Its from pedagogy of the oppressed

But even when the contradiction is resolved authentically by a new situation established by the liberated laborers, the former oppressors do not feel liberated. On the contrary, they genuinely consider themselves to be oppressed. Conditioned by the experience of oppressing others, any situation other than their former seems to them like oppression. Formerly, they could eat, dress, wear shoes, be educated, travel, and hear Beethoven; while millions did not eat, had no clothes or shoes, neither studied nor traveled, much less listened to Beethoven. Any restriction on this way of life, in the name of the rights of the community, appears to the former oppressors as a profound violation of their individual rights—although they had no respect for the millions who suffered and died of hunger, pain, sorrow, and despair. For the oppressors, “human beings” refers only to themselves; other people are “things.” For the oppressors, there exists only one right: their right to live in peace, over against the right, not always even recognized, but simply conceded, of the oppressed to survival. And they make this concession only because the existence of the oppressed is necessary to their own existence.

Keep in mind, this comes after a long section explaining that “it is the historic mission of the oppressed to restore the humanity of the oppressors,” so he’s not just chastising people for being bad here, he’s explaining (in part) why the oppressor can never free the oppressed; the oppressed liberates them both and creates a new kind of person.

Sorry for my paraphrase, I haven’t read it for a little over a year, although I think about it a lot

(I made an edit where I fixed a typo that like completely changed the meaning in the last paragraph)