3 ms·
The difference is that you acknowledge that you 'have' money. Also, you possibly acknowledge that you had certain opportunities that other people could ill affo
by ashray 14y ago
The difference is that you acknowledge that you 'have' money. Also, you possibly acknowledge that you had certain opportunities that other people could ill afford and therefore have this money.
Unfortunately, the difference in opportunity in India is considered (by both rich and poor) to be something that God has handed down and therefore it's fair. By the rich because it's convenient to think that way and by the poor because they feel like they have no escape apart from reincarnation.
I was traveling in Brazil last year and found that the poor in Brazil (also due to drug issues..) actively blame the rich for their poverty and are also to a great extent violent against wealthier people. (at least in the cities that I was in..)
However, the difference in India is that poor people more often than not attribute their poverty to God and therefore do not blame the rich or seek retribution. I honestly believe this is what keeps the poor in India from revolting en masse. If the Indian belief system was like the Brazilian system, over here there would be a civil war.
- chii 14y ago> attribute their poverty to God and therefore do not blame the rich or seek retribution....If the Indian belief system was like the Brazilian system, over here there would be a civil war. that's interesting. I've always considered religion to be a form of control over people by a certain elite group. This gives me more anecdotal confirmation. I wonder if indian society could be better served if there was a civil war, where the poor raise up, and appropriate the land from the wealthy. I keep reading articles like http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/08/generations-pay-off-debts-through-slavery/ http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/08/generat... and it sounds like that would be a painful fix, but may be the end justify the means...