Why the poor are poor and probably always will be:
New American Blues by Earl Shorris. Norton. ISBN 0 393 04554 4.
Shorris noticed in his work amongst the very poor in America, that the poor
would attack their own, lower down on the pecking order, and rarely the
rich. Here is one of his observations:
There is a tennis court in the South Bronx. On some days, after school has
let out, a social worker from the Neighborhood Youth and Family Services
program takes a group of children to the tennis court. Since there are only
two tennis rackets and one tennis court to be shared among the children,
they must take turns. The worker begins by giving the rackets to two of the
children and asking the others to line up to await their chance to play.
The children form a line, but as soon as the worker tells the players on the
court that their time is up, the rest of the children break out of the line
and crowd around the players, asking, reaching, demanding, cajoling,
desperately wanting to be next to use the rackets.
Each time the rackets are exchanged, the line breaks down, requiring the
teacher to sort out the crowd, award the rackets, and restore the line
before play can begin again. Much of the afternoon is taken up with the
complexities of passing on the rackets to the proper players.
A few miles to the North, at a suburban school, the children are also taken
to a tennis court. They too must form a line and take their turn at hitting
the ball up and back across the net. At the suburban school the children
also vie for position, but once they arrange themselves, they maintain their
places in line: the rackets are exchanged quickly, and play on the court is
almost continuous.
The children at the suburban school know the rules of political life at
their most basic level. They have found the middle ground between liberty
and order. At the beginning, they are at liberty to find their places; but
once they find them, they maintain order. Play proceeds according to the
rules defined by the group when forming the line, and it goes along
efficiently.
In the South Bronx the group does not govern itself; it chooses liberty over
the middle ground. In the chaos of liberty, force dominates; the bigger,
stronger, or more aggressive students get the rackets every time. The social
worker must then intervene to establish order in the group.
The two tennis courts do not serve as perfect analogues of states, but they
illustrate an important difference between rich and poor in the United
States; The poor children are not political. They can not find the middle
ground between order and liberty. Instead, they attempt to exert what litle
force they can muster. Much of the time that could be devoted to learning to
playing tennis is lost in the chaos of force. The poor children do not
reflect on their situation at the tennis court, so they can not recognise
the folly of their apolitical behavior. They react, following the rules of
force rather than the rules of politics, because force is what they know; it
is the world that the world teaches to the poor.
The poor children, who may be equal to or even greater than the rich in
their natural ability, fall behind in the learning of tennis. In the game of
modern society they are beginning to lose.
-----Original Message-----
From: tony Eatrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, 17 October 1998 3:14 AM
Subject: opposing from the left (my 2 cents)
>Hello. I'm not sure if I am a member of Neither - though I am a
>supporter and have argued for Neither voting at all the schools I have
>spoken at as a Greens candidate in the last election.
>Perhaps in some minds being a Greens candidate forbids me being a member
>of Neither? I have stated and continue to state that I am an activist
>first before I am a party member, I readily admit that the Greens are
>dangerously too close to the middle class and even small l liberal upper
>class, and I am totally supportive of increased immigration. My
>association with the Greens is extremely recent so I don't apologise for
>it's past policies. Nor have I ever hid that I don't believe the ballot
>box is our route to freedom. It is only one more tactic among many.
>Having lived in Tent Cities and occupations I am happy to try every
>thing I can.
>My own background is in student unionism and queer politics but as a
>long term unemployed I currently feel my strongest solidarity with other
>unemployed people. You may be pleased to know there are the seeds
>planted for a political consciousness for unemployed people in this
>country and I don't mean an organisation/faction/party. I'm talking
>about the emerging of a class consciousness.
>Whether I am considered a member or not, as at least a fellow traveller
>I fervently hope that Neither comes from the Left in opposing two-party
>big-business "democracy". My personal mantra is that people should have
>more control over their lives, including their environment and their
>expression. I consider this to be fundamentally Left as the poor
>outnumber the rich both locally and globally. If power is shared equally
>then the consequences will be more for the poor not less. I hope others
>in Neither can agree.
>Ciao.
>tony camilleri
>
>"http://angelfire.com/sd/eatrich/index.html"
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send an email to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
>
>For help with this mailing list, look at
>http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
>
