It is true that, “to the world you may be just one person, but to one person you may be the world;” just count the memorabilia dedicated to Lady Gaga or recall the desperation of Thomas Becket towards King Henry II. Such thinking however, though whimsical enough for greeting cards, is dangerous. Its concentration on the famous, fashionable, and filthy rich overshadows the underprivileged, especially in terms of distribution of wealth.
Distribution of wealth is a tricky matter. There is the capitalist argument that man earns all he owns and the communist side that all should be equal. Yet, maybe the solution lies between the ideologies. For instance, prosperity may not be worth the salary of MLB players (or politicans, etc). Widespread prosperity could have simpler extremes than Affluent-Person-X in a penthouse and Impoverished-Person-Y in a box.
It all boils down to recognition of basic human rights/dignity. Although money is a powerful tool (for negotiations, to provide the means of much needed resources), it should not be taken for granted. With a bulk of currency in the hands of the few, they seem to hold a superficial power. All must recognize the voices of some that cannot even buy a microphone in which to speak. Money should not be so thoroughly contained within organizations and should instead be transformed into communal actions for the world (i.e. education, housing, etc).
On another note, Google has been known to have all the answers. So, if one were to Google “football” and receive 796,000,000 hits (“futbol” 287,000,000), and then “AIDS” to bring up 96,100,000 (“healthcare” 120,000,000), does that mean something?
I love the this line "All must recognize the voices of some that cannot even buy a microphone in which to speak." It made me think of the constant debate people have about the reason people are poor. Are the improvished in this situation simply because they are too lazy to pull themselves up by their boot straps, or are they in this situation because they are not provided the opportunity to find boots with straps? Are some people silent because they do not wish to speak, or do they wish to speak and do not have the means to find a microphone?
ReplyDeleteExcellent questions. Let me add another: What can the developed world and/or the international community do to lend microphones (or well-strapped boots) to those without them? Do you think UN membership is like giving a microphone to the voiceless? Who gets left out?
ReplyDeleteHolly, your take on the debate on the poor is very true. Your rhetorical, philosophical questions really have no distinct answers (sometimes, it varies by example), and such pondering gives way for inaction.
ReplyDeleteErin, after reading Enloe's article, I think I might have a better perspective with which to reflect upon your questions. The developed world/international community needs to analyze the "micro" causes in the world. The problem is that there are numerous of them. Groups inevitably will be left out, even with UN intervention becaue the UN is only run by humans who have their baises and alliances. However, maybe the international community can take small steps by first analyzing the outskirts of major IR issues (i.e. Does a given budget cover X, Y, and Z? Because of warfare in a given country, do the citizens still have X, Y, Z?)