Quote:
Originally Posted by Medusa
Im glad that a few folks have brought up the whole thing where folks appropriate a class history that doesn't really belong to them.
Im trying to tease out a parallel around the very rich and the very poor. There is almost some kind of....I dunno...."money ceiling"? where the very wealthy and very poor are concerned. Some kind of untouchable glamorization.
I think of the very wealthy as they are shown on tv and how there is this mythical unicorn feeling attached to them through tabloids and media. Movie stars and singers with gold-plated dog bowls and $30 million homes are elevated to this "untouchable" (or maybe unimaginable) status.
There is "celebrity" attached through wealth. The idea that human beings are worth more if they are "worth" more.
But then, there is this weird dichotomy where the very poor also have a mythical unicorn thing attached. Think of Nuns and Monks who have no earthly possessions; I think society oftens sees this life as "magical" or "untouchable". The celebrity attached here is one that says "This person must be magical in other ways because they have no money". Glamorized for what might seem like a perfected lack of desire?
|
I think the rich get glamorized...
while The Poor get romanticized.
I think there's a certain 'romantic notion' attached to The Poor...The 'simple' lifestyle...'living simply'. I see certain aspects of Appalachia romanticized a lot. The 'quaint' lifestyle. It seems like all of the 'crap' of being poor gets shoved out of the picture, so all that remains is this 'simple' lifestyle.
I was talking to someone a while ago, and she was so poor, she had to make her own hand soap out of soap chips. As I was talking to someone else about it, it became this 'quaint' thing that she made her own soap.
I also see the romanticism in comments like, "They were so 'ethical'" or some other somesuch comments discussing the high morals of poor people (usually long after they've died or long after they were young enough to work two jobs or whatever). I'm not being very clear here, but...when younger people are poor, they're normally villainized as being lazy/drug addicts/whatnot...when poor people get older, they're usually romanticized or pitied. It's interesting to me, because I never hear these same type of comments from actual poor people. I never hear poor people who are struggling actually say, "But we're rich with a good work ethic" or "We don't have much, but we have 'love'". I mean, the only actual poor person I've ever heard say something like that is Loretta Lynn, and it was wellllllllll after she was actually living poor. Again, it's that 'romanticized' version of Poordom. Like there's something enviable in going days without food, or making your own soap, or watching your kids go hungry, or some other somesuch like that.
And then, I see this 'outsider looking in' version of Poordom. Like social workers are sometimes sooooo fascinated with The Poor/Poverty. And books like "Nickeled And Dimed" make (already rich) people even more wealthy, while the actual lived lives of The Poor are completely ignored. Theories are studied, yet when those who have actually LIVED it, say, "Um, no that won't work, because..." they're dismissed while those with more class privilege discuss how to 'fix' it (which usually entails a good round of victim blaming and boot-strapping).
I think some of this romanticizing has to do with religion (especially/primarily catholicism-xtianity-protestant work ethic), and all of the brainwashing contained in the bible about being poor and how it's so godly. There's a lot of glorification in 'suffering'.
Dylan