Re: [Leica] Leica Class

[Mike Quinn <mlquinn@san.rr.com>]

I didn't mean that we don't have class or classes. I just said that we
didn't have a class STRUCTURE in the US.
Class may be a huge issue, but fortunately it's not (yet) hereditary or
enshrined in our social or political systems.

We do have loose associations with people of similar interests, background,
economics, etc. People tend to feel good (superior) about their unique
differences, and feel comfortable with others who share them. Still, the
structure of US society (e.g. the public school system) is designed to
minimize those differences rather than preserve them.

Anyway, we get to pick who we hate, rather than having it thrust upon us.

- -Mike Quinn


Robert Rose at rjr@usip.com wrote:
> Can you imagine a jury in NY being sympathetic
> to an upper-class person (of any color) whining that
> he was mistaken for being middle-class?

To which Mike Quinn foolishly Commented:
> No. We don't have a class structure in the US. He was merely upset that
> people might mistake him for the ones who pay all the bills, rather than
> those who send them.

Which caused Mark Rabiner to reply:
> I gotta take the opposite stance Mike!
> We don't admit to a class structure in the U.S.A.
> This makes Class a huge issue.
> If we admitted it exists it would be less of a big deal.

So Tom Shea Explained:

|There are really different types of classes in the US - economic,
education,
|geographic, social, etc.  One can be in a high economic class and not be
|accepted into a high social class, depending on one's ancestors and where
one
|lives.  For example, in some cites like Dallas and Charleston, money won't
|buy access to the top social orders.  There is also geographic class and
|others.  Very interesting.
|

And B.D. Colon grumbled:

> What U.S. do you live in? Just because we don't paint dots on people's
> foreheads doesn't mean there isn't a class structure..