Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Young country that really did not become a fully free state until 1967 when all folk had the right to vote and participate in our system.
We have been a country for 250+ years but in reality we have only begun to learn how to live equally with one another for 57 years, less than one life time.
Young country that really did not become a fully free state until 1967 when all folk had the right to vote and participate in our system.
We have been a country for 250+ years but in reality we have only begun to learn how to live equally with one another for 57 years, less than one life time.
I don’t think voting has anything to do with freedom, and while the second part is partially true, I don’t think it’s true overall.
We’ve moved more and more toward authoritarianism, which is the opposite of living equally with one another. People are more interested in controlling their neighbor through politics to achieve a societal outcome than they are in coexisting.
Living equally would mean that the same rules apply to everyone equally, and I rarely see anyone advocating for that. They want politicians to have power over the rest of us, and they want those politicians and their enforcers to engineer society as they see fit. They don’t want to allow people to make their own choices, which is what a truly equal and cooperative society would look like. It’s no longer cooperation, coexistence, or working together when either side resorts to force.
Lots of thoughts on this thread so I will reiterate mine given some of the counter arguments.
Its clear some people fundamental disagree on what our society should look like, which is fine.
The upper class will always exist, its just a matter of what they are. There was a time when social prestige did not always coincide with 'wealth'.
For example in a village in Iran (Shirgah) where my family is from, certain families and their head figures would be respected voices despite being of the same economic level as everyone else.
But in most cases, the landowning class, or gentry were the hereditary wealth that amplified cultural forces in their country. That includes donations. In Tang china many of the beautiful temples and road sides came from the ruling families, same in Europe and elsewhere.
You can source art to the common class, and I think commoners have a right to create art. But more so having people with certain social prestige enforcing morals, and building monuments to a national identity earn them their position better than practical investments that gain them money in the market from cutting costs and increasing profits.
Practical thought is needed in money management, but there should be more regional flavors like there once was from which the upper class of society promotes national identity.
When I speak of bottom rung I mean the masses. Mass Media has made it so popular costumes made by average people are pandered to by the rich, educated, and celebrity class.
Its a feedback loop that homogenizes our culture and makes it so that scummy mannerisms are assimilated with wealth and power who then distribute that back down to the masses.
It also makes society more unequal in terms of wealth, and wealth equals power. Accumulation of wealth is necessary for big projects, but if it was more fractional and regional there wouldn't be an investor class that can buy up stocks nation wide and govern the country's capital without consent.
National identity comes when everyone pitches into to the function of the country, and that is best possibility when there is not one national trend after another copied and repeated by the public at large.
That equates to less cultural diversity, less dignity, and less a sense of national unity. You can call it 'progressive' because now anyone can become super rich, but that also means everyone wants power, and do so without any sense of purpose.
edit: Its more about the role of the upper class than what the masses should or shouldn't do.
The upper class shouldn't just pander to the masses for maximum market value, they should be noble and honor the identity of their country while acting as a beacon for everyone else.
Last edited by Winterfall8324; 06-12-2020 at 04:26 PM..
Rock, hip hop, country, rap, slang, gangster culture, tattoos, piercings, and mannerisms that dominate entertainment and social society have all come from the lower rungs of society.
The upper class appropriate this behavior for themselves with upper class children going to hippie festivals, following the same trends that street kids do, etc.
I'm not part of the upper class but I did go to an event in a golf club filled with well to do old people. I had expected this well educated crowd to be stuck up, but they would talk like a country folk, laughing at crude humor among other such behaviors.
Economically we are more divided than ever by class, but socially we are more united than ever before.
Rich folk love going to coachella and doing what others in their peer group do, just with more material comfort.
They like money but they don't have a sense of noblesse oblige, or see them selves as representatives of their society, nor as role models.
Hollywood culture has been deviant, but never before has their been more cult worship for celebrities who act poor (in terms of mannerism) or behave without dignity. Good skills like charisma or bravery are replaced by openness, vulnerability, and behavior that makes a celebrity seem like another one of their fans.
Personally I hate mass media and how it has homogenized cultural consumption for everyone across this vast country, and I hate celebrity worship. But more than that I believe it is the job of the rich to build monuments of design, art, and pleasure, and set the standards the rest of us aspire to.
That doesn't mean everyone acting rich or entitled, but it does mean giving commoners a regional or local figurehead that inspires them rather than copy them.
Today the elite entertainers copy the trends from the bottom of society and try to market their own participation. On one hand that gives trashy celebrities less influence, but on the other hand it consumes the rest of the elite class in mimicking sad and undignified behavior.
I would rather them have less wealth and power over our society, but more social prestige that donates monuments and cultural joys that build a sense of community.
Without hereditary wealth we would have no temples, palaces, or statues that have remained through history giving each region of the world a distinct style and character.
Now we have a globalized culture that comes from the bottom rungs of society homogenizing our entertainment consumption while inadvertently funneling more capital and power into the richest members of society.
It's silly, in bad taste, and a betrayal of what should be a good moral society.
Uh, because the "top of the society" doesn't produce it any longer?
Because it has nothing more to say?
We use to have regional cultures. There is a myth that because Americans are colonists we have no culture and are just a blank slate for immigrants to do with what they will.
But colonists who for hundreds of years communicated with the natives built their own regional cultures separate from Europe, as black slaves did separate from Africa.
New England, Louisiana, North Carolina, etc. all had their own costumes and even architecture promoted among its people.
Then we worked tirelessly to destroy all our accumulated culture and replace it with mass consumerism, suburbs, and canned goods. And by the late 20th century it was all hyper nationalized and then hyper globalized.
We could have a national identity again, and not just a place where people buy cheap stuff and mind their own business. It'll take work but it existed once and could exist again, but culture needs to trickle down, not trickle up.
Louisiana still has a rich, regional culture. Alot of America still does. Young people tend to follow a homogeneous media culture but older folks don't.
People are more mobile, too. OTOH, no one said that culture has to be geographical. Mass media and the Internet have made subgenres available everywhere, and if people find a cultural identity that way, who's to say it's wrong?
Internet subcultures aren't the same as regional identity.
The former is part of the same mass media that homogenizes and globalizes consumption.
It's simple. Western Civilization has become decadent and is in decline. The job of mainstream entertainers is to promote the decline. Those who don't promote that agenda...don't get to become mainstream entertainers.
Even a few liberal academic types like Camille Paglia are admitting it:
It's simple. Western Civilization has become decadent and is in decline. The job of mainstream entertainers is to promote the decline. Those who don't promote that agenda...don't get to become mainstream entertainers.
Even a few liberal academic types like Camille Paglia are admitting it:
Paglia's entire career has been one that transgresses against both conservative and liberal pieties on matters of art, culture, politics, etc.
Students at Univ. of the Arts where she has taught for 30 years sought her removal or at least the removal of her tenure in 2019.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
