I love reading science fiction, and much of the genre deals with 'frontier' issues. That is, people moving out into uninhabited planets. In science fiction, often for reasons people came to the US: Opportunity, religious freedom, etc.
I know I've heard, peripherally, some discussion of what it meant when we were a frontier society. And how that has changed as we expanded to the limit, and the frontiers closed. A frontier was a place where people could have opportunities unavailable back home. In our own history, that's part of what the second sons of Europe did...the ones who were never going to inherit (what with the law of primogeniture and all that. It's different in societies, like Afghanistan, where the sons are expected to split the inheritance entirely. Causes problems all its own, as the land they inherit keeps getting smaller.)
Anyways. I wonder, sometimes, if the class wars of today are related to that. Talented people don't have as many opportunities, because they have to advance within an already established system. One where they start out disadvantaged to begin with.
The American dream is tied to that notion - the idea that hard work and talent can get you somewhere, regardless of who you were back in the Old World.
I don't think the closing of the frontier, in and of itself, means that the dream is dead. But...
Well, it's kind of like a discussion I had with someone in Afghanistan about water usage. Water is pretty scarce over there, and some of the so-called 'squatters' were basically the disadvantaged (i.e. people with little access to the crucial water necessary for farming) finding creative ways to succeed. Creative, and perhaps not quite legal, of course. Anyways. I was talking with a hydrologist, working with USAID, and he insisted that there really was enough water to go around. It's just that the Afghans had to cooperate and work together to portion it out appropriately. The people up river couldn't be planting crops that required a lot of water, since it didn't leave as much for those downstream. Management was important - and practically impossible in a society with little reason to cooperate.
They had a history of zero-sum games w/regards to water, and the ones who 'won' and had access had no reason to limit themselves for the sake of the losers who didn't.
To bring this back to America, and class warfare - the winners of our system see no reason to limit themselves for the sake of everyone else. (And, with the set of beliefs allowing them to feel like they earned and deserve their status, they feel unfairly put upon when others argue they should.)
Yet, at the end of the day, there are still a LOT of disadvantaged people who just don't have the opportunities that used to be available.
It's hard to address the problem when the winners aren't even willing to admit that there IS a problem.
I know I've heard, peripherally, some discussion of what it meant when we were a frontier society. And how that has changed as we expanded to the limit, and the frontiers closed. A frontier was a place where people could have opportunities unavailable back home. In our own history, that's part of what the second sons of Europe did...the ones who were never going to inherit (what with the law of primogeniture and all that. It's different in societies, like Afghanistan, where the sons are expected to split the inheritance entirely. Causes problems all its own, as the land they inherit keeps getting smaller.)
Anyways. I wonder, sometimes, if the class wars of today are related to that. Talented people don't have as many opportunities, because they have to advance within an already established system. One where they start out disadvantaged to begin with.
The American dream is tied to that notion - the idea that hard work and talent can get you somewhere, regardless of who you were back in the Old World.
I don't think the closing of the frontier, in and of itself, means that the dream is dead. But...
Well, it's kind of like a discussion I had with someone in Afghanistan about water usage. Water is pretty scarce over there, and some of the so-called 'squatters' were basically the disadvantaged (i.e. people with little access to the crucial water necessary for farming) finding creative ways to succeed. Creative, and perhaps not quite legal, of course. Anyways. I was talking with a hydrologist, working with USAID, and he insisted that there really was enough water to go around. It's just that the Afghans had to cooperate and work together to portion it out appropriately. The people up river couldn't be planting crops that required a lot of water, since it didn't leave as much for those downstream. Management was important - and practically impossible in a society with little reason to cooperate.
They had a history of zero-sum games w/regards to water, and the ones who 'won' and had access had no reason to limit themselves for the sake of the losers who didn't.
To bring this back to America, and class warfare - the winners of our system see no reason to limit themselves for the sake of everyone else. (And, with the set of beliefs allowing them to feel like they earned and deserve their status, they feel unfairly put upon when others argue they should.)
Yet, at the end of the day, there are still a LOT of disadvantaged people who just don't have the opportunities that used to be available.
It's hard to address the problem when the winners aren't even willing to admit that there IS a problem.
