This week's question was:
Identify the picture with the list below and write or record your response about this picture, addressing these questions:
Identify the picture with the list below and write or record your response about this picture, addressing these questions:
- How does this picture relate to 'progress' and inequality. Be sure to reference some of the thinkers and ideas presented this week.
- Where do you and your life fit in to the picture? How are you entangled in it?
I chose the picture:
My response:
I am choosing the picture of slums beside tennis courts (photo #10).
1. This picture bleeds inequality. There is a clear divide between the poor half of the country and the wealthy 1%. As Martin Luther King mentions, "Edifices that produce beggars need restructuring." The rich few have the wealth to make all the important decisions. It is their poorly thought out decisions that continue to produce beggars. They spend their money creating Wal-Marts, destroying individual markets and bringing more people into the slum part of the divide. They spend more money on social service, which is a quick-fix. Canned foods will give the poor nutrition for a week; however, it will also get them attached to the rich. The poor start to see the rich as their caretaker, increasing the power and responsibility the rich have. It is a convoluted, mutual relationship. The better long-term treatment is to initial social change. It is to find the root of the problem and break the demarcation between the slum and the tennis courts. It is to allow the poor to see the rich. The huge wall makes it impossible for the poor to imagine the affluence of the rich. Once the wall is broken, they will see that a year worth of cans will never be worth the money and space the tennis court is taking up for the mere pleasure of a few family members. Progress will be made when there are more social changes and a break in the mutual relationship. The rich know they would not be rich without the poor. The only thing more powerful than fear is hope. The rich feed the poor to make the slum-half fear what life would be without these food items. The rich do not want the poor to have other priorities, or god forbid, hope of ever breaking out of the cycle. Distraction is suppression in modern times. It happens daily with fewer harsh divides. Television features the Kardashians to keep the population entertained long enough to ignore true problems. The rich few who know of the true problems do not have enough people working as a team to solve the problem. The solution is to turn off the Kardashians and feature the problem on all channels, but then, the rich would not be powerful. I think we give the rich their power. The poor feed the rich figuratively while the rich feed the poor literally. If we introduced social change, the poor would know to avoid the "fluff" or the "entertainment" provided by the rich to distract us. If we make the poor involved in the problem of poverty (ironic right?), we would have a better chance of improving the situation.
2. I have seen these harsh divides before. I play tennis, but I am definitely not affluent. I know I can find a tennis court at the recreational center. That is where it should be. There are many ways the rich can share their wealth without actually giving monetary benefits. Make the tennis court public. Promote the girls to have a tennis team and compete with the boys team. Give social service and promote social change. Keep the wealth but divide the responsibility and power. Money is not power. People are power. The 1% would benefit more from the support of the 80% than hatred from this large population. I think I would want the bottom half of the socioeconomic ladder to make more decisions for themselves.
1. This picture bleeds inequality. There is a clear divide between the poor half of the country and the wealthy 1%. As Martin Luther King mentions, "Edifices that produce beggars need restructuring." The rich few have the wealth to make all the important decisions. It is their poorly thought out decisions that continue to produce beggars. They spend their money creating Wal-Marts, destroying individual markets and bringing more people into the slum part of the divide. They spend more money on social service, which is a quick-fix. Canned foods will give the poor nutrition for a week; however, it will also get them attached to the rich. The poor start to see the rich as their caretaker, increasing the power and responsibility the rich have. It is a convoluted, mutual relationship. The better long-term treatment is to initial social change. It is to find the root of the problem and break the demarcation between the slum and the tennis courts. It is to allow the poor to see the rich. The huge wall makes it impossible for the poor to imagine the affluence of the rich. Once the wall is broken, they will see that a year worth of cans will never be worth the money and space the tennis court is taking up for the mere pleasure of a few family members. Progress will be made when there are more social changes and a break in the mutual relationship. The rich know they would not be rich without the poor. The only thing more powerful than fear is hope. The rich feed the poor to make the slum-half fear what life would be without these food items. The rich do not want the poor to have other priorities, or god forbid, hope of ever breaking out of the cycle. Distraction is suppression in modern times. It happens daily with fewer harsh divides. Television features the Kardashians to keep the population entertained long enough to ignore true problems. The rich few who know of the true problems do not have enough people working as a team to solve the problem. The solution is to turn off the Kardashians and feature the problem on all channels, but then, the rich would not be powerful. I think we give the rich their power. The poor feed the rich figuratively while the rich feed the poor literally. If we introduced social change, the poor would know to avoid the "fluff" or the "entertainment" provided by the rich to distract us. If we make the poor involved in the problem of poverty (ironic right?), we would have a better chance of improving the situation.
2. I have seen these harsh divides before. I play tennis, but I am definitely not affluent. I know I can find a tennis court at the recreational center. That is where it should be. There are many ways the rich can share their wealth without actually giving monetary benefits. Make the tennis court public. Promote the girls to have a tennis team and compete with the boys team. Give social service and promote social change. Keep the wealth but divide the responsibility and power. Money is not power. People are power. The 1% would benefit more from the support of the 80% than hatred from this large population. I think I would want the bottom half of the socioeconomic ladder to make more decisions for themselves.
My mentor's feedback:
Wow Ruby, some big questions here, thanks for giving me so much to think on!
"The rich know they would not be rich without the poor" - how can you relate this to Friere's concept of conscientization? Can we argue that 'the wealthy' are actively repressing 'the poor' through conscious actions? As a society, how responsible are we for ignorance & how does this play into education, and oppression (as per Friere's constructs)?
I really thought this statement of yours was great: "Distraction is suppression in modern times" and I wonder if this is a modern affection - or if distraction has always been a tool of suppression/oppression. In the town I was near to in Bosnia, to appease a poor community that had limited infrastructure (many families had no running water) the local government had installed one of those giant swings, the ones you see at fairs, rather than provide them with tools or improved infrastructure.
"The rich know they would not be rich without the poor" - how can you relate this to Friere's concept of conscientization? Can we argue that 'the wealthy' are actively repressing 'the poor' through conscious actions? As a society, how responsible are we for ignorance & how does this play into education, and oppression (as per Friere's constructs)?
I really thought this statement of yours was great: "Distraction is suppression in modern times" and I wonder if this is a modern affection - or if distraction has always been a tool of suppression/oppression. In the town I was near to in Bosnia, to appease a poor community that had limited infrastructure (many families had no running water) the local government had installed one of those giant swings, the ones you see at fairs, rather than provide them with tools or improved infrastructure.
I will respond tonight! The course has been amazing so far!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment