The Lord has blessed me in many ways. One-such way is that I am quite the left-brained, creative type* and have a knack for developing brilliant business ventures/start-up ideas.
Some of these include:
Rent-a-grownup.com
A (good) social networking/meetup.com site for Sports Fans (The heart of this industry surely lies in reaching out to the UK-diaspora.)
Pumpkin spiced lightening
Thanksgiving music industry (You know white people would be all over this in a hot second.)
Now if only the Lord had gifted me with some business-savvy or a best-friend who is a venture-capital, econ-y, connected-and-can-network-out-their-ears type, whiz kid.
Imagine the possibilities.
*starred things are likely lies, damned lies or statistics.
** Spoiler alert: Some content reveals general plot information from Seasons 4 and 5 of the Wire**
{Start at 2:00 for this clip}
During Seasons 4 and 5 of the Wire, the show tracks the lives of four kids. At the point of entry, they are students in a Baltimore city school. Although they are neighbors, each comes from a different background, all of which reflect the bifurcations of parenting and home structure in an urban environment.
I’ve been struck lately with the story of Namond - the son of a fairly successful drug dealer named Wee Bay (who we meet earlier in the show). *Side note, Wee Bay had an affinity for fish and kept a pretty extensive collection between a variety of tanks, which was quite bemusing.
Anyway – each of the four students take different paths as the show progresses. What I found to be most interesting is that, of the four, Namond is the only one who escapes the throngs of the corners and the penal system. The most compelling aspect of Namond’s story is that at the onset he was the wealthiest, most cared for and most confident. Concurrently, he was the most evasive, apathetic, lazy and petulant of his cohorts in school.
I’ve been wondering lately – reflecting on relationships that I forged in Botswana and observations I made about development, as well as revisiting memories from different service opportunities I’ve experienced.
When it comes to ‘vulnerable communities’ - Is it just me, or is it those that are the most financially well-positioned and exposed to the structures of our system (particularly the mechanisms of capitalism and it’s offshoots) far more likely to make it ‘out’ (to get from here to the rest of the world)? I feel like you need exposure to wealth and to a support network that is confident in your success – in order to even really hope to make the jump from ‘vulnerable and low-income’ to ‘financially comfortable and middle class.’
Contrast Namond with Dukie (my favorite character). Dukie was the smartest and most hard-working (academically) of the four students. However, he had no support network and his family regularly sold any clothing and material support provided by social programs for drug money. At one point in the show he returns to his row home to find that his family has been evicted and left without giving him any notice.
In spite of Dukie’s strong work ethic and likability, it is Namond, the whiney, abrasive and entitled student who captures the eye of Bunny Colvin and ultimately is whisked away from the corners. Why?
Slight tangent -- Why is it that most of the volunteers for my organization want to work with refugees who are essentially wealthier and better-positioned instead of working with refugees directly from a conflict area with very little knowledge or cultural background in the American context? Why is it that relationship-building with students in Botswana was much more fluid when those students were from a bigger city, children of government professionals or foreigners themselves?
Is it that these individuals have a foundational understanding (however tenuous it may be) of culture and communication that is necessary for succeeding in 'our 'system? Is it that these individuals have accepted the importance of ‘rugged individualism’ and aren’t restrained by family commitments and the burdens of their peers? Is it that our system values the confidence and can-do attitude that is imbued in these individuals who are ‘top-dog’ within their communities?
I may be totally off here, and of course – as the great Mark Twain says ‘All generalizations are false, including this one.’ But, if I’m on to some semblance of a trend here, then I think that leads to questions of --
What does this mean for cross-cultural relations?
… for urban development?
…for international relief and development work?
To make it more direct and stress the sense of urgency for the individuals who are on the outermost folds of society with the least support - What does this mean for someone like Dukie?
I’m guessing a starting juncture is to strive for more than just hope and wishes.
This was the groupon in my inbox today. Envisaging the type of person who will use a Groupon to get a tattoo removed made me giggle.
(Imagine: The now stay-at-home mom who totally embraced the 70s in her youth, finally realizes that she might as well pound the nail in to the coffin that was her former, free-spirited life by purchasing this Groupon to have the words 'Free Love' removed from her lower back or left breast.)
Tee hee. (And please note, I am not judging; I am just amused. Presently I am bouncing around the idea of getting a tattoo, and if I get a tattoo there's no way I'm putting it somewhere lame, aka unseen.)
Thus, I will most assuredly use a robot-version of Groupon to help minimize the expense of my tattoo removal when I hit 42 and 3 months. And, I won't even have the memories of experiencing the 'free love' movement to help me grapple with the tumult caused by this Groupon-impelled loss.
