The poor: should we listen to their complaints?

[AAAJC]

While reading Howard Zinn's "A People's History Of The United States", I found a passage that was quite interesting. Here it is:

"Still understanding the complexities, this book will be skeptical of governments and their attempts, through politics and culture, to ensnare ordinary people in a giant web of nationhood pretending to a common interest..... The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you don't listen to it, you will never know what justice is."

What I find interesting is his claim in the very last sentence about how we must heed the voice of the poor (not all of them, but some) to truly understand justice. What do you all think?

[RussK]

What is your take on that particular quote by Howard Zinn? I don't know with a great deal of certainty, but I'd wager that Zinn's message here is not positive, especially according to the ideas of government that Ayn Rand espoused. While I'm lacking a whole lot of context--I've only read parts of this particular book, presented in various history classes--my opinion of the quote is that Mr. Zinn is making an altruistic point or argument. I think his point is that looking at and listing to the poor will impel one to assist the poor, which he identifies as justice.

Of course, anyone can know what justice is without looking to the poor. However, I do think observing the poor--throughout the world, not just in the United States--can be an excellent tool for helping to understand justice and human flourishing. Poor and suffering can be looked at in many different ways with differing conclusions: poor and suffering from bad decisions (moral or amoral), or poverty due to an initiation of force, etc... Additionally, historical conditions of poverty can be considered. In each case there could be some beneficial conclusions made by the observer. For example, looking at the suffering of the Chinese people during Mao Zedong may lead one to various philosophical (moral) judgments about initiation of force, socialism, capitalism, and countless other things.

Edited November 30, 2010 by RussK

[VcatoV]

First let's preface with this fact: Zinn is a Marxist who desired to whitewash history by presenting a [Marxist] "People's" History of the United States. So always be on guard.

Secondly, this is quite simple: justice is justice. What is just for a poor person is not different than what is just for a rich person, as opposed to a black or white person, gay or straight, etc. As a rational human being, our commitment is to justice regardless of who is "suffering".

[whYNOT]

..... The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you don't listen to it, you will never know what justice is."

What I find interesting is his claim in the very last sentence about how we must heed the voice of the poor (not all of them, but some) to truly understand justice. What do you all think?

RussK outlined well how poverty can have multiple causes - amoral choices get the justice they deserve, for one.

The writer seems to view poverty only one way, as something society causes and must alleviate - redistribution of wealth = 'justice.'

One could in many instances feel compassion for the poor, but how can they possibly further our understanding about justice?

[SapereAude]

While reading Howard Zinn's "A People's History Of The United States", I found a passage that was quite interesting. Here it is:

"Still understanding the complexities, this book will be skeptical of governments and their attempts, through politics and culture, to ensnare ordinary people in a giant web of nationhood pretending to a common interest..... The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you don't listen to it, you will never know what justice is."

What I find interesting is his claim in the very last sentence about how we must heed the voice of the poor (not all of them, but some) to truly understand justice. What do you all think?

All that suffer are not poor.

All that are poor do not suffer.

So why is it to the suffering poor we must look to to understand justice?

What about the proud poor who refuse to suffer?

What about those that suffer greatly and yet have material wealth?

Yes, I've read Howard Zin. Yes, I think he is one of the most malignant and evil minds of the modern age so my questions are largely rhetorical.

But if you are being forced to ingest his philosophical feces you're going to have to learn to ask all the questions he never wanted those reading his filth to think about.

He poses his theories always as though people were groups, as though no individual exists. Then he wants you to rehumanize through pity what he has already dehumaized through his teachings.

His writing is garbage to those who don't feel shame. It is dangerous garbage in the hands of middle class white kids looking for an excuse to feel guilty.

[whYNOT]

All that suffer are not poor.

All that are poor do not suffer.

So why is it to the suffering poor we must look to to understand justice?

What about the proud poor who refuse to suffer?

What about those that suffer greatly and yet have material wealth?

He poses his theories always as though people were groups, as though no individual exists. Then he wants you to rehumanize through pity what he has already dehumaized through his teachings.

This collective, 'the poor', are the most picked upon group, ever - often exalted, sometimes despised. Thanks for reminding me of the context::- that they are individuals.

What such altruistic-groupists as Zinn will have us forget is that nothing is frozen in time, and that every individual has the potential to not be poor any further. (Given sufficient liberty to determine his own life, and hands off from the State.)

Funny, come to think of it, there was a time I was next to broke - compared to my friends and peers - but I never once considered myself poor.

I genuinely saw myself as a capitalist without capital, for the time being.

To extrapolate from my experience, and contradicting my previous remark, the proud poor ( as you call them), merit far better than my compassion.

Very well thought, and expressed, SapereAude.

[suryevor]

The poorest guy in the US has all sorts of advantages that even the maharajahs lack in India. He can just stick his thumb out and get a ride, to someplace much better. Often, the driver will feed him along the way, and he can ride in heat or AC as is indicated. The prince has to use a chopper, suffer all that noise, heat, vibration, cause there are no roads leading to where he wants to go. The bum in the US can always get food, all day he can hang out at the library, in AC or heat, as needed, with Net access and all sorts of books to learn from, educated people to talk with, free local phone calls,etc. He can go to shelters for the night, can get free clothing/shoes at GoodWill, etc. He can say he's going abroad, and get all kinds of free immunization shots, just because we don't want him bringing back any contagiion! All sorts of groups and agencies exist to help him, and if he grew up here, he was given a FREE chance at a decent education. If he chooses to be an addict or a drunk, that's on him. There is day labor for anyone who can/will bend his back, and that labor, in a week or so, can easily buy a (useable) car in which he can lock up his stuff, sleep safely, and get in out of the weather. He at least knows that water must be treated to be safe to drink, has access to clean water, soap, paper towels, etc, in public restrooms, with which he can stay clean, even do his laundry (voice of experience here). He will be given deodorant for the asking. TP is free, as is safe,sanitary disposal of his wastes.

Contrast that will the horrific conditions in most slums or peasant villas in the 3rd world. They barely have clothing,the know virtually nothing, there is nothing to work with, work on, and nobody you know knows/has anything, either. You don't understand the need for sanitation or safe water, you are full of parasites, sleep with mold, insects fungi, etc all over/around you, everyone is filthy and stinky, there's no toilets, no running water, no heat, no AC, etc. It's unthinkable for us, and unsurvivable, really. The issue is, can/should we do anything about it? I say that only free, voluntary, paid for sterilization of women can ever fix it. Pay the young women a few hundred $ to get a shot that closes off their fallopian tubes. It cost about $200 to administer, and she is out of service only 2 hours. Soon,if you will do this, there will be no more people there than that area's resources can support. Such a sterilization program will be incredibly cheap/effective. When few workers exist, employers have no CHOICE but to pay a decent wage for workers. When the area is not hugely overcrowded, you can have some gardens, small animals, etc. So it's then possible to improve yourselves. You can teach a few kids, but not a million kids, etc. They can be saved, if they will agree to reduce their numbers. If they will not, it is to our advantage to help them die off ASAP, so that world wide plagues don't get started amongst such castoffs.