3 ms·
I'd say it's more than that. Culture has changed and morphed into something where we feel we are entitled to a lot, just because we exist. I don't think our cul
by koide 5y ago
I'd say it's more than that. Culture has changed and morphed into something where we feel we are entitled to a lot, just because we exist. I don't think our culture a few hundred years ago was like that. Did we see revolts in the medieval Europe because the king had too much? Not for that exact reason, as far as I know. Each king wanted more, for sure, but not the peasants, who didn't have much nor expected to have much ever.
Compare that to the American dream where literally everybody has the ability to get rich (in theory, but the point is that now the "peasants" in general want to get rich).
- southerntofu 5y ago> Each king wanted more, for sure, but not the peasants, who didn't have much nor expected to have much ever. This is a projection. Revolts are as old as power and inequalities. For the most well-known/well-studied of those, see this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts (it's important to understand that most revolts are silently crushed and never documented, and that even for those that were documented in their time we did not necessarily keep good track of those documents over the centuries)
- koide 5y agoSocial inequality is listed as one factor among many. Do you know of revolts that were specifically about inequality? The ones I checked from the list were mostly religious, agricultural or nationalistic in nature. The ones I saw that could maybe be about inequality are due to the ruler being obnoxiously unjust or being unable to provide substenance. I wasn't saying revolts didn't exist, just that they weren't about wanting to be rich.