Date of week: Dec. 1-7 ,2014
This week my American Studies class had begun to discuss the Gilded Age and Roaring 20's. A time when there was a ton of technological progress in the United States which caused changes in the social classes of the country. There began to be a more significant division between the rich and the poor. As the Great Depression had come to an end before this time. Innovation drives the nation in new paths. The United States turns its interest in international business with the idea of Empire. This ties into the the great American novel, The Great Gatsby, as the characters experience life in their respective classes. In the novel the rich live luxuriously while the poor work day in and out to acquire the necessities for themselves and nothing more. The rich people are involved in business. The idea of rag-to-riches also comes into play, where someone from nothing makes it big. The morals and values of the different classes are different. The concept of morality in life effects the characters' decisions. How far someone is wiling to go to get to where they want? Would they throw away their morality to achieve their goal? Do the rich really have more than the poor? How is being rich defined differently now in comparison to then? Why and how do Empires form?
(I just tried to post this comment, but it didn't work :))
ReplyDeleteDo the rich really have more than the poor?
Not always. If you take a rich person such as Jay Gatsby or Jordan Belfort (who are both ironically Leonardo DiCaprio), they live a lavish, exquisite lifestyle when it comes to money and financial needs, but lack emotionally and spiritually. Obviously not all rich people are like this, and they could simply be two isolated examples. However, I do think that many people confuse financial abundance with good health, and that's not always true. Although the rich are richer than the poor, they don't necessarily have more than poor people.
Morality doesn't always have to be thrown away in order to achieve something. Throughout your blog, that's what I felt you were trying to convey, as it may be true in some senses, its not always the case
ReplyDeleteAnnaliese, you asked about the price of wealth, and I thought that was a really good question. As Muaaz said, the price doesn't have to be morality - but it often winds up as collateral damage in the attempt to go from rags to riches. In addition Kasey was talking about emotional and spiritual health as collateral damage, and I think all of you are making good points. Wealth does have some cost, even if many of us don't realize it.
ReplyDelete