Posted on 07/30/2002 4:37:41 PM PDT by aconservaguy
I bemoan the coarsening of our culture but I fail to see how my wearing blue jeans to work contributes to it. What I've seen in my lifetime is first the skills for putdown are acquired through situation comedy television and peer groups, next sex enters the picture, usually around the same time as alcohol and drugs. Finally, there is high school and college and - voila! - you have a crude, sex-obsessed lout with the courtesy and verbal skills of a motorcycle gang.
And because youth is all about shocking one's elders (even if it means lemming-like subserviance to the fashion trends of your antisocial peers), each new generation must find something even more offensive and shocking than the last one in order to establish their own boundaries.
Imagine when we've devolved to the point that courtesy, modesty and godliness becomes the trendy way to shock others. I suspect it will arrive in the next two or three generations.
For the most part I agree with this article. There is far too much coarse behavior.
But when you start refering to people by class, you cross the line and become pompous. Part of the American Revolution was to do away with titles of nobility.
Just because titles in the European sense were forbidden by the Constitution does not mean that classes did not exist, or that the framers attempted to create a classless society. In a sense, this Constitutional prohibition could be construed as rank hypocrisy. Thomas Jefferson may have been Mister Jefferson, but as a slave-owner he had greater power of life and death over a greater number of people than any European count or duke.
Your argument is well presented, but the above sentence is a bit of a stretch. European aristocracy had far to much control over far too many people. This included power over life and death. And they were not elected, they gained power because they were born into certain families.
Not disagreeing, but what does mention of classes have to do with nobility? Couldn't it just be reference to everyday economic or social classes?
Oh, I don't know.
A:Upper class.Nobility and those who scam their way into elected office.
B:Lower class.The rest of us.
I did forget a part of the upper class. Academics that have never been forced to deal with reality but consider themselves on a higher plane somehow.Bill and Hillary come to mind as do most liberal democrats.
Bump.
George Washington's Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior:
This is good advice for us all, even Dr. Horvat. It's more down to earth than this article IMO.
You can find these rules quoted along with a few others in Gary Aldrich's book Unlimited Access.
I think you're being too broad in your analysis. Where's the "nobility" you speak of? Also, those who "scam their way into elected office" may not necessarily be upper class; what if they start out in the "lower class?" How does scamming one's way into "elected office" make one of the upper class? As for this "lower class" being "the rest of us": I think you're tossing too many folks into one pot; there are distinctions to be made. What is the purpose of this broad distinction you make? To contrast those with power with those without?
I did forget a part of the upper class. Academics that have never been forced to deal with reality but consider themselves on a higher plane somehow.Bill and Hillary come to mind as do most liberal democrats.
can't forget about those guys, lol.
In a word, yes. Why is someone born of a certain familiy deemed superior when ,in most cases, they clearly are not. The Kennedys are a good example. Joe senior made his fortune running bootleg whiskey out of Canada. Now these sewer trout are touted as American royalty.
Another example is the "The Royal Family of Great Britain". They amount to little more than well paid welfare recipients that serve no usefull purpose that I can see. Yet many bow and scrape before them.
To put yourself or anyone else in a certain class robs you ,or them, of individuality. Something the so called upper class and government wonks rely on to hold on to power.
I hope this explains my position.
This is a very interesting point. How does placing one's self in a "class" rob one's "individuality?" And why is this necessarly bad? What's so important about "individuality"? Assuming you dislike the classes, what do you propose as an alternative to the current class system? Would you re-engineer the class system? Would you abolish all classes? If classes destroy individuality, then what upholds or promotes it?
I think it is more complex than simply good and bad, rich and rest. The example of the Kennedy's shows how bad some people of the upper class are; but people of other classes are just as worse. You seem to imply from the Kennedy's that all people of the upper class are bad, which is certainly not the case. There are some inequalities which are good -- class distinctions is one of them. I think there will always be different classes; Social and economic classes seem just natural outgrowths of the differences (superficial or not) betweem humans.
Something the so called upper class and government wonks rely on to hold on to power.
Do you have any proof of this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.