01-29-2013, 08:28 AM
One thing I take for granted -- that a lot of other people don't seem to be able to get their head around -- is equality. This is very different to sameness. We all have different strengths and weaknesses but these things balance out. Assuming superiority because of one trait that is privileged as part of the dominant paradigm is not only arrogant, it's really just setting yourself up for a fall.
Being rich doesn't make you better than the poor -- it might mean that you're more conversant with the ways of capitalism and can more readily exploit its mechanisms; it might mean that you are less impulsive; it might just mean that your daddy or grandaddy worked hard all his life and you're the lucky beneficiary of someone else's sweat. But people aren't poor because they're lazy (well, some might be, but that's an extreme minority), they're usually poor because they're disenfranchised and don't have the personality/skills/good fortune to be able to take advantage of the system. It doesn't mean, as some assume, that poverty is the romantic ideal or that rich people are more greedy. It just means that under the current system, some people are better equipped to benefit financially than others. Under a different system, who knows?
Similarly, the dominant paradigm in most western countries is white, slim, nuclear family, man at the top. If you have the cultural capital to take advantage of your place in this paradigm, you're laughing. If not... well. The law technically says you're equal but of course practice says otherwise. Yet are people who play this game well happier than those in a traditional Polynesian society, where the entire village is your family and each member contributes in some way to the village's prosperity?
I consider myself anyone's equal. It is not something I aggressively pursue, it's just a fact. People earn my respect by showing me that they're capable and deserving leaders, not by waving around their family crest or putting 64 letters after their name. Being able to lift more weight than me doesn't make you my superior. The sooner we start looking at the whole balance sheet without the culturally imposed filter, the better for everyone.
Now, can someone lend me $20?
Being rich doesn't make you better than the poor -- it might mean that you're more conversant with the ways of capitalism and can more readily exploit its mechanisms; it might mean that you are less impulsive; it might just mean that your daddy or grandaddy worked hard all his life and you're the lucky beneficiary of someone else's sweat. But people aren't poor because they're lazy (well, some might be, but that's an extreme minority), they're usually poor because they're disenfranchised and don't have the personality/skills/good fortune to be able to take advantage of the system. It doesn't mean, as some assume, that poverty is the romantic ideal or that rich people are more greedy. It just means that under the current system, some people are better equipped to benefit financially than others. Under a different system, who knows?
Similarly, the dominant paradigm in most western countries is white, slim, nuclear family, man at the top. If you have the cultural capital to take advantage of your place in this paradigm, you're laughing. If not... well. The law technically says you're equal but of course practice says otherwise. Yet are people who play this game well happier than those in a traditional Polynesian society, where the entire village is your family and each member contributes in some way to the village's prosperity?
I consider myself anyone's equal. It is not something I aggressively pursue, it's just a fact. People earn my respect by showing me that they're capable and deserving leaders, not by waving around their family crest or putting 64 letters after their name. Being able to lift more weight than me doesn't make you my superior. The sooner we start looking at the whole balance sheet without the culturally imposed filter, the better for everyone.
Now, can someone lend me $20?
It could be worse