In the previous Claiborne piece, I'm not sure that it follows that for poverty to end, wealth must too.
You know, yesterday I was talking to my son about stuff and we were going through some of the anthropology texts on the shelf -- Colin Turnbull, Victor Turner, Geertz -- and I realized that poverty isn't a lack of economic activity, technological advancement, or of industry. You can be dirt "poor" by SoCal standards but get all the cassava root you need, and live in balance and happiness with your little river -- it's not about "stuff", it's about livelihood and the ability to get whatever subset of the whole eco-organism you need in order to survive and prosper. Survival and prosperity are not synonymous with industry and profit. Gave me a jolt to see that in a new way...
So wealth is here and now, when the river gives up fish, when the pecans are plenty under the tree. Must that end for lack to end?
I do not believe it's a zero-sum game.
Is it?
Did Jesus?
No comments:
Post a Comment