Am I the only one to perceive the irony that the students who are protesting in so many campuses (campi?) against the top 1% do belong to the top 1% of the world in terms of revenue-access to services? Would you call it snowflakery or just cluelessness.
Ah, but the comparison, as I understand it, is NOT GLOBAL - it is about the top 1% of the country in which the protest is located.
In the US I think there's also the entirely legitimate concern that the debt incurred whilst doing 'the right thing' and getting a degree will actually drag them down the socioeconomic ranks overall
So just to make sure I am following your logic: they shouldn't point out the perverse effects of extreme income inequality because they have, in part, been its beneficiaries? Sorry, but that makes no sense.
The students are not only protesting to support Occupy Wall Street. They are protesting against the astonishing tuition hikes that will effectively destroy public education for the middle class and below, and against the use of military tactics against peaceful protesters. They understand that these things are coming directly from the nation's 1% (to wit: JP Morgan's donation of huge amounts of $$ to the NYC Police). They are anything but clueless.
I presume, Le French Prof, that you do not condone racism, a system which has benefited you greatly (and continues to do so) if you are white.
Grumpy: absolutely on the debt part, a perversion of the college system which makes me feel like I am driving the runaway car. I do not see too clear a fix. I suspect that, eventually, a presidential candidate will promise debt cancellation and carry the election. I was more concerned by the Occupy WS movement -- the apparent lack of awareness of the privileged status of those taking part on it. A possible historic parallel would be that of the (clueless) French aristocrats who took the tennis court oath, failing to see that they were the negative target of this oath, and that it would later cost them their heads.
F&T: The Social Security Administration says I am not white, but who knows. The one-drop law doesn't make too much sense to me.
Students did what they were told to do and now they suffer with large student loan debts. There is a lesson in all of this: don't do what you are told to do.
I had a high school history teacher (in the last "non-science" course I ever took in my education), the best teacher I ever had, explain that the French Revolution, and every revolution inspired by it, was ultimately about "unmet expectations." I would imagine that one's 'expectations' are from a relative, not absolute position. With that in mind, and taking from BB's point, I don't see anything particularly perverse about middle-class North Americans complaining that they followed the rules, did everything that they were told, and are now going to be denied what everyone, everyone who they were told to listen to, told them they could have after they 'went through the system' - and I'm not talking about a Kardashian-style life of consumption, I'm talking about a stable living where you don't have to live in fear of where you're going to find the money for groceries and rent.
I mostly agree with our cheese-eating friend. To me it's another sign of our students' lack of self-awareness and general ignorance. That is, they are so critical of North America's top 1 percent while seemingly being unaware that they are in the world's top 1% and immensely privileged. Of course that does not mean they have no right to complain about the western world's economic structures, but it does add an element of irony to their complaints. If they lived the lives they seem to preach, they would be sharing their wealth with the world's poorest, or at least feel some genuine guilt about their privilege. Of course I'm full of self-loathing, so you have to take what I say with some scepticism.
Still not buying it, even with the ironic twist. So what you are saying is that because Americans are relatively better off than citizens of many other nations, they should ignore the perverse and pernicious effects that increasing and historically unusual levels of income inequality has on their own society? Are only the morally pure allowed to point out the ways in which this society is fucked up? That's a seriously unrealistic standard for protesters to live up to, in my view.
They should be critical of America's 1%. Think globally, sure, but act locally, and the one percenters are your local aristocracy.
This reminds me of the argument that women in the US cannot argue for equal rights until women in countries with severe inequality are created more equal.
Or that the US cannot engage with anything domestic until its military stops all inhumanity abroad.
Or that the poor in the US are not REALLY poor and we can ignore them because they're not as bad off as someone starving in Africa.
That said, FP has a point. Many of the students protesting are among the top 1%, but the whole 1% thing is an arbitrary number anyway. There's no reason 1% is more significant that the top 1.7 or .85932%. The point is that a small subsection of the population is doing very well by themselves, and that our political and economic systems have been arranged to give maximum benefit to that relatively small group of people to the detriment of the rest. The fact that the protesters are better off than most of the rest of the world shows not their hypocrisy, but just how small a percentage of the world's people are actually benefiting from the current system.
I do sometimes wonder whether at least some of the occupiers' perspectives are a bit narrow, but many seem to have their hearts in the right place, and to be finally waking up and actually observing and engaging in some critical/structural thinking, sometimes for the first time in their lives (though I suspect the habit of volunteerism many of them already had is playing a role, too). One can criticize them for still having rather narrow horizons (or even try to discredit them on that basis, which I don't think is what FP was trying to do), or one can treat this as a moment of possibility, and hope that at least some of them will expand their horizons further, perhaps even to the point of questioning, or at least realizing, the privileges they still have, even if things didn't work out quite as they expected. After all, if, as seems to be the case, at least some of the occupiers are our old friends the snowflakes -- young people who all their lives have been told that they're unique, special, and that, by implication, the world more or less revolves around them -- even identifying themselves as part of a large group (the 99%) is a major shift in identity. Realizing that they may be part of the 1% in a worldwide context, still part of the top 25-50% in the context of their natal communities, etc., etc. is a further step in the right direction, but maybe one that will take another year or three (and perhaps some graduate study) for some of them to complete. Others, I'm sure, will fall quite happily back into the unthinking middle-upper class once the economy improves, or spend their lives lamenting the bright futures they would have had if only the economy hadn't tanked at the wrong moment. But those people probably would have lived out some version of that future anyway. The interesting question is whether we might get a new Kennedy-era-esque cohort of aspiring public servants (in the broadest sense), ready to rethink some of our current systems, local, national, and international, and the basic assumptions underlying them, out of this moment. That would be exciting, and I must say I am (cautiously) hopeful.
@PP - I consider "history" a science, but I understand the position from which it is not. For the sake of argument, I'll grant that it, and similar fields, are not science. I would be interested to know how you got an advanced degree - assuming your are a prof - without any more such courses after high school. Didn't your BA require some of those non-science courses like history and English?
Ah, but the comparison, as I understand it, is NOT GLOBAL - it is about the top 1% of the country in which the protest is located.
ReplyDeleteIn the US I think there's also the entirely legitimate concern that the debt incurred whilst doing 'the right thing' and getting a degree will actually drag them down the socioeconomic ranks overall
So just to make sure I am following your logic: they shouldn't point out the perverse effects of extreme income inequality because they have, in part, been its beneficiaries? Sorry, but that makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteI am unaware of any law that says that one can not protest against maintaining a system from which one also benefits.
ReplyDeleteThe students are not only protesting to support Occupy Wall Street. They are protesting against the astonishing tuition hikes that will effectively destroy public education for the middle class and below, and against the use of military tactics against peaceful protesters. They understand that these things are coming directly from the nation's 1% (to wit: JP Morgan's donation of huge amounts of $$ to the NYC Police). They are anything but clueless.
ReplyDeleteI presume, Le French Prof, that you do not condone racism, a system which has benefited you greatly (and continues to do so) if you are white.
Grumpy: absolutely on the debt part, a perversion of the college system which makes me feel like I am driving the runaway car. I do not see too clear a fix. I suspect that, eventually, a presidential candidate will promise debt cancellation and carry the election.
ReplyDeleteI was more concerned by the Occupy WS movement -- the apparent lack of awareness of the privileged status of those taking part on it. A possible historic parallel would be that of the (clueless) French aristocrats who took the tennis court oath, failing to see that they were the negative target of this oath, and that it would later cost them their heads.
F&T: The Social Security Administration says I am not white, but who knows. The one-drop law doesn't make too much sense to me.
Students did what they were told to do and now they suffer with large student loan debts. There is a lesson in all of this: don't do what you are told to do.
ReplyDeleteI had a high school history teacher (in the last "non-science" course I ever took in my education), the best teacher I ever had, explain that the French Revolution, and every revolution inspired by it, was ultimately about "unmet expectations."
ReplyDeleteI would imagine that one's 'expectations' are from a relative, not absolute position. With that in mind, and taking from BB's point, I don't see anything particularly perverse about middle-class North Americans complaining that they followed the rules, did everything that they were told, and are now going to be denied what everyone, everyone who they were told to listen to, told them they could have after they 'went through the system' - and I'm not talking about a Kardashian-style life of consumption, I'm talking about a stable living where you don't have to live in fear of where you're going to find the money for groceries and rent.
I mostly agree with our cheese-eating friend. To me it's another sign of our students' lack of self-awareness and general ignorance. That is, they are so critical of North America's top 1 percent while seemingly being unaware that they are in the world's top 1% and immensely privileged. Of course that does not mean they have no right to complain about the western world's economic structures, but it does add an element of irony to their complaints. If they lived the lives they seem to preach, they would be sharing their wealth with the world's poorest, or at least feel some genuine guilt about their privilege. Of course I'm full of self-loathing, so you have to take what I say with some scepticism.
ReplyDeleteStill not buying it, even with the ironic twist. So what you are saying is that because Americans are relatively better off than citizens of many other nations, they should ignore the perverse and pernicious effects that increasing and historically unusual levels of income inequality has on their own society? Are only the morally pure allowed to point out the ways in which this society is fucked up? That's a seriously unrealistic standard for protesters to live up to, in my view.
ReplyDeleteThey should be critical of America's 1%. Think globally, sure, but act locally, and the one percenters are your local aristocracy.
This reminds me of the argument that women in the US cannot argue for equal rights until women in countries with severe inequality are created more equal.
ReplyDeleteOr that the US cannot engage with anything domestic until its military stops all inhumanity abroad.
Or that anyone's pain doesn't count if there is anyone, anywhere, who is in more pain.
ReplyDeleteIt's the people with a little leisure and a little money backing them who can afford the time to protest. Good for them.
Or that the poor in the US are not REALLY poor and we can ignore them because they're not as bad off as someone starving in Africa.
ReplyDeleteThat said, FP has a point. Many of the students protesting are among the top 1%, but the whole 1% thing is an arbitrary number anyway. There's no reason 1% is more significant that the top 1.7 or .85932%. The point is that a small subsection of the population is doing very well by themselves, and that our political and economic systems have been arranged to give maximum benefit to that relatively small group of people to the detriment of the rest. The fact that the protesters are better off than most of the rest of the world shows not their hypocrisy, but just how small a percentage of the world's people are actually benefiting from the current system.
It's just like how men can't be feminists, because they benefit from sexism.
ReplyDeleteI do sometimes wonder whether at least some of the occupiers' perspectives are a bit narrow, but many seem to have their hearts in the right place, and to be finally waking up and actually observing and engaging in some critical/structural thinking, sometimes for the first time in their lives (though I suspect the habit of volunteerism many of them already had is playing a role, too). One can criticize them for still having rather narrow horizons (or even try to discredit them on that basis, which I don't think is what FP was trying to do), or one can treat this as a moment of possibility, and hope that at least some of them will expand their horizons further, perhaps even to the point of questioning, or at least realizing, the privileges they still have, even if things didn't work out quite as they expected. After all, if, as seems to be the case, at least some of the occupiers are our old friends the snowflakes -- young people who all their lives have been told that they're unique, special, and that, by implication, the world more or less revolves around them -- even identifying themselves as part of a large group (the 99%) is a major shift in identity. Realizing that they may be part of the 1% in a worldwide context, still part of the top 25-50% in the context of their natal communities, etc., etc. is a further step in the right direction, but maybe one that will take another year or three (and perhaps some graduate study) for some of them to complete. Others, I'm sure, will fall quite happily back into the unthinking middle-upper class once the economy improves, or spend their lives lamenting the bright futures they would have had if only the economy hadn't tanked at the wrong moment. But those people probably would have lived out some version of that future anyway. The interesting question is whether we might get a new Kennedy-era-esque cohort of aspiring public servants (in the broadest sense), ready to rethink some of our current systems, local, national, and international, and the basic assumptions underlying them, out of this moment. That would be exciting, and I must say I am (cautiously) hopeful.
ReplyDelete@PP - I consider "history" a science, but I understand the position from which it is not. For the sake of argument, I'll grant that it, and similar fields, are not science. I would be interested to know how you got an advanced degree - assuming your are a prof - without any more such courses after high school. Didn't your BA require some of those non-science courses like history and English?
ReplyDelete