Images courtesy of the internet (and 'shopped by me)Recently global market woes, wealth, poverty, wealth discrepancy and societal values have been key topics of conversation in our house. I forget what particularly brought Richie Rich and Scrooge McDuck to mind but it had something to do with how values have changed in the space of 50 years.
I remember loving comics as a kid and I remember the characters as all having their own distinct “flavour” – good characterisation, I guess. There were a few characters that didn’t do it for me, some that I loved and some that I didn’t like at. I always recall Richie Rich and Scrooge McDuck in a very particular way. To me, Scrooge was mean, nasty, miserly and downright sneaky – he was not a likeable character. His money grubbing ways were just too over the top. Yes, he’d risen from humble roots but he was “nouveau riche” of the worst kind. Richie Rich on the other hand was, for me, just plain pathetic. Here was a kid who had everything and was just so “nice” - far too nice, and always so desperate to have friends and to be accepted. And the reason for his desperation was because his wealth put him out of everyone else’s league. It’s ironic that his two closest pals, Pee Wee and Freckles were seriously poor kids and his girlfriend, Gloria, always refused his luxury gifts. As I recall, most of my friends weren’t too keen on Scrooge or Richie either. Both characters were, in their own right, just not “nice”, unlikeable in their own ways. Although Richie wasn’t a “bad” guy, in my book, Scrooge was.
Now, zoom forward 50 years and consider where Scrooge and Richie would be today, how they might be perceived in a world where greed and wealth have become the norm.
First off, I imagine that with all his money, Richie would have no problems finding friends. For one thing, there’d be a hundred willing hangers on, only to glad to be noticed by him. For another, he wouldn’t be the only seriously rich kid around. In fact, he’d probably hang out with Paris, Hannah and the rest of the seriously rich kids. Richie’s world would be completely different – and Richie would be no different from the rest. In fact, in the Richie Rich movie starring Macauley Culkin, Richie is overindulged and has few troubles, he spends most of his time oohing over the junk his money can buy and he wins friends by wowing them with his toys. By the 90s, when the film was made, money bought love. A far cry from the Richie of fifty odd years ago.
Then take Scrooge – as a businessman he resorted to aggressive tactics and deception – and we didn’t like him one bit for it. He manipulated people and events for his own ends, had a nasty temper and didn’t hesitate to use violence against those who provoked his anger. He even exploited his own nephews – Huey, Dewey and Louis, and Donald Duck - to accumulate his fortune. And most of us thought he was a rotter – Ebenezer Scrooge all over again. His creator would no doubt argue that he did have morals but that didn’t really make him any more likeable.
Again, zoon forward 50 years and Scrooge McDuck could be anyone of the in-crowd amongst whom wheeling and dealing and screwing your opponent has become the norm. Today, Scrooge would fit right him with all the other greedy and acquisitive fatcats. He’d be the guy that everyone had on their party list. He’d be famous and be on the Forbes 500 list. Scrooge, in today’s world, becomes one of the main guys.
It’s ironic to note that Scrooge today is more popular than ever, while Richie Rich had to be adapted to make him even vaguely appealing to today’s audiences. Now that should tell you something.
It begs some serious questions though; it’s taken a mere fifty years for our values to change so substantially, for greed and excessive wealth to become an acceptable and desirable norm. Look, for example, at the madness that is modern Dubai, look at the lifestyles of the rich and famous – and the reasons, moreover, for that wealth and fame. None of them want for friends like Richie did, no one minds their piles and piles of filthy lucre like we did with Scrooge.
Don’t get me wrong, this is not about me being a have not and banging on about the haves. I’ve been blessed to lead a comfortable life but that doesn’t make me unaware and more than a little concerned about the horrible and increasing discrepancy between rich and poor, and values which drive the rich to profit at the expense of the poor. I’m struck that somewhere along the way we’ve gone badly wrong and have seriously lost the plot of what it is to be human. As I said before, the global economic shakedown is, to my mind, a wake up call – or at least, it should be.
And all of that leads me nicely to reminding you that Wednesday the 15th of October is Blog Action Day and the topic this year is poverty. It’s not too late to register and join in, if you haven’t already done so!
15 comments:
AV it's true we have developed a greed is good mentality and the divide between rich and poor is widening. I don't begrudge those with wealth but I am annoyed at those who achieve it through little more than fame or notoriety or even inheritence then flaut the fact whilst children picking cocoa beans in Kenya are abducted as slave labour, chinese women work 7 days a week in sweat shops and indigenous people of various nations pick tea and coffee for a pittance so that we can enjoy 'life's little luxuries'. How we address the imbalance, I don't know. Those at the top end of the scale have not been hit hard enough by economic hardship, those at the bottom haven't anything to lose ... as always it's Joe Average that will bear the brunt. I'm in for Blog Action day!
I often think that getting everything just fuels a desire for more. It also teaches us the value of nothing. Everything is replaceable - nothing has worth. It's a pretty empty view of our beautiful world and an utterly skewed one.
Today a catalogue plopped through the letterbox. It was for the previous owner but hey - I'm not passing on their junk mail. So I had a shufty while I drank my coffee. It was a discount catalogue for designer clothes - young people's trendy stuff. Hubby and I were very struck by how ugly it all was. Every single piece resolutely advertising it's own brand in giant garish letters. Every little icon and slogan announcing that the wearer was a person of means - if not taste. It made me sad.
50 years ago their values were a lot more clear cut. Morals were valued for a start. And yet it was an intolerant world. People was subjugated by church, the class system, racism, homophobia, domestic violence, corporal punishment…choices were limited. I know all that exists today and yet I am free to work, my children share their schools with children of many races and creeds and they are not allowed to be beaten. I wholeheartedly agree with you that we have allowed a pernicious culture of greed infect our society and that we are reaping the rewards of that but I can't help but feel that I'd still rather be around today.
Maybe we need to value what they actually had right 50 years ago and continue to strive for a more tolerant and equitable society today?
By the way I posted that meme. x
Don't you think the world has very quickly heeded that wake-up call, in the last week or so? Haven't our values rapidly changed, as with the rapid downfall of the Soviet Union a few years ago? The world changed, suddenly. No going back. It seems to me that has just happened now.
Blog Action Day, thanks Nicky. I want to check this out. Greed and wealth is protected at the top, it seems. Where's Robin Hood when you need him?
I think you make the point precisely, Baino - it's those with excessive wealth who've achieved it far too easily fundamentally off the backs of the labour of the poor that makes the whole business obnoxious. I could likewise state the case against South Africans who have grown rich from gold off the labour of miners who earn a pittance. The simple reality is that the rich are rich at the expense of the poor and it's that that needs to be redressed. If we do that, we can do that we can level the playing field so that no one, not even Joe Average, bears any brunt. D and I are working on that very idea for a post for blog action day. Yeah, Vanilla to change the world - join me! ;-)
It's all become too easy for too many, Janey, and the marketing gurus have woven this wonderful web of illusion about what we "should" have and expect/demand to have. The idea of kids sporting designer clothing is just ridiculous - it's not about the kids' needs, but about the parents. It's the old keeping up with Jones' gone out of control.
But yes, you make a pertinent point about about issues of subjugation. But I think the solution lies in not throwing the baby out with the bathwater - there are certain changes that are worth holding onto but others which do us no good. As always, it's about finding the balance. It's never either or, but some place inbetween.
So yes, I think you sum it up really well.
I find it hard to believe that values, that have become fundamental, have become part of at least two generations way of being, which are seen as a right, can change that fast, Vincent. I think it remains to be seen just what sort of change has been affected.
I take this position considering the AIG bailout. They get $85 billion and promptly spend over $400 000 on a party for their brokers. They get another $37 billion and plan another party, saying business must go on as usual, until public outcry forces them to cancel said party. Where is the common sense, let alone the business sense in that, in a company and an economy in crisis? That doesn't speak to me of changed values - that simply says, they changed their position because it was bad for their image.
Time will tell, if values have changed.
The trouble is, Susan, I think greed has not just been protected at the top, it's also been fostered throughout the system - and pretty much across the world. I see it here all the time, the have nots, ie the previously disadvantaged, are just as greedy as anyone else, taking the view that if the haves can have it, then it's their right to have it too - even if it means getting it by crime and violence.
I'm afraid we live in a different era from Robin Hood (an era where greed has become acceptable - the norm)and, in some places, Robin would probably get mugged on his way back from his "collections"!
OK, AV&A, I'll grant you that if it's really a question of values. But isn't it the case that the greed/wealth axis has been a power junta, and a coup has just taken place?
That's why I compare it to the demise of the Soviet Union. We could also point to the defeat of Germany after WWII. What happened to all the Nazis then? End of power leads to rapid denial and changing of sides.
So I propose that the cultural values represented by Richie Rich and Scrooge McDuck will go underground when they are discredited. They were never a majority view, just the values of the minority elite ruling at the time.
Reputations can change overnight and so the landscape alters.
actually this made me realize, I never liked Richie Rich, never wanted those hifi gadgets and loads of money, but i really wanted to be scrooge, rise to the level he reached from the single coin..If I remember the story properly :)
Great post! I remember the film you write about. Everyone wants to be rich but when you think about it, it really doesn't make you happy.
CJ xx
I liked Scrooge, both the duck and the Dickens character, always waiting to be redeemed. I remember Richie Rich but can't remember what he was like. I think we didn't like him just because he was rich. How about The Prince and the Pauper? I liked that story and Betty and Veronica and Archie.
I know the word poverty. I've been there when the children grew up and you know what? They were the happiest years that I can remember. Okay, few toys, but we made most of them. Inexpensive Xmas gifts and again we made our own decorations. We cooked together the most delicious and cheap meals. Cheap holidays, but we had them. Both my girls recall those days happily. They learned early how to deal with money, to save if they wanted more expensive shoes. That knowledge is never lost.
Lovely post. Brought back great memories.
I didn't like Richie Rich. I always watched Scooby Doo and Dexter's Laboratory.
It's a moot point, I think, Vincent and as I say, time will tell. But I think it's wise to remember that old habits (and fears) die hard. Across the world we see a rise of Nationalism (and the worst extreme of that is played out in Nazism and neo-Nazism which is alive and well today - but, then again, I'm not sure if Nazism or Communism are useful examples).
I have a sneaky suspicion that we may yet find that the mindset that has fostered the greed that we see today is more deeply ingrained than we'd necessarily like to admit, and not only limited to a minority. Again, time will tell and we can but hope for the best outcome - though what we may think is "best" may not be someone else's best...
You know, it was interesting, Rambler, in doing some research for this post to see how Scrooge's creator justified his character, saying he had morals, that although he was miserly, he had indeed risen from a single penny and was careful and when push came to shove, principled. Somehow, it struck me that Scrooge's creator was saying that you could be both a real swine and totally acceptable - and therein lies part of the problem...
No, I'm not convinced that money does buy happiness, CJ - it buys you lots of stuff, but once you have some money, you never seem to have enough and then you must worry about someone else nicking it off you, and and and... It strikes me that lots of the stuff brings it's own set of problems, not to mention moral dilemmas.
I guess the point I'm specifically trying to make, Colleen, pertains to the nature of our changing values, using the characters as analogies. I think the Prince and the Pauper raises some interesting questions of their own, and I'm afraid I was never into the Archie comics so can't comment.
I think that making the best of circumstances shows a lot of moral fibre, MD. You were lucky to be able to afford food and to be able to afford Christmas in any form. I'm inclined to the think of the millions who have absolutely nothing. I guess it's all relative, isn't it.
Actually, Ropi, I can't say that either Richie, or Dexter or Scooby did it for me! I think the comics I read most of were Casper, Spooky, Lil Audrey and Wendy the Witch. Oh, and the stories about Casper's three pesky brothers. ;-)
These are uncertain times and I've decided to stop focusing on the economy and politics for a while and return to my blogworld. You are making some good points here and people do need to reexamine their values. -Which I expect will be shifting as so does our way of life here in the States.
I do hope you are doing well, Vanilla and that the muse is with you.
I can't help feeling though that it is not the values of "greed" and "wealth" which lie at the root of the current troubles, as if they are some variable in the human psyche that has been unusually high in the last fifty years or so.
It seems to me that the possibility of flaunting greed for the sake of wealth has flourished because of a rise in gambling - in a corporate rather than the traditional leisure context.
If you gamble your own money on the casino, restraint comes in the form of caution. But if you gamble other people's money in the markets, there are huge prizes for winning and nothing much in the way of punishment for losing.
I suggest this may be the cultural value that will change: from recklessness to prudence.
the question of poverty is very much in the forefront of my mind – and I’m seeing it more clearly than usual – all around me. I imagine some may find this post a little hard to handle. For that I make no apology. I write what I see, what I feel, what I wonder about.
-------------------------------------
Mathew Hadley
buzz Marketing
Post a Comment