Anyone else culturally rich but asset-poor?

[Anonymous]

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.

Ah yes, white people are all culturally barren, but POC are all culturally rich.

Didn’t say culturally barren. POC and White peoples define culture differently.

You know this.

[Anonymous]

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.

Ah yes, white people are all culturally barren, but POC are all culturally rich.

Didn’t say culturally barren. POC and White peoples define culture differently.

You know this.

Imagine pretending to have a culture - POC or white, in America. You all have left your cultures and created a land of strip malls and mcdonalds. Your "culture" is on another continent or continents

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

The notion of "culturally rich" is a silly pretentious affectation. It clearly here means "whatever I am like, except without money".

The absence of money says something about you, as does everything else in your background and life choices. What that is is partly subjective, and partly objective, but using a catchphrase to imbue your condition with a veneer of some kind of admirable sophistication is reaching. You may be erudite (or not), but self-defining as "cultured" is arrogant, conceited, and smacks of narcissism.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The notion of "culturally rich" is a silly pretentious affectation. It clearly here means "whatever I am like, except without money".

The absence of money says something about you, as does everything else in your background and life choices. What that is is partly subjective, and partly objective, but using a catchphrase to imbue your condition with a veneer of some kind of admirable sophistication is reaching. You may be erudite (or not), but self-defining as "cultured" is arrogant, conceited, and smacks of narcissism.

Genteel poverty

[Anonymous]

I'm a little confused by the level of hostility some people are displaying here towards people with less money (ie, the OP). OP didn't say anything insulting about people with money, but some posters seem defensive an are implying there's some sort of moral superiority in having wealth. I think OP was just observing that there are different vectors of privilege, and they felt that they were rich in one but not the other. It's definitely possible to be cultured with or without money, and the same for being uncultured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find myself constantly feeling like this describes me.

Like you "lived in France as a kid", but you are really from Springfield? What are we talking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a little confused by the level of hostility some people are displaying here towards people with less money (ie, the OP). OP didn't say anything insulting about people with money, but some posters seem defensive an are implying there's some sort of moral superiority in having wealth. I think OP was just observing that there are different vectors of privilege, and they felt that they were rich in one but not the other. It's definitely possible to be cultured with or without money, and the same for being uncultured.

American capitalism was a result of the prosperity gospal. It has became ingrained that you are rich and good looking because your name is written in the book of the elect. I think this is why a few people are defending wealth over education/culture. I will admit I was surprised at the level of anger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a little confused by the level of hostility some people are displaying here towards people with less money (ie, the OP). OP didn't say anything insulting about people with money, but some posters seem defensive an are implying there's some sort of moral superiority in having wealth. I think OP was just observing that there are different vectors of privilege, and they felt that they were rich in one but not the other. It's definitely possible to be cultured with or without money, and the same for being uncultured.

American capitalism was a result of the prosperity gospal. It has became ingrained that you are rich and good looking because your name is written in the book of the elect. I think this is why a few people are defending wealth over education/culture. I will admit I was surprised at the level of anger.

Pp here: gospel! doh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion of "culturally rich" is a silly pretentious affectation. It clearly here means "whatever I am like, except without money".

The absence of money says something about you, as does everything else in your background and life choices. What that is is partly subjective, and partly objective, but using a catchphrase to imbue your condition with a veneer of some kind of admirable sophistication is reaching. You may be erudite (or not), but self-defining as "cultured" is arrogant, conceited, and smacks of narcissism.

Genteel poverty

Not necessarily "genteel". Perhaps the OP's definition of culturally rich means watching midget wrestling and roller derby. If it means something else, that's demonstrates the subjectivity and lack of meaning in the phrase. It would be more honest to say she likes the ballet but can't afford to attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a little confused by the level of hostility some people are displaying here towards people with less money (ie, the OP). OP didn't say anything insulting about people with money, but some posters seem defensive an are implying there's some sort of moral superiority in having wealth. I think OP was just observing that there are different vectors of privilege, and they felt that they were rich in one but not the other. It's definitely possible to be cultured with or without money, and the same for being uncultured.

See above PPs when they explain that people like OP are "insufferable and pretentious a-holes" and "arrogant, conceited, and smacks of narcissism"
Simply the worst of the worst.
"Literati" PP is Exhibit A for this type.