this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
4 points (100.0% liked)

science

19105 readers
482 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Because a man’s prospects weren’t important in feudal, classical, and ancient societies?

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

No, they weren't. Class was much more important. There was no class climbing prospect. You either were born into a having family or you weren't. Even amongst peasants, men weren't suppose to "have a career" or a prospect. You inherited whatever your family had.

There was expectations of performance, of course. There was internal competition, but no peasant would ever realistically transform into nobility via merit or otherwise.

Those ignorant of history forget that our current worldviews and values weren't always universal. The notion of a linear career, of having prospects, to be successful, to grow from a low place and climb the social and financial rings, accumulating wealth enough to retire early then leave a lofty inheritance to children and grandchildren. All that is modern construction that is not present before the 19th century. Furthermore, the expectations that all the other poor people are lazy scumbags, but my poverty is merely a circumstantial setback is a very American exceptialism view.