Almost Too Quiet

Today, I did not say a single word during the class discussion. This irked me and confused me: I certainly didn't expect to go out there and contribute nothing. Why did it happen? I'm not quite sure. I am not the world's best when it comes to economics, but that was only a small part of my reticence; more of it was simply not knowing whether what I was going to say was going to offend someone, or make me seem insensitive or a blockhead, and therefore keeping my thoughts to myself. I also liked group 1's discussion much more than group 2's - I had lots to say about the original discussion, but clammed up when it was my turn to talk. That was a terrible feeling of loss of control, and I never want to do that again.

Here's some of what I WANTED to say today (some of this, to varying degrees, was covered by others in class): Poverty and wealth are unbelievably relative, and are not actual, concrete "things" - they are concepts that with institutionalized definitions, but which cannot exist without a contrary experience. For example, here's a story: as a child, the molars on the right side of my mouth didn't touch when I closed my mouth (my jaw was uneven). This meant, of course, that I was food-chewing poor compared to other children, and this inefficiency in food consumption doubtless caused minor (very minor) physiological deficiencies. However, I thought this was completely normal for all kids - jaws just didn't close on both sides. Until a dentist informed me both sides should close, I had literally no idea I was at a deficiency.

This is obviously a small example, but the model holds true in a historical context as well. In my view, impoverishment as our society accords it exists everywhere - from the slums of a city to the mountains of Benin. This impoverishment comes from lack of opportunity, lack of basic comforts like medical care, and lack of actual cash. However, it is only when market forces begin to work on a society that true wealth begins to take shape - and brings with it a lower class. For example, Indians in the Chesapeake in the 1600s and before lived a life of communal land, hunting and sustenance farming, and trade of goods. After the European market system touched these people, however, wars started up - wars that began because there was now an idea of private property that could be purchased; wars because this new private property cut in on farming and hunting grounds, and because those with the means to buy land did so in large amounts; wars because deerskin became a prime market selling point to Europe, and so as hunting grounds were depleted fighting broke out over the land that was left; wars to collect slaves to sell, which was the most lucrative system of all. This last was particularly egregious, because in previous Indian wars, prisoners were made slaves and were the "poorest" member of society - but were eventually adopted into the tribe. Now, these same people were sold into slavery by people who were slaves themselves - slaves to the drive to find wealth and avoid poverty. These terms had never existed before, but they would never leave afterward.

Now, the market has obviously done a lot of great things, as Christian pointed out in class; it's brought technological revolutions, a swelling standard of living, etc. However, it has also brought a sense of a bourgeoisie and of an attainable upper-class, an upper-class which requires another class to be below it. In America, there are many who succeed, but also many who fail, and those who fail are painfully reminded every day of what could be. I guess what I'm saying is, I would rather be poor in America than poor almost anywhere else. But if I could find a place - which may well be hypothetical now - which has never felt the hand of the market and the class system it brings along...I'd have to give it a good look.