DQ 10/3

| No Comments

One, I think that Roseanne is a great example of why the "working-class" should not be represented by just a white male.

Two, It seems to me like there isn't one solid definition of "the working-class." And in our class during discussion, Liora asked us what we thought someone who was "working-class" was like, and we all had different answers. Therefore, I think that the three social-classes should only be defined somewhere like UrbanDictionary.com and should be used by humans as adjectives to describe people.

Three, I think my conclusion is that there are way to many things that go into the working-class: gender, income, job, race and/or ethnicity, health, etc. There is way too much room for conflict and confrontation. Two things I dislike. So let's just put this whole problem somewhere else.

So my question is simple: Who do we blame?
Do we blame Karl Marx for making a confusing theory out of it? Or do we blame the Industrial Revolution for forcing nature-dependent people to work in the city?


Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Kelci Bryant published on October 2, 2012 4:33 PM.

Blog Post for 10/3 was the previous entry in this blog.

Blog Post: Roseanne is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.