues that the core causes for Oppression Olympics are the desire to one-up other victims, and blindness to the plights and disadvantages of other groups.
Research in identity studies has termed this (inter-group) competitive victimhood.[11][12]