Anyone else culturally rich but asset-poor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Culturally rich in White people speak means they read books, admire stolen artifacts and rewritten histories in museums, stare at art locked behind glass in galleries, and consider themselves ‘civilized’.

It’s not culture as POC would define it.

Genuinely curious—how would POC define culture?

Culture would equate to something from one’s own heritage or ancestry. Internal experiences vs external experiences

Which one is riding ATVs through DC streets and fighting on the metro at 3pm?

WTF is wrong with you? By the same measure, one could say 'which one is rolling coal, telling racists jokes, and marrying your cousin.'

[Anonymous]

The issue here is definitional. "Culturally rich" sounds snobby, pretentious, and self-important. If what is meant by that very unfortunate turn of phrase is is actually "well-educated", the responses would be quite different. It's not difficult to understand concepts like education and wealth, whereas "cultured" is often in the eye of the observer when used as a synonym for "superior to others" rather to refer simply to ways of life in a particular society.

If the question is whether some people are well-educated but not affluent, the answer is obviously yes. And certainly there are plenty of relatively uneducated but affluent people, too. While education is correlated generally with wealth, the correlation is imperfect and not universally true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else culturally rich but asset-poor?

I don't speak female. What does this even mean?

[Anonymous]

You’re actually describing majority of the middle and upper class of Europe (in comparison to the US and Asia)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno why everyone is so triggered by the OP. I take it to mean focusing your money on experiences, either for your family or yourself instead of putting your money into a large mortgage, luxury car, or vacation home. Could be in the form of private school, travelling wherever you want when you want without being concerned about a mortgage or other high dollar assets. Maybe this question doesn’t offend me because I often ask myself and my spouse if we wouldn’t be better off cutting our mortgage and size of house in half, and use that extra money to show our kids different parts of the world. Is that so crazy?

Not exactly. OP’s post specifically says asset poor. Asset poor people can’t afford private school and a lot of travel.

I find this topic quite fascinating, as well as people's responses to it.

I know quite few people who fall into this category, not just in the US, but also Europe and the Middle East, where I have lived. This is definitely not a white people only thing. They value constant learning and often are quite learned in a particular sphere--music, art, literature, science or history. Some have a bit of the sadness that comes from feeling misunderstood in their dominant culture, others are free spirited.

Most are very good at getting private school scholarship for their kids. They do travel, usually with very cheap tickets with room and board provided by friends in the places they visit. Accommodations could be on the floor or a couch, but they are not picky about that. They return the favor when others of the same ilk visit their country.

Many people I grew up with lived that way, except that traveling meant affordable hotels, never sleeping on someone’s sofa. Expertise in classical music (violin/piano), subscriptions to the opera (10 performances per year, not like here), theater (NOT musicals like broadway), travels to European cultural heritage places (traveling further would have been too expensive, so US maybe once every 10-15 years). Literature and classical languages were very important. This describes 75% of my middle and high school friends, the rest were probably wealthy and equally cultured. I miss this life sometimes. When I read how much people here spend on a week-long beach trip, it’s strange to me. 12k for what? I don’t get it. But I don’t have to understand it, people’s tastes and priorities are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a typical DCUM example.

Ex. Living in DC is is better than the suburbs because there is culture here.

This means access to museums, ballets, opera, etc. meaning these items = culture.
That is not how most POC would define culture.

But whatever, go back to being “culturally rich but asset poor”. Another white people conundrum worthy of discussion.

are you a POC b/c all the Black people I know do define DC as having an incredibly rich culture and this is based on different sorts of art- both musical and visual plus other kinds of performance art. Many POC consider architecture/painting/music/sculpture to be culture same as white people. Can people on this site stop being caricatures. You aren't Dilbert- are you? not everyone appreciates the same sort f culture though which is where both ethnic and age differences come in. Age has a bigger impact than ethnicity though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We have relatives who are materiality wealthier than we are but they spend their money going to fancy expensive resorts and laying on the beach and like to read the latest best seller. They enjoy buying the newest shiniest gadgets and have outfitted their expensive large single family homes with material goods. They think to be sophisticated is buy the next most expensive thing.

Money doesn’t buy sophistication or class.

*gasp* not the latest best seller! What unsophisticated rubes, enjoying entertaining commercial fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else culturally rich but asset-poor?

I don't speak female. What does this even mean?

Ew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We have relatives who are materiality wealthier than we are but they spend their money going to fancy expensive resorts and laying on the beach and like to read the latest best seller. They enjoy buying the newest shiniest gadgets and have outfitted their expensive large single family homes with material goods. They think to be sophisticated is buy the next most expensive thing.

Money doesn’t buy sophistication or class.

*gasp* not the latest best seller! What unsophisticated rubes, enjoying entertaining commercial fiction.

Reading an actual book is pretty good. I know some people whose attention span is so focked that they can't read anything longer than a Buzzfeed listicle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op, I am ignoring the sophomoric argument above. You described my family. Two PhDs whose house is full of books--everything from Journey to the West to Terry Pratchett. A friend of mine calls us "the literati." We talk a lot of politics, talk a lot about social justice, and what books we read. However, we are so broke (poor is systemic). It is what it is. We hope our kids also have rich intellectual lives and have a good education. That is what we can give them. I do want to distinguish that it isn't champagne tastes. I don't want anything from Van Cleef & Arpels. I don't care about your NYC or Paris shopping trip. Nor do I care about cars or the size of your house. I just don't care. This means I can't identify with a lot of the people in the DC suburbs. I literally got caught in a convo once about how Kia has a luxury car brand. It was not my thing.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Culturally rich in White people speak means they read books, admire stolen artifacts and rewritten histories in museums, stare at art locked behind glass in galleries, and consider themselves ‘civilized’.

It’s not culture as POC would define it.

Oh, stop. This is so tiresome, little miss keyboard activist

But am I wrong? The ‘literati’ pp and ‘sophisticated’ pp in the apartment full of dusty books have corroborated.

Literati, here: Yes, Keyboard warrior. I will lend you my Lorde and Anzaldúa. I actually have quite a bit you would probably like.

There have been a lot of assumptions made on this board but what strikes me the most is the contempt for what we could call the "mid
intellectual classes"--the lawyers, PhDs, and people with grad degress in the social sciences/humanities who have PowerPoint jobs. Like it is a crime to be a well-read middle manager who doesn't make enough to fly business class to see Klimt whenever they want, but they have seen it and Amsterdam and will probably go to Amsterdam again before they die. If this angers the actual rich--the question is why? Why do they even care?

I’m not rich. I don’t go to Amsterdam to see Klimt. I’ve been adding that the white people definition ‘culturally rich’ is different from POC. It’s a viewpoint that should be considered within the context of this topic.

Since you’re so worldly and well educated, taking consideration of that seems like it shouldn’t strike such a nerve. But go ahead and read about it and discuss it as lofty conversation pieces in your echo chamber then call me a keyboard warrior for sharing my experience of this definition because you don’t want to think about culture in any other way than what fits your self description.

DP: As a POC whose tastes align with having lots of 'dusty books,' going to museums and who has even been known to spend a few days in the archives, what rubbed me wrong about your response is that you generalized their experience to be that of "white people" and put it contrast to a generic "POC" experience. I can relate to being culturally rich in the sense of deeply valuing culture and spending more energy on developing my understanding of culture than optimizing money. Which is what I think OP was talking about. OP's definition of 'culturally rich' may not align with your definition of 'culturally rich' -- but there are people of every race who align more with learning than optimizing money.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue here is definitional. "Culturally rich" sounds snobby, pretentious, and self-important. If what is meant by that very unfortunate turn of phrase is is actually "well-educated", the responses would be quite different. It's not difficult to understand concepts like education and wealth, whereas "cultured" is often in the eye of the observer when used as a synonym for "superior to others" rather to refer simply to ways of life in a particular society.

If the question is whether some people are well-educated but not affluent, the answer is obviously yes. And certainly there are plenty of relatively uneducated but affluent people, too. While education is correlated generally with wealth, the correlation is imperfect and not universally true.

+1000

This poster understands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue here is definitional. "Culturally rich" sounds snobby, pretentious, and self-important. If what is meant by that very unfortunate turn of phrase is is actually "well-educated", the responses would be quite different. It's not difficult to understand concepts like education and wealth, whereas "cultured" is often in the eye of the observer when used as a synonym for "superior to others" rather to refer simply to ways of life in a particular society.

If the question is whether some people are well-educated but not affluent, the answer is obviously yes. And certainly there are plenty of relatively uneducated but affluent people, too. While education is correlated generally with wealth, the correlation is imperfect and not universally true.

+1000

This poster understands.

eh. I get the distaste people had about the 'snobbery' in the post and that the word 'culturally rich' is loaded, but I don't think the point isn't just education. There are people who view education as a means to an end--get a good job, meet the "right" people, do what is expected of me in my class, status of the degree etc. There are others who care about culture and learning for its own sake and invest their time/energy in pursuing those interests that rather than optimizing financial gains. I think the OP was talking about valuing the latter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought it meant highly educated and well-traveled, knowledgeable about the arts, but not wealthy. I think this describes a lot of people in academia, particularly in the humanities.

This is how the OP would like to view themselves. However, it actually just means that in addition to being poor, they are also insufferable and pretentious a-holes.

The air of moral superiority that people OP is describing is a huge turnoff.

No I think you guys are getting a bit defensive. I get what OP is saying. I am not sure I would have described it as culturally rich. I think this points to the fact that social class is more than just income. There are lots of people who are well educated but not wealthy or even UMC when looking at only income. DCUM makes it seem that money automatically follows being smart or having attained high levels of education.

I can think of friends of a variety of races who spend a lot on cultural travel, particularly, who think it's better to spend money on that than on saving for their kids' college or their own retirement. It's not how I roll, but I can see their point in a way I can't relate to wanting nice cars or a huge wardrobe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue here is definitional. "Culturally rich" sounds snobby, pretentious, and self-important. If what is meant by that very unfortunate turn of phrase is is actually "well-educated", the responses would be quite different. It's not difficult to understand concepts like education and wealth, whereas "cultured" is often in the eye of the observer when used as a synonym for "superior to others" rather to refer simply to ways of life in a particular society.

If the question is whether some people are well-educated but not affluent, the answer is obviously yes. And certainly there are plenty of relatively uneducated but affluent people, too. While education is correlated generally with wealth, the correlation is imperfect and not universally true.

+1000

This poster understands.

eh. I get the distaste people had about the 'snobbery' in the post and that the word 'culturally rich' is loaded, but I don't think the point isn't just education. There are people who view education as a means to an end--get a good job, meet the "right" people, do what is expected of me in my class, status of the degree etc. There are others who care about culture and learning for its own sake and invest their time/energy in pursuing those interests that rather than optimizing financial gains. I think the OP was talking about valuing the latter.

Exactly.