Lies About Equality in America and Elsewhere?

December 27, 2011 by Marie Posted in Culture, History, Politics 3 Comments

Controversial Canadian author Steve Marche shares his view “That we are not all created equal” in his monthly column –  “A Thousand Words about Our Culture” –  in the January 2012 of Esquire magazine. Here is a taste of his view – then read on for the reasons behind the view. He assails both the United States and Great Britain in his take on wealth, the class system and the truth about both.

…But nobody wants to admit: If your daddy was rich, you’re gonna stay rich, and  if your daddy was poor, you’re gonna stay poor. Every instinct in the American  gut, every institution, every national symbol, runs on the idea that anybody can make it; the only limits are your own limits. Which is an amazing idea, a gift  to the world — just no longer true. Culturally, and in their daily lives,  Americans continue to glide through a ghostly land of opportunity they can’t  bear to tell themselves isn’t real. It’s the most dangerous lie the country  tells itself.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/thousand-words-on-culture/american-class-system-0112#ixzz1hjxsDPDS

3 Responses to Lies About Equality in America and Elsewhere?

  1. Christopher says:

    While much of what the author says is true he misses the broader point. When the Declaration states that all are created equal, it did not mean we all have the same resources or the same talents, but that we are equal in the sight of the Creator that endowed us with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Also, recall that the context of the time was old Europe, still feudal in a lot of ways, where laws actively prevented upward mobility and hereditary monarchy was still the default assumption as to how one achieved the top position in the national leadership. Contrast to the US presidency which had the simple requirements of being born here, lived here for 14 years and 35 years old. In fact, the latter requirement was put in place in part because the founders did not want a son to succeed his father in an era when lifespans were such that having your father still alive when you hit 35 was much less common than it is today.

  2. Joe S says:

    “…the latter requirement was put in place in part because the founders did not want a son to succeed his father…”

    They should have stated it that way, and we probably would be a lot better off today.

  3. Christopher says:

    I don’t think they wanted to absolutely cut off the possibility either, but if you made it to 35, you’ve been an adult for a few years with your own accomplishments on which to be judged when you stand for election in your own right.