In cases of true poverty,
reality is supplanted by
survival. Your definition of
reality, which is quite
valid, is based on the
agrarian myth and is the antithesis of
supermarket oranges-- growing up on the
farm and killing our own
cows and making our OWN damn
shoes. Building some
character. It's a hard life, you've got to work for it and fight for it but you always have just
enough. Just look at us using all these big liberal-arts words to descibe it.
People who are
really poor don't have the
luxury of wondering if they are closer to
reality. Its so much of an accomplishment just living day to day, without getting
shot or raped or starved. These people can only dream of
central air conditioning or
fabric softener because they have
nothing else to live for but the vague hope of a
better life. Which they almost certainly will
never achieve.
Last year, I decided to try an experiment. Will I become a
better person by being
poor? So I told my parents not to pay my
tuition, rent, or food. Because I didn't demonstrate any
financial need, and my academic scholarships totalled about half tuition, I was left with a bill of about $20,000 a year. So I
got a job or two, refused any
loans, didn't touch the
principal, and tried to
be poor.
So here I am, coding for 18 hours a week, and
paying the bills, and I'm technically poor. But my
lifestyle hasn't changed-- I still shop at Barney's though I wait for sales, I still go to the same
parties and the
opera and do the same
volunteer work (though I currently do not have
air conditioning). I can't get my
Fiat fixed every 3 weeks anymore, and I walk rather than take the
subway or the bus. All the while thinking that I am closer to
reality, I'm
noble, completely unlike my other
classmates who don't pay for their tuition, or accept
financial aid.
But then it hit me-- This doesn't mean
shit. How dare I call myself poor, and
glorify in it, when there are
children starving on the streets?
Reality has
nothing to do with
money.