(no subject)
Oct. 13th, 2006 09:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dcseainThis post is inspired by a reply to a comment i made in this thought-provoking post in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
fallenpegasus' LJ, in which he said:
One day, in the early Summer of 1994, i was living with my then-partner, CRK in Dorchester, MA. He commented one day about the middle-class neighbourhood we lived in. I was shocked - utterly shocked. I told him that i thought they were poor. He was as shocked at my reply as i was at his initial statement.
I then went out on the front deck for a bit and looked out at the neighbourhood, then went out on the back deck for a bit looking out in that direction. I eventually came back into the apartment, found him and asked him if this were middle class, what did they have to live for; why did they keep trying - they had so little compared to the peolpe in the
CRK, who grew up on welfare in Michigan because his father, a spot-welder, was laid off by Ford in 1974, then after taking a great breath, explained to me why the Uphams Corner neighbourhood, of Dorchester, Boston, Mass, was middle class. I listend attentively for the whole half-hour or so that he spoke.
It was at that moment, in my 23rd year, that i realized that all those Forths of July and private tours in December, without ropes or walkways, but rather free to roam, at the White House that i had growing up were special, different, from others. I'd never really thought about it, that was just what we did.
My friends and i regularly had gone to parties at embassies, and many of us still do. I was at the groundbreaking for the current Embaassy of Canada/L'Ambassade du Canada, no big deal. Hardest part of that event, in 1982 or 3, i forget which, was convincing the other attendees that my sister and i were related. Anyway, i digress...
I realized at that moment that DC has next-to-no heavy industry, and isn't really about what actual socio-econimc class one is, at least much of the time. It's about whether your'e a "have" or a "have-not". If we presume both haves and have-nots to have good social skills, affable personalities, and a job, the diffence is that one group can afford a place to live, however humble, can afford enough food, and can afford the clothes and accessories necessary to allow them to mix with the crowd they want, or need, to mix with; the other group cannot.
My father was Secret Service, Uniformed Division, Foreign Missions Branch. This means he was one of the Secret Service offices you see in the Secret Service Police cars, or on a similar motorcycle, the uniformed officers you see at the White House, and around the embassies. He earned enough money for us to have what we needed, plus little luxuries like music lessons and sports, with our own instruments and equipment.
Not a life of luxury by any means, but his job allowed us access to a world well beyond what our technical socio-econimic class was. We were far from the only ones for whom this was true; i know plenty of others who grew up around here with similar perks.
In summary, will there ever be full social equality? Very probably not. Can there be less social inequality? Most probably, if not in the near-term.fallenpegasus is absolutely correct that people are *diferent*. We don't all want, desire, or even need, the same things. But hould we each have a truly equal opportunity to have the same? Yes, we should.
fallenpegasus' LJ, in which he said: But people are not socially "equal" and cannot be, because people are *different*.He's absolutely right, and i do not in the least disagree with his statement. But does that mean that we should not acknowledge those who are too different from us; that we oughtn't treat those lower than ourselves socio-ecomically as they are people; that we should refuse to try to dilute the concentration of below-poverty-line people in the ghettos we as a society have, in most places, forced the poor to live, or that we should not at least try improve the conditions therein?
One day, in the early Summer of 1994, i was living with my then-partner, CRK in Dorchester, MA. He commented one day about the middle-class neighbourhood we lived in. I was shocked - utterly shocked. I told him that i thought they were poor. He was as shocked at my reply as i was at his initial statement.
I then went out on the front deck for a bit and looked out at the neighbourhood, then went out on the back deck for a bit looking out in that direction. I eventually came back into the apartment, found him and asked him if this were middle class, what did they have to live for; why did they keep trying - they had so little compared to the peolpe in the
middle-classarea that i grew up in.
CRK, who grew up on welfare in Michigan because his father, a spot-welder, was laid off by Ford in 1974, then after taking a great breath, explained to me why the Uphams Corner neighbourhood, of Dorchester, Boston, Mass, was middle class. I listend attentively for the whole half-hour or so that he spoke.
It was at that moment, in my 23rd year, that i realized that all those Forths of July and private tours in December, without ropes or walkways, but rather free to roam, at the White House that i had growing up were special, different, from others. I'd never really thought about it, that was just what we did.
My friends and i regularly had gone to parties at embassies, and many of us still do. I was at the groundbreaking for the current Embaassy of Canada/L'Ambassade du Canada, no big deal. Hardest part of that event, in 1982 or 3, i forget which, was convincing the other attendees that my sister and i were related. Anyway, i digress...
I realized at that moment that DC has next-to-no heavy industry, and isn't really about what actual socio-econimc class one is, at least much of the time. It's about whether your'e a "have" or a "have-not". If we presume both haves and have-nots to have good social skills, affable personalities, and a job, the diffence is that one group can afford a place to live, however humble, can afford enough food, and can afford the clothes and accessories necessary to allow them to mix with the crowd they want, or need, to mix with; the other group cannot.
My father was Secret Service, Uniformed Division, Foreign Missions Branch. This means he was one of the Secret Service offices you see in the Secret Service Police cars, or on a similar motorcycle, the uniformed officers you see at the White House, and around the embassies. He earned enough money for us to have what we needed, plus little luxuries like music lessons and sports, with our own instruments and equipment.
Not a life of luxury by any means, but his job allowed us access to a world well beyond what our technical socio-econimic class was. We were far from the only ones for whom this was true; i know plenty of others who grew up around here with similar perks.
In summary, will there ever be full social equality? Very probably not. Can there be less social inequality? Most probably, if not in the near-term.
fallenpegasus is absolutely correct that people are *diferent*. We don't all want, desire, or even need, the same things. But hould we each have a truly equal opportunity to have the same? Yes, we should.
