“Blessed are you who are poor,” Luke says. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.” (154) When I think of this dichotomy, I wonder what poor and rich mean. I mean, I know that rich means to have and poor means to be in want of (to not have). But I decided to look up the definitions anyway.
OED definitions for “rich”:
Reference:(http://dictionary.oed.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/cgi/entry/50206338?query_type=word&queryword=rich&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=A8Ol-gLAkzl-0&hilite=50206338)
Of a person: powerful, mighty; noble, great. Obs.
Of a thing: powerful, strong; spec. (of a medicine) efficacious. Obs.
2. a. Of a person.
(a) Having much money or abundant assets; wealthy, moneyed, affluent. Opposed to poor.
(b) fig. Having an abundance of immaterial possessions, esp. blessings or good qualities; fortunate, blessed.
b. Of a country or region: having valuable natural resources or a successful economy; (of a building or institution) having much money or abundant assets.
1915 T. C. NIXON Ess. in Social Justice v. 125 Only rich countries can afford democratic government.
Having or containing an abundance of some specified thing, esp. something good or valuable.
4. a. Of great monetary worth; valuable, precious.
In the context of Luke’s philosophical musings, richness and poorness is connected not necessarily to money, but to a general situation of having or not having something.
“Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.” (154) In other words, blessed are those who either practice delayed gratification of who are simply not well endowed. They are blessed why? Because they are holding out for a change in their situation, for a new luck, for a reversed reality. They are the oppressed. And as Malcolm X so wisely states, “Truth is on the side of the oppressed.”
I am reading Paradise Lost in another class and discussing the character of Satan. Milton does not portray Satan as purely evil. In fact, the way Satan is portrayed seems to imply that Lucifer was actually oppressed by God. Oppressed in the sense that he was tempted—given such a high ranking position in Heaven, but was denied a humanly, natural, and healthy sense of ambition. Reading Book 4 of Paradise Lost blurred for me the lines of good and evil and rich and poor. For one, if to be poor means to be in want of something, then I suppose Satan was poor in the sense that he wanted power but did not feel as though he had it.
The greater the gap between rich and poor, naturally, the greater the gap between good and bad. I realize I have grossly oversimplified this statement, but according to Luke’s tone and one definition of rich as being “good” or having “good” things, perhaps we can speculate on the correlation.
“Kindness gives to another. Compassion knows no other.” (109) In Judaisim, the lines seem much more blurred between brother, another, other and oneself.
As if there is no border or distinction between oneself and the rest of man/beings. This is interesting because Luke later speaks of the Good Samaritan. Again, the mantra of Christianity: love thy neighbor as thyself: “You shall love the lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as thyself.” (156) As a Christian nation—I mean that our political and social system was founded on Chrisitan ideals—we are not good neighbors. It reminds me of the Good Neighbor Policy. Below is the wikipedia explanation of the Good Neighbor Policy:
On March 4, 1933, Roosevelt stated during his inaugural address that: "In the field of world policy I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor, the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others, the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors."[4]
But just to clarify, this was only rhetoric. Many historians suggest that very little actually changed in terms of the political relationship between Latin American countries and the United States. Before Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy, the U.S. intervened militarily in Latin American countries to protect its own economic interests. The Good Neighbor policy only made it more difficult to do so--or at least wanted to feign good samaritism. I think it's interesting to compare what we preach--either religious or political rhetoric--with what we actually do. I don't see, for example, that we have a "good samaritan" policy with Mexico. U.S. corporate investors plant their sweatshops in Mexico to exploit the desperate working class and poverty stricken. And not to beat a dead horse, but I don't believe we are being good neighbors. If being a good neighbor means building a border wall all around your house (or country) and stationing militarized federal agents along the perimeter to deter your neighbor from coming to work for you or pay you a visit. Perhaps I got it all wrong, but this doesn't resonate with me. Interestingly enough, Roosevelt directly alludes to the Good Samaritan philosophy that Luke speaks of. First, Roosevelt posits, we must respect ourselves. I don't see that we have respect for ourselves. Roughly seven years later, people in the U.S. would wake up and realize that we don't respect ourselves. During World War II, activists fought for the Double V: Victory abroad and Victory at home. That is, stop dehumanizing U.S. citizens in your homeland before fighting your neighbors' issues.
 |
Rich next to poor. Blessed are the poor. Woe to the rich. Look at the luxury juxtaposed with the poverty-stricken. Gross! http://www.wackyarchives.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/rich-vs-poor.jpg |
As if there is no border or distinction between oneself and the rest of man/beings. This is interesting because Luke later speaks of the Good Samaritan. Again, the mantra of Christianity: love thy neighbor as thyself: “You shall love the lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as thyself.” (156) As a Christian nation—I mean that our political and social system was founded on Chrisitan ideals—we are not good neighbors. It reminds me of the Good Neighbor Policy. Below is the wikipedia explanation of the Good Neighbor Policy:
On March 4, 1933, Roosevelt stated during his inaugural address that: "In the field of world policy I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor, the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others, the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors."[4]
But just to clarify, this was only rhetoric. Many historians suggest that very little actually changed in terms of the political relationship between Latin American countries and the United States. Before Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy, the U.S. intervened militarily in Latin American countries to protect its own economic interests. The Good Neighbor policy only made it more difficult to do so--or at least wanted to feign good samaritism. I think it's interesting to compare what we preach--either religious or political rhetoric--with what we actually do. I don't see, for example, that we have a "good samaritan" policy with Mexico. U.S. corporate investors plant their sweatshops in Mexico to exploit the desperate working class and poverty stricken. And not to beat a dead horse, but I don't believe we are being good neighbors. If being a good neighbor means building a border wall all around your house (or country) and stationing militarized federal agents along the perimeter to deter your neighbor from coming to work for you or pay you a visit. Perhaps I got it all wrong, but this doesn't resonate with me. Interestingly enough, Roosevelt directly alludes to the Good Samaritan philosophy that Luke speaks of. First, Roosevelt posits, we must respect ourselves. I don't see that we have respect for ourselves. Roughly seven years later, people in the U.S. would wake up and realize that we don't respect ourselves. During World War II, activists fought for the Double V: Victory abroad and Victory at home. That is, stop dehumanizing U.S. citizens in your homeland before fighting your neighbors' issues.
 |
| Satan, the fallen angel. The ringleader of rebels. The bad seed or the revolutionary? He is in agony, nostalgic about a heaven that spat him out, from a God that limited him. He did not want to be a servant, powerless--or not powerful enough. http://www.freewebs.com/littleblackrosecoven/Left%20hand%20path/250px-GustaveDoreParadiseLostSatanProfile_color.jpg |
No comments:
Post a Comment