What's there to look at? They're poor.
I'm reading this book called "City of Joy". It's about blah blah blah some priest in Calcutta, more blah blah, and a rickshaw driver... readers have gushed about it since it's publication in the 70s – positively gushed – about how it has changed their lives, how it has enlightened them, how it has made them more human.. etc.
It basically is a study, a spiritual voyeuristic peek, into the state of poverty in one Calcutta slum. Here's the rub... or lack of rubbing: the slum is called ironically (because it's true, you see!) "City of Joy" in Hindi. Instead of crime-infested areas like, let's say "City of God" in Brazil, here in Calcutta, the poor have faith, generosity, kindness -- all the attributes that would qualify them for Mathew 5.
In somewhat trite language, LaPierre holds the poor out to be a beacon of humanity.
My point?
What is the point?
It's something I struggle with more as I encounter India, in all it's extremes.
How to react -- what are the right/wrong the proper/improper motives, response and behaviors that I ought to have towards poverty?
When I read this book, when the urchin was banging on me with his bottles, when women in rags hold their (purposefully?) under-nourished babies and beg for a few rupees (and both their hands are stretched out!), when men and women and children are sleeping next to dogs and dogs are sleeping next to cows (and also dead rats)... what do I think?
I think less that 'blessed are the poor'. I think that the 'poor shall not inherit the earth.'
I get angry. I get angry because cities of joy exist. And angrier because the poor still have hope, and they have hope not in a better material future but in a better world to come (we promise, god promises, really!), that their spirits are joyful while their bodies break.
Twisted, isn't it? (Me or the situation, doesn't matter.)
Religions and spirituality have all called for renunciation (of some sort) as a way to deal with the harshness of life. But here's the question: is hope a necessity or a distraction to suffering? The book and a lot of spiritualism focuses on how the poor are joyful amidst hardships --- how wonderful! -- but I ask, it's better to provide solutions to poverty instead of answers to 'why poverty'? Instead of giving the poor stories of gods who will feed and clothe them in the next life, give them loans with low interest, or vocational training, or subsidies, or.. something!
The cycle of poverty is caused by 1) natural phenomenas (floods, droughts, etc.) 2) the greed of other men (usury, systemic bribery/lack of law, goods and services not targeted to the poor) and 3) the ignorance of the poor and the willful exploitation of that ignorance by those in power
Ok - so I haven't thought this out much, but it fits somehow.
One can't be helped. But two and three are related, and they can be changed. But exploitation, to me, comes in all forms -- it comes when a local gang threatens a slum-family with violence unless they pay the exorbitant rents, or when a usurer charges 25-50% interest on a loan to a drought-stricken farmer...
And it also comes, I think, in the words of spirituality.. whether the words say "It's all right, god will take care of you", whether that be the God of Alpha and Omega, or Lakshmi, the Goddess of Prosperity, or 'keep praying, something will happen.'
I'm not bashing the goodness of God here (although I'm getting quite closer, aren't it?). I'm angry at the lack of understanding on the part of the people who need understanding the most -- those who are so poor that the only thing keeping them sane and alive is the hope and faith in supernatural circumstances... when solutions to their earthly and material problems are achievable.
I suppose I'm angry at human character.. how we treat our fellow men that they have to turn elsewhere.
Would the hungry kid I saw, shitting in the middle of the street, would she want prayers or a bowl of food?
There is nothing to ogle or exclaim profoundly in the poor – but there is plenty to do, to affect their lives, materially, and physically and monetarily – in the now.
Note: I didn't know there was a movie about this! Starring Pat Swayze.. the Ghost-Dance-man himself! Wow!
Well, it's always been clear to me what poverty exists because it is an inherent part of our economic system, maybe not by definition, but it comes down to that. Basically a capitalist society needs cheap labor so it can be profitable. If we were all rich, who would work for the business owners (since in theory we could all be one?). So at its best you have countries like in Scandinavia, where virtually everyone has a decent amount of money and purchasing power, but where it is difficult to build wealth and people end up with little ambition. At worse, greed attacks and the capitalists don't want to share with anyone else. This leads to corruption, which leads to more poverty and blah blah blah. As far as the religious question, I say they are in on it. At least the Catholic church (which I dislike tremendously) tends to profit a lot and so it is in their best interest to keep the poor ignorant and poor through their best weapon: the almighty God!. What do you say?
Posted by: vinny | November 20, 2006 at 01:02 PM
My issue is not that poverty exists – but what is to done about it? I don't agree that poverty (my definition is living conditions that are below subsistence) has to exist in capitalism. Socialism, fedualism, facism, depotism.. you name it – doesn't matter what the system has been, poverty has existed.
It's a matter of scarce resources combined with human greed.
I think differences in lifestyle, purchasing power.. heck - I think differences should exist: economically AND socially. But I also think that a productive society can raise the living standards for all of its citizens so that they have: proper housing, hygenic plumbing and health care, basic education, etc.
In short, there is a minimum standard at which 'equality of opportunity' actually means something.
What I get pissed at is the reveling – the sheer celebration of poverty as if its something to be cheered. "How noble poor people are! How they have patience in the midst of sufferings! How they can have faith when they have nothing!"
It's poverty porn – almost as if impoverished people are museum pieces to be gawked at.. and the celebration is not in the fact that there's hope for them to NOT be poor – the celebration is in the fact that they are and WILL be poor – and that they're still human!
I agree with you in spirit about religion – all religions.. but religions are abused by humans.. and I think the spirit behind the religion is exempt from that. Anyhoos... make your ceviche and sangria and we'll talk more!
Posted by: j.fisher | November 21, 2006 at 08:57 AM
Hmmmmmm......
Posted by: C.H.Ha | November 21, 2006 at 10:21 AM