Status Quo in America

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

April 13 2008 03:35 GMT

So I was typing up a paper for Anthropology about the class system and how it affects modern day societies. So when I was reading through a book I came to the conclusion that even though America prides itself in equality and the "golden dream, it is a bunch of bullshit. If one person who had the ability or power to change the status quo, say money to the poor and lesser tax on the middle class, what would happen. I think they would be shot. Civil rights is a prime example, MLK, JFK, Bobbie Kennedy, and Malcolm X. All tried to change the way America's lifestyle was and still is functioning. And they were murdered because of it. The rich get richer and the poor get stuck with more burden.

Look at how money stays in the families of the rich. They host parties to make sure it stays in the family, thus rich marries rich. Very few, if any money is every spread out or trickled down into the general working class.

And if a major figurehead was to challenge the status quo, I would not be surprised to see them assassinated.

blagoonga123

United States2068 Posts

April 13 2008 03:46 GMT

That's true. The rich don't want to give up their money so they'll make sure nobody comes around to rid them of it, through one way or another.

zdd

1463 Posts

April 13 2008 03:57 GMT

It makes sense that the rich would want to preserve the status quo, because their wealth depends on it. They are expected to act out of their own self-interest, because that is what humans do. The fact that the legal/executive system is incapable of dealing with this efficiently is saddening however. As a general rule, humans strive to make better societies and rules to accommodate their nature and progress as they evolve. The big questions that arise are "how much order is good?" and "how much freedom is good?" On one extreme, anarchists argue that order asserts itself and should not be forced upon people through government. On the other, despots suggest that order is more important than freedom. Somewhere in the middle, we have proportional quantities of order and freedom. Too much freedom, and we get "Mad Max", too much order and we get "1984"/"The Handmaid's Tale". The status quo is somewhat leaning toward the order>freedom extreme, but it really depends on what the people will want in the future. In my opinion the constitution was the best system devised so far, because it protects freedom and ensures order, but it can definitely be improved upon.

Spenguin

Australia3316 Posts

April 13 2008 03:58 GMT

Mmm its a sad reality.

dancefayedance!~

396 Posts

April 13 2008 05:13 GMT

i agree with some parts. i don't think you can attribute the incisive class division on the rich. the rich may get richer but at least for the civil rights leaders you listed - with the exception of Kennedy - they have been killed by generally poor or middle class people. malcolm x was assassinated by members from the Nation of Islam, MLK was apparently shot by an escaped convict serving a 20 year sentence, robert kennedy was killed by a crazy palestinian.

it isnt the riches fault that poor, racist, extremist whatever decides to kill their only hope to get out of the cycle. and i dont think the rich are entirely at fault for marrying withing their own class. most rich people grow up with other rich people and rarely get to know other people outside of their own social class. rich people would obviously choose out of there own social class not because of parental pressures but also because the environment they pick to find a mate.

corporations are a problem but most people are too lazy or ignorant to invite any positive change.

man

United States272 Posts

April 13 2008 06:17 GMT

most people in general marry into their own class, so that part of your argument isn't valid.

Jibba

United States22883 Posts

April 13 2008 06:49 GMT

The Kennedy's and Malcolm X are pretty poor examples for your case, and MLK was killed by a racist, not a classist. I hope you don't put that parties section in the paper, because you have no possible way of backing it up or proving that's how money gets spread. We're talking about the 21st century, not the movie Titanic.

The American dream is that anybody has the ability to make money however they so choose. There are definitely some things impeding that, particularly education programs from county to county, but people aren't denied jobs because of their social background and people aren't locked into place.

It's true the American revolution wasn't a true revolution (same aristocracy before and after) but look at the stories of most of our nation's "heroes." From Franklin to Edison/Rockefeller/Carnegie to Gates/Oprah. They were not rich to rich, they were poor to rich. A disproportionate amount of them are also white, which marks one issue in society, but I don't think class restriction is as big of a deal as you make it.

EDIT: "Giving" money would be an economic disaster. There are ways the government can try and improve the lives of poor people, and it's not like they totally neglect those methods. Minimum wage has been increased across the board within the last couple years and we're having talks of national health care. It may be slower than people would like, but the system is designed to be slow.

You can tax the rich more but the thing is everyone is for change and improvement until it turns out they have to make some type of sacrifice for it. We need people willing to step up to the plate and prod people along (two different metaphors in one sentence, BAM I'm good.)

Please or register to reply.

Status Quo in America

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming