That the poor are not political is a generalisation. In many countries
and particualrly at key moments of history the poor have been radically
politicised.
However even if we concede that the poor are not political we have to
ask why?
MYTHS:
1. The poor are biologically incapable of understanding the concepts
necessary to improve their situation.
This is an answer that was thrown about by academics throughout the 19th
century. It is also making a resurgence with the claims that a gene for
homelessness can be identified. Common sense should refute this claim.
People are homeless when their house is taken from them. Inherited
wealth (and inherited debt) create generational poverty. Anyone who
lives in the real world can recognise the physical reasons for their
situation. Biological claims are merely attempts to justify inequality
so that it is seen as inevitable.
2. The poor are morally deficient and would rather attack those weaker
than themselves than confront the wealthy and powerful.
This is a continuation of old religious attitudes towards the poor. The
rich and middle class often make this assumption because they are
denying the reality of what happens to those who confront them. They are
shot, locked up, tortured, beaten and so on. This state violence is done
on behalf of the rich and middle class with their consent.
These sanctions redirect poor peoples anger. The same thing operates
with abused children who will sometimes attack and abuse younger
children, rather than the abuser. The desire is to regain the power lost
when abused (or oppressed) however the perpetrator is an unrealistic
target so a weaker target is chosen.
These sanctions do not exist against violence directed towards the poor
or margenalised groups. There is less police effort devoted to
protecting the poor. Sentences are less as well and there is less chance
of being caught. There is also less chance of a civil suit as the poor
can't afford lawyers. Because the poor live with other poor and often
can't escape the area they can also be intimidated into silence.
There are reasons which the wealthy put in place which explain why the
poor attack the poorand not the rich.
3.The poor don't want to genuinely change their situation.
This is a partial myth. To some extent structural change is frightening
to people who have become institutionalised into poverty. However anyone
who has been poor knows that this can be overstated. Living poverty is
hell and except in the most impoverished of nations there is usually a
degree of hope expressed as anger.
ACTUALITY:
The real reasons why the poor are not political are complex. To some
extent I have mentioned them - sanctions against political action and
institutionalisation. However these reasons are not enough. The evidence
of this is in the enourmous effort put in by the church, big business
and the state to prevent political action. Billion dollar propoganda
efforts try to get the poor to focus on enemies other than the rich
including themselves. Unionisation is actively discouraged including the
sharing of information. News coverage is controlled.
If the poor are so naturally apolitical why is so much effort required
to prevent them from collectively organising?
Original message from omega.
>
>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
>>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
