It is always heartening to see humanitarian aid flow in from around the world shortly after a natural disaster strikes. Somehow, it is a comfort to those watching from their televisions thousands of miles away, to know that despite the fact that they can’t do much to help, help is nonetheless on its way.
One of the most vivid examples of the outpouring of international humanitarian aid after a crisis was in the earthquake that rocked Haiti in January of 2010. Although it took a few days due to the obliterated infrastructure of Haiti’s roads and airports, help did arrive, with the United States leading the way.
Many doctors unselfishly volunteered their skills and time, working with both the government and private groups. The money alone that Americans doled out of their pockets to organizations like The American Red Cross surpassed the expectations of many of the charities themselves.
But what happens when the “shock factor” wears off in such a humanitarian crisis, as it always does? Who is left to pick up the pieces of reclaiming property, restructuring programs, and establishing a status quo again after all the foreigners leave?
This task often belongs to the locals, despite the fact that their infrastructure has been demolished. Again, Haiti has been a classic example. Once the broken bones were set and the dead buried, many aid groups packed up and left.
What remained for months upon months were enormous tent cities of refugees who now had a new way of life, completely different from before.
Long-term strategic planning and rebuilding is something that should be added to humanitarian groups’ emergency response plans. If the USA and its humanitarian groups are going to give aid to its neighbors in crisis, as they rightly should, then they should ensure that the aid is best used by employing long-term solutions, not just quick-fixes.
It is always heartening to see humanitarian aid flow in from around the world shortly after a natural disaster strikes. Somehow, it is a comfort to those watching from their televisions thousands of miles away, to know that despite the fact that they can’t do much to help, help is nonetheless on its way.One of the most vivid examples of the outpouring of international humanitarian aid after a crisis was in the earthquake that rocked Haiti in January of 2010. Although it took a few days due to the obliterated infrastructure of Haiti’s roads and airports, help did arrive, with the United States leading the way. Many doctors unselfishly volunteered their skills and time, working with both the government and private groups. The money alone that Americans doled out of their pockets to organizations like The American Red Cross surpassed the expectations of many of the charities themselves.But what happens when the “shock factor” wears off in such a humanitarian crisis, as it always does? Who is left to pick up the pieces of reclaiming property, restructuring programs, and establishing a status quo again after all the foreigners leave?This task often belongs to the locals, despite the fact that their infrastructure has been demolished. Again, Haiti has been a classic example. Once the broken bones were set and the dead buried, many aid groups packed up and left. What remained for months upon months were enormous tent cities of refugees who now had a new way of life, completely different from before.Long-term strategic planning and rebuilding is something that should be added to humanitarian groups’ emergency response plans. If the USA and its humanitarian groups are going to give aid to its neighbors in crisis, as they rightly should, then they should ensure that the aid is best used by employing long-term solutions, not just quick-fixes.
General, Issues, Social Justice
American Red Cross, Haiti, Humanitarian aid, Natural disaster
comment
TrackBack-URI
The 52 words of the preamble to the US Constitution include the phrase “promote the general welfare” as one of the objectives for creating the Constitution. In today’s setup in Washington, D.C., however, the welfare of corporations is more of a priority than that of the general public.
The concentration of wealth, coupled with a lack of governmental regulation on corporations and their exchanges with lawmakers, has allowed corporations to amass power and control over the creation of law.
Although it is illegal for a corporation to donate directly to a federal candidate, the leaders of corporations get around this by hosting lavish fundraisers as individuals and inviting their wealthy colleagues to donate money to the candidate who is sympathetic to their cause.
Judicial rulings in recent years have only been more favorable to corporations when it comes to prorate political spending.
Now, instead of a government “Of the people, by the people and for the people,” it is one that is “of corporations, by corporations and for corporations.”
These shadowy power-mongers operate in backrooms and at expensive galas. They exchange information through their devoted lobbyists, many of whom worked as lawmakers, or for a lawmaker immediately prior to becoming a lobbyist. The connections are many, and the implications are even more abundant.
The stamp on “corporate welfare” came in the form of a bailout, when large financial institutions and auto manufacturers were propped up by taxpayer money.
Due to their lack of regulation, corporations are also given carte blanche over what they do to the planet, and its inhabitants.
When a corporation becomes so massive that it crosses dozens of national borders and has no real face, it becomes too powerful to hold to any real rules.
For the sake of true democracy, rule by the people, it is time for the United States to reevaluate what defines a corporation, and to establish laws that ensure these corporations do more good than they do harm.
The 52 words of the preamble to the US Constitution include the phrase “promote the general welfare” as one of the objectives for creating the Constitution. In today’s setup in Washington, D.C., however, the welfare of corporations is more of a priority than that of the general public. The concentration of wealth, coupled with a lack of governmental regulation on corporations and their exchanges with lawmakers, has allowed corporations to amass power and control over the creation of law. Although it is illegal for a corporation to donate directly to a federal candidate, the leaders of corporations get around this by hosting lavish fundraisers as individuals and inviting their wealthy colleagues to donate money to the candidate who is sympathetic to their cause. Judicial rulings in recent years have only been more favorable to corporations when it comes to prorate political spending. Now, instead of a government “Of the people, by the people and for the people,” it is one that is “of corporations, by corporations and for corporations.” These shadowy power-mongers operate in backrooms and at expensive galas. They exchange information through their devoted lobbyists, many of whom worked as lawmakers, or for a lawmaker immediately prior to becoming a lobbyist. The connections are many, and the implications are even more abundant. The stamp on “corporate welfare” came in the form of a bailout, when large financial institutions and auto manufacturers were propped up by taxpayer money. Due to their lack of regulation, corporations are also given carte blanche over what they do to the planet, and its inhabitants. When a corporation becomes so massive that it crosses dozens of national borders and has no real face, it becomes too powerful to hold to any real rules. For the sake of true democracy, rule by the people, it is time for the United States to reevaluate what defines a corporation, and to establish laws that ensure these corporations do more good than they do harm.
General, Green Party, Politics, Social Justice
Corporate welfare, Government, United States, Washington D.C.
comment
TrackBack-URI
In most European nations, perhaps with the exception of England, it’s commonplace for citizens to speak at least two languages. Many young people throughout the world grow up learning three, four or five languages simultaneously, both because they are exposed to them in their countries and because they are doing online college degrees and their education systems recognize foreign language as a valuable asset in an increasingly connected global community.
And then there’s America. Although high schools have a foreign language requirement, it’s rare to find a student who became even proficient in a foreign language through his or her school alone.
The demand isn’t there, because Americans by and large still practice isolationism. Why should we have to learn another language when English is the dominant language in the world? Although there is a point to that line of questioning, it’s approaching world issues from a backward perspective.
For one thing, it’s a sign of great respect to greet someone in his or her own language, whether it be a diplomat or a business acquaintance. Likewise, it can be seen as an act of arrogance to take for granted that everyone around America will exert the time and money to learn English, without any attempt of Americans to reciprocate.
It wasn’t that many generations ago that the “Immigrant Nation” known as America had scores of its own languages wafting across the Great Plains and through the neighborhoods of its expanding cities.
Language is one of the strongest cultural influences in existence. If Americans want to be truly respected on the world stage—whether it is economically, militarily, or in the humanitarian field—they will first need to take a step back, humble themselves, and try to learn a new language.
It would take initiative by the government, but also willingness on the part of parents across the country. A grassroots recognition of foreign language needs may be a topic for Parent-Teacher Association meetings in the coming years.
General, Issues, Social Justice
Great Plains, Language, Social Sciences, United States
comment
TrackBack-URI
If you come across an elderly military veteran, ask him or her about how the American flag should be respected. More likely than not, you will hear details about decorum, folding, respect and etiquette.
At one time in American history, the flag was the flag, and nothing more. It was flown on flagpoles and waved as a banner on the battlefield. It appeared in official American or military logos. But it was not a style icon as it is used today.
This casual regard truly bothered some military veterans who fought for the freedoms the flag represented. To go to the mall and see teenage girls with patches of the US Flag draped over their derrieres, or to see it appear, in part, on children’s’ tattered shoes still makes some Americans shake their heads in disgust.
One of the more touching signs of respect for the American flag was caught on a security camera in 2010, when a homeless man came across a flagpole that had crashed to the ground in a thunderstorm. The man retrieved the flag from the ground, and in the pouring rain, took time and great effort to fold it properly in its triangular shape.
The liberties Americans are granted when it comes to the national flag makes visitors from some other nations shake their heads too, but for different reasons.
Someone who has lived in mainland China under the People’s Republic of China finds it incredible that Americans have the right to “express” themselves by burning the flag, if they so choose.
It’s hard to know what Betsy Ross, who legend says sewed the first American flag, would think about this. It may be easier to imagine what George Washington or Abraham Lincoln would have thought. The irony of using the freedoms granted by a nation symbolized by the very symbol you are effacing would likely make them shake their heads, too.
If you come across an elderly military veteran, ask him or her about how the American flag should be respected. More likely than not, you will hear details about decorum, folding, respect and etiquette. At one time in American history, the flag was the flag, and nothing more. It was flown on flagpoles and waved as a banner on the battlefield. It appeared in official American or military logos. But it was not a style icon as it is used today.This casual regard truly bothered some military veterans who fought for the freedoms the flag represented. To go to the mall and see teenage girls with patches of the US Flag draped over their derrieres, or to see it appear, in part, on children’s’ tattered shoes still makes some Americans shake their heads in disgust.One of the more touching signs of respect for the American flag was caught on a security camera in 2010, when a homeless man came across a flagpole that had crashed to the ground in a thunderstorm. The man retrieved the flag from the ground, and in the pouring rain, took time and great effort to fold it properly in its triangular shape.The liberties Americans are granted when it comes to the national flag makes visitors from some other nations shake their heads too, but for different reasons.Someone who has lived in mainland China under the People’s Republic of China finds it incredible that Americans have the right to “express” themselves by burning the flag, if they so choose.It’s hard to know what Betsy Ross, who legend says sewed the first American flag, would think about this. It may be easier to imagine what George Washington or Abraham Lincoln would have thought. The irony of using the freedoms granted by a nation symbolized by the very symbol you are effacing would likely make them shake their heads, too.
General, Issues, Social Justice
Abraham Lincoln, Betsy Ross, Flag, George Washington
comment
TrackBack-URI
It’s surprising to some parents how their children can go to school and pick up bad words or bad habits. But what some parents have been completely shocked about is that their children have been picking up racism in schools.
A study carried out by CNN in public schools across America tested both young elementary school children, and older, junior high children for racist tendencies. The results were stunning, especially to the children’s own parents.
When young Caucasian girls were presented with pictures of five dolls, ranging from light skin tone to dark, they inevitably picked out the doll with light skin for having good traits, and the doll with the dark skin and being deviant.
The same was true in reverse: African American children were more likely to choose lighter colored dolls as being mean or dishonest.
When Americans start to think that they’ve come a long way regarding race, they are right. And yet, there is still a long way to go.
It just takes one scenario like the 2010 spat between the NAACP and the Tea Party movement to see just how sensitive the topic of race still is in the US.
For years, the trend was for parents to raise their children to be “color blind,” seeing other children, and people in general, for what they were on the inside, not the color of their skin.
Nowadays, however, the term “color neutral” is preferred. That’s because if you ignore the issue of race completely, you’re not educating a child. You’re sweeping something under the rug that, to a child, is very obvious—people are different. Why not explain where the pigmentation comes from, and the histories of various peoples, so that there’s no ambiguity or fear on behalf of children when it comes to interacting with those who are different than them?
It’s surprising to some parents how their children can go to school and pick up bad words or bad habits. But what some parents have been completely shocked about is that their children have been picking up racism in schools.A study carried out by CNN in public schools across America tested both young elementary school children, and older, junior high children for racist tendencies. The results were stunning, especially to the children’s own parents. When young Caucasian girls were presented with pictures of five dolls, ranging from light skin tone to dark, they inevitably picked out the doll with light skin for having good traits, and the doll with the dark skin and being deviant.The same was true in reverse: African American children were more likely to choose lighter colored dolls as being mean or dishonest.When Americans start to think that they’ve come a long way regarding race, they are right. And yet, there is still a long way to go.It just takes one scenario like the 2010 spat between the NAACP and the Tea Party movement to see just how sensitive the topic of race still is in the US.For years, the trend was for parents to raise their children to be “color blind,” seeing other children, and people in general, for what they were on the inside, not the color of their skin.Nowadays, however, the term “color neutral” is preferred. That’s because if you ignore the issue of race completely, you’re not educating a child. You’re sweeping something under the rug that, to a child, is very obvious—people are different. Why not explain where the pigmentation comes from, and the histories of various peoples, so that there’s no ambiguity or fear on behalf of children when it comes to interacting with those who are different than them?
General, Issues, Politics, Social Justice
African American, Human skin color, Racism, White people
comment
TrackBack-URI
Working with children has always presented both its rewards and challenges. One of the most difficult, and controversial, aspects of working with kids in today’s society is discipline.
Parents and teachers in the USA have made a move away from corporal punishment, or “spanking,” and toward reasoning with the misbehaving child. Non-violent methods of punishment now typically involve putting the child in “time out,” on the “Naughty Rug,” or taking away “benefits,” like a nighttime story or song.
Parenting magazines and television shows like “Super Nanny” reinforce these tactics. Spanking, they say, teaches violence.
In many schools across America today, the teacher or administrator will sit down with the child and ask the following questions:
“What are the repercussions of your actions?” or “Do you think that was a good decision?”
Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn’t. Ultimately, the issue comes down to what is discipline, and what is abuse? And what impact does corporal punishment have on a child’s well-being?
Family courts in the United States are beginning to frown upon corporal punishment as a form of discipline. Some courts define abuse as leaving a physical mark on the child. Some European nations like Sweden have outlawed corporal punishment in schools and homes for decades. In the United States, however, spanking is still entrenched in the culture of many regions and communities.
Right now, wide discrepancy is given to parents to ultimately decide how to discipline their children. Parents who were themselves spanked as children are more likely to spank their own children.
The danger lies in whenever a parent or teacher raises a hand or paddle to strike a child out of anger, not out of a sense of regimented discipline. That is the point at which the adult has lost control over the situation, and the point at which the child ultimately loses.
Working with children has always presented both its rewards and challenges. One of the most difficult, and controversial, aspects of working with kids in today’s society is discipline.Parents and teachers in the USA have made a move away from corporal punishment, or “spanking,” and toward reasoning with the misbehaving child. Non-violent methods of punishment now typically involve putting the child in “time out,” on the “Naughty Rug,” or taking away “benefits,” like a nighttime story or song.Parenting magazines and television shows like “Super Nanny” reinforce these tactics. Spanking, they say, teaches violence. In many schools across America today, the teacher or administrator will sit down with the child and ask the following questions: “What are the repercussions of your actions?” or “Do you think that was a good decision?”Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn’t. Ultimately, the issue comes down to what is discipline, and what is abuse? And what impact does corporal punishment have on a child’s well-being?Family courts in the United States are beginning to frown upon corporal punishment as a form of discipline. Some courts define abuse as leaving a physical mark on the child. Some European nations like Sweden have outlawed corporal punishment in schools and homes for decades. In the United States, however, spanking is still entrenched in the culture of many regions and communities.Right now, wide discrepancy is given to parents to ultimately decide how to discipline their children. Parents who were themselves spanked as children are more likely to spank their own children. The danger lies in whenever a parent or teacher raises a hand or paddle to strike a child out of anger, not out of a sense of regimented discipline. That is the point at which the adult has lost control over the situation, and the point at which the child ultimately loses.
General, Issues, Social Justice
Children Youth and Family, Corporal punishment, Spanking
comment
TrackBack-URI
The evolution of America’s newspaper press has seen good days and bad. It’s seen the rise of “Yellow Journalism,” in which sensationalism and tabloid headlines screamed of half-truths. It’s seen the much more respectable era of the Pentagon Papers and the investigative reporting that led to the unraveling of the Watergate scandal. To this day, politicians and leaders in the corporate world know their greatest watchdog is the nation’s media.
And yet, the silent death of newspapers is imminent. It’s been a tough several years for the nation’s newspapers, both large and small. Furloughs, layoffs, and major reductions of staff have changed the face of the nation’s mainstream press.
The main reason is a loss of subscriptions, due primarily to the Internet. The younger generation, for the most part, does not see the point in purchasing a hard copy of the newspaper when most papers publish a good portion of their content online. Old-timers lament the imminent loss of sitting down with a cup of coffee over the daily news.
This loss of revenue has led to the shutting down of entire departments in some papers; in others, the pages have been reduced. Hardly a newspaper in the nation has the means to pay for investigative reporters anymore, because they require doing so much work “in the trenches” before ever producing a single story.
What this means is a loss of one of America’s, and democracy’s, dearest friends: the newspaper. Other, more specific, publications have and will continue to pop up in their place. But the newspaper always had its eye on the community it served. When its pages are cut, and its staff are reduced, it cannot report on as wide a scope as it once did. For the larger newspaper, this means it cannot be as much of a watchdog as it once was.
The evolution of America’s newspaper press has seen good days and bad. It’s seen the rise of “Yellow Journalism,” in which sensationalism and tabloid headlines screamed of half-truths. It’s seen the much more respectable era of the Pentagon Papers and the investigative reporting that led to the unraveling of the Watergate scandal. To this day, politicians and leaders in the corporate world know their greatest watchdog is the nation’s media. And yet, the silent death of newspapers is imminent. It’s been a tough several years for the nation’s newspapers, both large and small. Furloughs, layoffs, and major reductions of staff have changed the face of the nation’s mainstream press. The main reason is a loss of subscriptions, due primarily to the Internet. The younger generation, for the most part, does not see the point in purchasing a hard copy of the newspaper when most papers publish a good portion of their content online. Old-timers lament the imminent loss of sitting down with a cup of coffee over the daily news. This loss of revenue has led to the shutting down of entire departments in some papers; in others, the pages have been reduced. Hardly a newspaper in the nation has the means to pay for investigative reporters anymore, because they require doing so much work “in the trenches” before ever producing a single story. What this means is a loss of one of America’s, and democracy’s, dearest friends: the newspaper. Other, more specific, publications have and will continue to pop up in their place. But the newspaper always had its eye on the community it served. When its pages are cut, and its staff are reduced, it cannot report on as wide a scope as it once did. For the larger newspaper, this means it cannot be as much of a watchdog as it once was.
General, Issues, Politics, Social Justice
Associations, Mass media, Newspaper, Publishers
comment
TrackBack-URI
Imagine if government only worked on the large scale—if the only people who cared about keeping an eye on their elected officials and making their country better did so just from within the boundaries of Washington, D.C.
What would happen is that the community structure on smaller governmental entities—counties, cities and regions—would fail to thrive as they do now. In fact, what keeps America’s communities successful is talented, educated leaders who choose to make a difference on the small scale.
It’s the pastor in a rural country church who oversees the only Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in a 100 mile radius. It’s the schoolteacher who has made it her goal to eradicate illiteracy among adults in her town. It’s the network of hospitals and clinics that join together in a city to say, “We are not waiting on the federal government: we are going to make a difference in getting health care to those who cannot afford it.”
The Green Party has always believed that change, and thus government, starts at home, on the small scale. That’s because each community knows it people better than any outsider ever will.
Local grant-making initiatives are likely to go to the places that need the money most. Individuals volunteering in a community are likely to spend their time where helps is needed most.
While communities no doubt benefit from outside forces—federal and state grants, the services of national watchdog agencies, and more—the true power still rests in the hands of locals. It’s everyday workers, parents, and retirees who can make a difference in making their communities better. And if that is done in communities across the nation, it completely revolutionizes the need for jobs traditionally provided by the federal and state governments.
In the end, the people on the ground who know their communities are likely to pour more passion into making their areas better, because it’s ultimately helping the people and places they have come to know and love.
Imagine if government only worked on the large scale—if the only people who cared about keeping an eye on their elected officials and making their country better did so just from within the boundaries of Washington, D.C. What would happen is that the community structure on smaller governmental entities—counties, cities and regions—would fail to thrive as they do now. In fact, what keeps America’s communities successful is talented, educated leaders who choose to make a difference on the small scale. It’s the pastor in a rural country church who oversees the only Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in a 100 mile radius. It’s the schoolteacher who has made it her goal to eradicate illiteracy among adults in her town. It’s the network of hospitals and clinics that join together in a city to say, “We are not waiting on the federal government: we are going to make a difference in getting health care to those who cannot afford it.” The Green Party has always believed that change, and thus government, starts at home, on the small scale. That’s because each community knows it people better than any outsider ever will. Local grant-making initiatives are likely to go to the places that need the money most. Individuals volunteering in a community are likely to spend their time where helps is needed most. While communities no doubt benefit from outside forces;federal and state grants, the services of national watchdog agencies, and more;the true power still rests in the hands of locals. It’s everyday workers, parents, and retirees who can make a difference in making their communities better. And if that is done in communities across the nation, it completely revolutionizes the need for jobs traditionally provided by the federal and state governments. In the end, the people on the ground who know their communities are likely to pour more passion into making their areas better, because it’s ultimately helping the people and places they have come to know and love.
Issues, Politics, Social Justice
Alcoholics Anonymous, Democratic Party, Republican Party
comment
TrackBack-URI
There are of course similarities between the economic recession that blanketed the US economy in 2009 and the Great Depression of the 1930s. The stock market took a beating. Unemployment was prevalent in families and communities across the nation. Food, fuel and livestock became almost unbearably expensive, causing folks to turn to conserving and rationing their food and transportation.
Yet, historians will balk at comparing the economic recession of the recent times to the Great Depression. To understand why, they say we have to rewind the clock two or three generations.
During the Great Depression, a staggering one in four Americans was out of work. Parents who had little income in the city couldn’t afford to feed their children. They sent the kids off to live with relatives in the country who could use their help on the farm.
Soup kitchens and bread lines became iconic symbols of need. Families would store fresh potatoes under hay to preserve them throughout an entire winter.
Compare that to the modern-day recession, when the worst of times saw the unemployment rate hovering around 10 percent. So far, stories of children being shipped off to live with relatives in the country have not become commonplace. While food pantries have seen their number of patrons rise significantly, the middle class still goes primarily to the grocery store to get their groceries.
It’s not an act of disrespect toward those who struggled through the Great Depression to compare these difficult times to theirs. Also, it’s not intended to lessen the significance of the hardships faced by Americans these days to say the two cannot be compared.
But a bit of perspective never hurt anybody. Perhaps today’s generation has gotten a dose of empathy, even respect for the ancestors who proceeded, and who waded through much rougher waters than we today can imagine.
There are of course similarities between the economic recession that blanketed the US economy in 2009 and the Great Depression of the 1930s. The stock market took a beating. Unemployment was prevalent in families and communities across the nation. Food, fuel and livestock became almost unbearably expensive, causing folks to turn to conserving and rationing their food and transportation.Yet, historians will balk at comparing the economic recession of the recent times to the Great Depression. To understand why, they say we have to rewind the clock two or three generations.During the Great Depression, a staggering one in four Americans was out of work. Parents who had little income in the city couldn’t afford to feed their children. They sent the kids off to live with relatives in the country who could use their help on the farm. Soup kitchens and bread lines became iconic symbols of need. Families would store fresh potatoes under hay to preserve them throughout an entire winter. Compare that to the modern-day recession, when the worst of times saw the unemployment rate hovering around 10 percent. So far, stories of children being shipped off to live with relatives in the country have not become commonplace. While food pantries have seen their number of patrons rise significantly, the middle class still goes primarily to the grocery store to get their groceries.It’s not an act of disrespect toward those who struggled through the Great Depression to compare these difficult times to theirs. Also, it’s not intended to lessen the significance of the hardships faced by Americans these days to say the two cannot be compared.But a bit of perspective never hurt anybody. Perhaps today’s generation has gotten a dose of empathy, even respect for the ancestors who proceeded, and who waded through much rougher waters than we today can imagine.
General, Issues, Social Justice
Economy of the United States, Great Depression, Unemployment, United States
comment
TrackBack-URI
There are of course similarities between the economic recession that blanketed the US economy in 2009 and the Great Depression of the 1930s. The stock market took a beating. Unemployment was prevalent in families and communities across the nation. Food, fuel and livestock became almost unbearably expensive, causing folks to turn to conserving and rationing their food and transportation.
Yet, historians will balk at comparing the economic recession of the recent times to the Great Depression. To understand why, they say we have to rewind the clock two or three generations.
During the Great Depression, a staggering one in four Americans was out of work. Parents who had little income in the city couldn’t afford to feed their children. They sent the kids off to live with relatives in the country who could use their help on the farm.
Soup kitchens and bread lines became iconic symbols of need. Families would store fresh potatoes under hay to preserve them throughout an entire winter.
Compare that to the modern-day recession, when the worst of times saw the unemployment rate hovering around 10 percent. So far, stories of children being shipped off to live with relatives in the country have not become commonplace. While food pantries have seen their number of patrons rise significantly, the middle class still goes primarily to the grocery store to get their groceries.
It’s not an act of disrespect toward those who struggled through the Great Depression to compare these difficult times to theirs. Also, it’s not intended to lessen the significance of the hardships faced by Americans these days to say the two cannot be compared.
But a bit of perspective never hurt anybody. Perhaps today’s generation has gotten a dose of empathy, even respect for the ancestors who proceeded, and who waded through much rougher waters than we today can imagine.
There are of course similarities between the economic recession that blanketed the US economy in 2009 and the Great Depression of the 1930s. The stock market took a beating. Unemployment was prevalent in families and communities across the nation. Food, fuel and livestock became almost unbearably expensive, causing folks to turn to conserving and rationing their food and transportation.Yet, historians will balk at comparing the economic recession of the recent times to the Great Depression. To understand why, they say we have to rewind the clock two or three generations.During the Great Depression, a staggering one in four Americans was out of work. Parents who had little income in the city couldn’t afford to feed their children. They sent the kids off to live with relatives in the country who could use their help on the farm. Soup kitchens and bread lines became iconic symbols of need. Families would store fresh potatoes under hay to preserve them throughout an entire winter. Compare that to the modern-day recession, when the worst of times saw the unemployment rate hovering around 10 percent. So far, stories of children being shipped off to live with relatives in the country have not become commonplace. While food pantries have seen their number of patrons rise significantly, the middle class still goes primarily to the grocery store to get their groceries.It’s not an act of disrespect toward those who struggled through the Great Depression to compare these difficult times to theirs. Also, it’s not intended to lessen the significance of the hardships faced by Americans these days to say the two cannot be compared.But a bit of perspective never hurt anybody. Perhaps today’s generation has gotten a dose of empathy, even respect for the ancestors who proceeded, and who waded through much rougher waters than we today can imagine.
General, Issues, Social Justice
Great Depression, Mental Health, Recession, Unemployment
comment
TrackBack-URI
« Previous Page —
Next Page »
