As elections come around, I can't help but to reminisce what it was like to talk about politics ALL the time for the short period I lived in Bolivia. Every bus driver, every taxi cab driver, every street vendor, every "Joe, I didn't register to vote, the Plumber" had an opinion on how to make progress and change for the people. It seemed, many times, to be people's only hope. The hope that one day there would be a policy change that thought about the people, the majority people. And in Bolivia's case, along with most of the rest of the world, the majority people are the poor people. The people that by their very nature are blessed by their curse, if you will.
Politics in the states are not the same at all. It's a two party system that forgets its place in the world and its impact on other peoples and nations, not to mention its own marginalized people. But for the first time since I've been a voter, I can say that I agree with a candidate on the most humane level. A candidate that is causing the marginalized and poor people of America to talk and think and most importantly, hope. Take a step back and think along with me for a second, let me take you through a Watson thought process and maybe I can find the nerve that is creating this nostalgia.
How beautiful would it be to rid ourselves of our desires and just be content? To think and really act for others, and not for our own agenda. It would mean we we are no longer striving for something better in our lives, but for the lives of those around us that actually need. I guess that begs the question for everyone to answer themselves: Who are the lives around you? Is it your neighbor? The people in your country? The country next door? Or how about the continent next door that you've only read about? Is it possible to say it's all of humanity? Because at this time in history, life can be seen more clearly on a global context. It is more noticeable than ever before. When our economy struggles, it causes others to struggle as well. We are competing for resources against other people, real people that experience thirst, hunger, pain, loneliness, etc. The unfortunately reality is that we are not a content culture or people, we desire more and more and more, and this desire causes others to have less because of the limited resources this world can produce. Our greed causes other's poverty. Our inability to live outside discomfort causes others to live in discomfort. Our discontent causes a competition that results in LESS for other people. You don't have to like it, but it is true to some extent whether you are willing to face the new global era or not. Our actions and richness oppress others in a worldly context. While we say that we would like to help other countries develop, do we really mean it if it means there will be less for us? That fuel costs, food prices, could increase and we would have to cut back on some of the luxuries?
Judging from how the religious sector of America has responded over the past few months, I would say we don't really mean it. We would rather them struggle as long as life remains easy on the home-front, as long as our costs remain low and our wages high.
So, when I hear a candidate talk about "spreading the wealth", it reminds me of a people that struggle from the bottom with the hope that a policy and a leader will remember them and give them a fighting chance. It's a call to the rich to give a little more of their hard earned money for the poor that didn't have a chance from the beginning. It's a call to be content with the basics. After all, are we not called to carry each others burdens? Spread the wealth, live with less, love with your content spirit, and maybe then we can finally be an example to all the nations and spread the news of a Savior that did not come for the rich, but FOR the broken, marginalized, sick, and poor people of this world (he also came as ONE of those people). We can fight it all we want, but in the end the truth and only the truth will remain.
I am no exception.
10 comments:
Of course helping the poor, and spreading the wealth is good. America, and rich countries must spread the wealth to their own people, and to the people in foreign countries. But sadly there are many people in America and welfare countries that will take advantage on welfare(Lazy people, Drug Adicts...etc...). But, on the other side there are people that really need it(poor people that we born poor, or really hard cases). And there is also people like you, that will think on the poor, and needy.Because of this 3 kind of people Obama is first in the polls. And spreading the wealth, but spreading the wealth smartly is one of the only things that I like about Mr Obama.
Juan Ma
nicely stated juan manuel. i can hardly believe how good your writing has gotten!
Thanks Jon, I still had some typos... but I tried my best. I really liked your analysis, and I would like to see more, regarding some important issues that matter to this country, and everyone of us.
Juan Ma
I slightly disagree with you Watson I think the poorness in Bolivia now a days is very mental. I am not saying that poorness dose not exist here but the big problem is that people here are used to blaming all their problems in poorness. Why they did not get an education poorness why people don't clean or wash themselves poorness. If people really want to get something in life they should go out and gt it schools here are pretty much free and we are probably one of the very few countries which has almost free college. When you see people that live in so called poor places like el alto villa fatima etc. you see the houses they have their and they probably pay more taxes than my house in the zona sur. Now with the whole change in power the people in el alto have pools huge TV antennas more luxuries than lots of people of the so called high society in la paz. Poorness is a state of mind.
I disagree, to a degree.
Poverty is NOT the problem, it's a symptom of a much bigger problem - one that no politician can solve. Any politician who says they can solve it, is either naive or they are trying to manipulate you by using your compassion to scam your vote...
Generosity (spreading the wealth) born out of Christian charity is necessary and is in many way poured out amazingly around the world, in other ways it is sorely lacking. (Interesting that you take the "religious sector" to task on this issue - I ask, who else is doing more? Answer: no one is doing more for the poor worldwide than religious charities. Not a popular truth amongst certain anti-Christian ideologues, but none-the-less, it's true.)
Socialism, where the government takes control of the process is a totally different thing. Historically, it's a disaster, and it's never been implemented in a successful way... trust me, I live in a society that tried.
I admire your compassion for the poor, however I disagree with some of your conclusions.
I think a bigger perspective might help out a little. Those "poor" people with limited "opportunity" that you talk about in Chicago are extravagantly more wealthy and have seemingly infinite opportunity compared with most people outside of the 'West'. There is a serious issue of 'perspective' in play here. I know about a million people (literally) who live in my city in China who would LOVE to switch places with those 'poor' people in Chicago!
now, you all bring up many good points, but there are a few places in your arguments with faulty logic.
matheo, you argue from a point that can be manipulated almost any way you want. when something becomes only "mental", you are saying it exists only in the brain, which can lead you to a place that says humanity only exists in the mind. if that's what you choose to believe, i would say you can win almost any argument. however, most people would say there is a profound connection between the mind, our souls, and our physical being....
Steve. Thank you for your comments. Very respectfully, I take issue with some of your thoughts. First, I never said a politician can solve poverty. Nor did I say Poverty was the problem. I don't believe either of those things, so I'm not sure where those comments came from. I stated that policies can give people hope, and hope drives humanity. I am not manipulated by politicians that easily.
As far as perspective, I'm not sure where you think I said the poor of Chicago are the same as the poor of Sudan, Bolivia, India, etc. I know just as many people as you do that would love to switch from their poverty to our "poverty". My perspective on that issue is not lacking. In fact, that was the whole point of my post in the first place! The United States, as a whole, needs to live with less, spend less of the natural resources, etc. My post on inner ciy Chicago was more of a way of analyzing a situation (symptom) that exists everywhere.
Next, while religious sectors may be doing more for the poor than any other groups, does that mean we stop there? I think you would agree with me that it doesn't. We can stop and pat ourselves on the back, or we can realize that the situation is not good enough and additional thoughts, love, prayers, resources are still needed. I would also argue that spreading the wealth (generosity) can be just as effective from a political standpoint, and does not need to be "born out of Christian charity" to be a good thing, as you seem to suggest.
Lastly, socialism is very different than communism. I lived in a place that elected a socialist leader while I was there, just ask Matheo. While I am not a socialist myself, it presents many interesting humanitarian ideologies that at its core, should be respected.
Again, thanks for reading and responding, I look forward to more of your ideas!
a good quote on charity:
When people begin moving beyond charity and toward justice and solidarity with the poor and oppressed, as Jesus did, they get in trouble. Once we are actually friends with folks in struggle, we start to ask why people are poor, which is never as popular as giving to charity. To quote a shirt "When I fed the hungry, they called me a saint. When I asked why people are hungry, they called me a communist." Charity wins awards and applause, but joining the poor gets you killed. People do not get crucified for charity. People are crucified for living out a love that disrupts the social order, that calls forth a new world. People are not crucified for helping poor people. People are crucified for joining them.
Very interesting comments, I only have a few things to say. I believe that "christian" organizations do tremendous amounts of charitable work for the poor, but I hardly believe that "no one is doing more for the poor worldwide than religious charities". You say it's true, but by what standards and metrics are you basing this on? As for political systems and social organizations, I don't believe there has been a dominating or prevalent theory that has been established. Personally, I think europe has one of the best models that blends socialism with capitalism, but that is still to be determined. While capitalism has extolled many positive economic contributions in a post-industrial age, it has SEVERELY failed in social/environmental aspects. Corporations and greed are the norm while profits are always seeked no matter what negative externalities are created in the process. We are destroying the earth that sustains us in enormous proportions only that our children/grandchildren may well spend their whole adult lives trying to figure out how to reverse the damage we have done.
oh watty,
nicely stated.
i have no idea who does the most humanitarian work, nor do i know where steve got his info. you can ask him. my comment was only going off of his premise...
Biblically, caring for the poor is the responsibilty of the church. Why then, as Christians, would we expect or look to a godless government/leader and expect them to fix the problem. Obviously when the church isn't taking on these responsibilitiesthat speaks to another problem but I think looking to a government that doesn't acknowledge that Jesus is Lord is not the answer. Instead we should invest our efforts in our own churches' ministries instead of campaigning for/promoting godless men with godless ideologies.
Post a Comment