In Reply to: Re: WOW love your inverted snobbery posted by Tom Brennan on March 22, 2007 at 07:49:13:
A wealthy person who feels like he/she's obligated to shape social policy is an "elitist." Basically someone who claims to be for the lower and working class, but as you said, never really lived in the part in real life. An elitist uses his wealth to pander to the poor, often creating a sense of **dependence** (whether real or perceived) amongst the poor for their services.One who's wealthy is just that. He has more $$$, but otherwise tries to live his life without bothering anyone. Provided he's not also an elitist.
I've personally had a problem with anyone resenting the wealthy in a general sense. For being wealthy in itself isn't a crime. (If one cannot stand the disparity, there are alternative nations where things are made equal, amongst the masses.)
I think the biggest problem on the planet is the masses mistaking elitists for populists and/or reformers.
You are correct, in this context, that Lennon had more of an "elitist" attitude than McCartney. But I also think Lennon had the musical genius that McCartney didn't have. But then again, I think Lennon, when his attitude became elitist, compromised his musical genius in the name of political activism. (I have a similar opinion of the Dixie Chicks.) And for me, it was a big turn-off.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- You're Mistaking Wealth for Elitism - Todd Krieger 09:02:48 03/22/07 (2)
- Re: The Dixie Chicks music was not political. One statement on the eve of a controversial war was. Even their - LongPlay 01:12:20 03/23/07 (0)
- Re: You're Mistaking Wealth for Elitism - Tom Brennan 09:11:06 03/22/07 (0)