Times they ain’t a changin’
Last month, I finished an eager reading of Oil! by Upton Sinclair. I absolutely loved it, to the point where I couldn’t bear to sit through There Will Be Blood. My father took it from me the day I finished, himself eager to read because of my rave review. He didn’t enjoy it quite as much, but we both agreed on one thing: Things haven’t changed too much from the 20s. Particularly, the similarities between the 1920 election and the 2000 election.
I’m going through another book, published about 12 years after Oil!: The Grapes of Wrath. Yes, we all read it in high school, but I remember enjoying it so much that I thought it worthy of another read. After just reading the first 100 pages, I’m glad I took the time to reread it. Clearly, I didn’t understand many of the concepts Steinbeck presented throughout. I’ve marked three particular short passages, two of which I think apply to what we’re talking about here at the Imp.
The following passage is from the point of view of a used car salesman, prospering from the increased demand for his services. Everyone in Oklahoma is moving out to California, where they think they’ll find paradise.
Get ‘em under obligation. Make ‘em take up your time. Don’t let ‘em forget they’re takin’ your time. People are nice, mostly. They hate to put you out. Make ‘em put you out, an’ then sock it to ‘em.
While this sales technique wouldn’t quite work nowadays, at least not where I’m from, it does draw parallels to today’s sales environment. People aren’t people. They’re potential sales. If you can sell to ‘em, do it. There’s little consideration of whether they can afford it or not — we saw this a ton with the subprime meltdown. Give ‘em a line of credit, and hope that they can pay it off. As the salesman in the book goes on to say, “it’ll surprise you how many kick through with the rest.”
The more powerful passage, though, comes a bit later. Families are being kicked off their land by banks, and tractors are being employed to plow the land. Drivers are paid a decent sum, three dollars a day, to do the work. This comes when Willy Feely, who grew up in those parts, takes a job as a driver, and essentially drives his neighbors out of house and home.
‘I got two little kids,’ he says. ‘I got a wife an’ my wife’s mother. Them people got to eat.’ Gets madder’n hell. ‘Fust an’ on’y thing I got to think about is my own folks,’ he says. ‘What happens to other folks is their look-out,’ he says. Seems like he’s ’shamed, so he gets mad.
That seems to be the mentality with a large portion of our country. Take care of your own, and screw everyone else. I just wonder what would happen if one day, we all woke up and decided that “my own” included neighbors. What they lack in blood ties, they make up for in other connections. We’re all Americans, and we all want the best for this country. We want to grow and prosper as a nation so that our children can enjoy an even greater level of freedom. But we sure as hell don’t act like it. Or, rather, we act like the future of our own children is more important than the future of the children down the street.
One of the tenets of Impatient Sufferers is that we believe that we’re all in this together. United we stand, right? Divided we fall. Yet there is so much division in this country that it’s making it nearly impossible for us to unite when it matters. Yes, your children are important. But so is every other child in this country. And everyone, especially those who are more fortunate because of the opportunities they could only have been afforded in America, should do everything in their power to make sure they grow up in the most prosperous possible environment.
Clearly, this is an issue that runs deep. Steinbeck was thinking about it back in the 30s. We’re thinking about it today. It’s sad, though, to see that we haven’t made much progress in that regard in 70 years.
4 Responses to “Times they ain’t a changin’”
[...] at The Imp, I have a rant of sorts up, which was inspired by The Grapes of Wrath. I remember loving the book [...]
Comment made on June 10th, 2008 at 2:09 pm“It’s sad, though, to see that we haven’t made much progress in that regard in 70 years.”
Really? You believe that the poor (the lowest quintile) today are as bad off as they were during the Depression? I don’t have the time, but I’m sure that if you Google the mortality statistics, you will find that infant mortality has decreased, and longevity has increased SUBSTANTIALLY since then, not to mention indoor plumbing, central heating, television (okay, maybe they were better off without TV) automobiles, and on and on.
The goal of capitalism ISN”T equality, but rather to RAISE THE TIDE, so that even the lowest quintile benefit. In that regard, it has been fantastically successful.
BTW, it is innately human to “look out after one’s own”, however that is defined. We favor OUR children over other’s children, OUR friends over strangers, OUR fellow countrymen over foreigners, and, I’m sure when the time comes, we will favor humans over aliens. That’s not going change.
Comment made on June 10th, 2008 at 4:48 pmWhile the poor today aren’t as bad off as in the Depression, the gap between the wealthy and the poor continues to broaden, most rapidly in the past 2 decades. With improvements in technology and the delivery of medical care,it is inconceivable that the poorest among us live (and die) the way that they do. “Substantial” improvements in mortality are not enough…why should there be any differences in the delivery of health care and the ability to feed one’s family adequately? BTW, don;t bring up infant mortality in this context…sadly, the US trails much of the industrialized world on this metric.
Comment made on June 11th, 2008 at 6:27 am“Take care of your own, and screw everyone else. I just wonder what would happen if one day, we all woke up and decided that “my own” included neighbors.” -Joseph P.
This reminds me of a conversation I had recently. A friend asked me if I think people naturally want to be kind/peaceful towards one another. I said I think they definitely do towards those people who they consider to be “one of us.” So, for example, others within their family, friend group, community, nation, religion, culture, etc. For peace building, and I think also for building a stronger America, the trick is to help people see others as “one of us.”
The challenge of course is that each person’s definition of who is in their circle of “one of us” is constantly changing, from moment to moment even. Cut me in the bus line and suddenly you are “one of them,” the enemy. Survive a traumatic experience, such as 911, with me and we bound as brothers… of course only until too many people of your ethnicity move into my neighborhood. Anyone who I think I am competing against for resources is outside my circle. Anyone who I think has screwed me over in that competition is definitely outside my circle. However, if someone who I perceive to be solidly within my circle does the same thing to me or takes the same thing from me, I can be happy for them because I like being generous to those I love.
Therefore, in order to make America stronger, to make our democracy healthier, our citizens have to believe we are all in the same circle. How do we do that?
Well, I’ve found that the more I understand the world, the greater my circle of “one of us” becomes, eventually expanding to even include all of humanity, all living things, even nonliving valuable parts of our planet such as mountains. The more we learn about other people, the more we are able to empathize with them. (For example, if your brother harms you, you might know enough about him to understand where he’s coming from and why he made that mistake. You’re also more likely to forgive him because you have a history of positive interaction and you are invested in a future of positive interaction.) Strengthened empathy among Americans will lead to actions for mutual benefit and the benefit of our society as a whole. Therefore, ensuring equal access for all to a wide variety of truthful educational resources and opportunities should be a high priority in rebuilding our democracy.
However, simply knowing each other is not enough. We must also deal with the competition for resources (or the perceived competition for resources) that so often turns us against one another. I do understand that competition is a valuable tool that has engendered countless American achievements and triumphs and that capitalism has contributed significantly to the rise in the standard of living in our country. But I also am sure that there is now more than enough wealth to go around in this society and that there is no sane argument for its current distribution.
How do we convince Americans, from the top quintile to the bottom, that we will all be happier, healthier, and safer if we start valuing and treating each and every citizen equally, as just another one of “our own”?
Comment made on June 17th, 2008 at 1:02 pmLeave a Comment