"After talking this week about newly independent Latin American nations, and the way the elites took advantage of the indigenous people, I began to see connections from our readings to present day United States. I know all of you are stuck on the jungle book analogy, but I'd like to try and be somewhat original and take my own approach to the subject. Whether what I say sounds legitimate or not, is for you to decide.
After reading Burns and Sarmiento, I began to think about the occupy Wall Street movement. Think about it for a second: the so called "1%" is just the same as the elites, and the other 99% would be comparable to the peasants and every other person living in Latin America who was receiving no benefit from the rich elites' decisions.
The elites grew wealthy and lived luxurious lifestyles in Latin America while the poor commoners had children growing up in no better living conditions than the dirty family dog. some of the decisions the elites made, like trying to Europeanize the countries, often made the peasants' living conditions even worse. The elites did not care, however, because meanwhile they were basking in all the glory that came from being a rich white person of the nation.
The same argument can be made for the top 1% of the U.S. population. From what I have heard in my high school civics class, and what I looked up on the internet, this 1% of the population holds anywhere from 30 to 40 percent of our wealth. No wonder the other 99% of people in our country grew so frustrated and started the occupy Wall Street movement.
After reading Burns and Sarmiento, I began to think about the occupy Wall Street movement. Think about it for a second: the so called "1%" is just the same as the elites, and the other 99% would be comparable to the peasants and every other person living in Latin America who was receiving no benefit from the rich elites' decisions.
The elites grew wealthy and lived luxurious lifestyles in Latin America while the poor commoners had children growing up in no better living conditions than the dirty family dog. some of the decisions the elites made, like trying to Europeanize the countries, often made the peasants' living conditions even worse. The elites did not care, however, because meanwhile they were basking in all the glory that came from being a rich white person of the nation.
The same argument can be made for the top 1% of the U.S. population. From what I have heard in my high school civics class, and what I looked up on the internet, this 1% of the population holds anywhere from 30 to 40 percent of our wealth. No wonder the other 99% of people in our country grew so frustrated and started the occupy Wall Street movement.
I don't know much about the situation in the U.S., but I feel like the relation between it and Latin America in the past is similar. To me, it is even a little ironic, considering the fact that people in Latin America saw the U.S., and wished to be more like it." (http://alexislaciv.blogspot.com/2014/01/blog-2.html#comment-form)
My response:
"While I do see the parallels you are drawing between 19th century Latin America and present-day United States, I would like to identify several important differences. First, I agree that the elites' efforts to modernize Latin America had negative effects on the lives of the lower classes. However, in the United States today, poor people are not poor because rich people are rich, and rich people are not rich because poor people are poor. The rich 1% are not hoarding away their wealth, making it impossible for lower class people to move up the social ladder. In this country, it is possible for everyone to enjoy an increase in wealth at the same time; that is the nature of a capitalist economy.
Also, you said that "the other 99% of people in our country grew so frustrated and started the occupy Wall Street Movement." I should point out that not 99% of the nation's population are liberals, are against capitalism, and supported Occupy Wall Street. Also, the "99%" in the United States is not the same as the 98-99% of Latin Americans who weren't rich, white elites. Yes, in Latin America most of the people in this group were extremely poor. However, the United States has a much larger middle class than Latin America did in the 19th century, and so the "99%" of people in the U.S. includes many middle-class people who do enjoy a relatively high standard of living."
Also, you said that "the other 99% of people in our country grew so frustrated and started the occupy Wall Street Movement." I should point out that not 99% of the nation's population are liberals, are against capitalism, and supported Occupy Wall Street. Also, the "99%" in the United States is not the same as the 98-99% of Latin Americans who weren't rich, white elites. Yes, in Latin America most of the people in this group were extremely poor. However, the United States has a much larger middle class than Latin America did in the 19th century, and so the "99%" of people in the U.S. includes many middle-class people who do enjoy a relatively high standard of living."
No comments:
Post a Comment