So I have been reading this book called The Emperor by Polish journalist and leading foreign correspondent Ryszard Kapuscinski which chronicles the rise, fall and reign of Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia who reigned from 1930 until he was overthrown by the army in 1974. After his fall and while the country was in the throes of fighting, Kapuscinski traveled to Ethiopia and interviewed the servants and close associates of Selassie to find about his tenure as Emperor and to explore why he fell from power. In one particularly poignant passage, one of the servants/workers that Kapuscinski interviews, makes the following statements about the import of money in the developing world:
Money in a poor country and money in a rich country are two different things. In a rich country, money is a piece of paper with which you buy goods on a market. You are only a customer. Even a millionaire is only a customer. He may purchase more, but he remains a customer, nothing more. And in a poor country? In a poor country, money is a wonderful, thick hedge, dazzling and always blooming, which separates you from everything else. Through that hedge you do not see creeping poverty, you do not smell the stench of misery, and you do not hear the voices of the human dregs. But at the same time you know that all of that exists, and you feel proud because of your hedge. You have money; that means you have wings. You are the bird of paradise that everyone admires.
What powerful words and what an insightful view of the realities that social stratification and economic disparity wreak in the world! I am not sure how I feel about this passage entirely. To a certain extent, I agree with the distinction drawn between money in rich and poor countries and the level of importance given to it. However, I am not sure how I feel about the classification of money in rich countries as simply a commodity, bereft of any social significance beyond its role as an emblem of commerce and trade. There is poverty in developed countries, despite the fact that booming economies and indicators of wealth and success often shroud this reality to the rest of the world. But upon further reflection, this passage is not saying that there is no disparity in wealth in rich countries. It is not saying that there is no poverty. It simply states that money, at its core, defines what we can and cannot purchase.
Having only been here for one month, I can already see the elevated status that having money brings here. It is instantly apparent. This passage encapsulates in words the feeling I get at the distance money puts between those who have it and those who do not. The notion of the five-star hotel, perfect, pristine, almost unattainable - situated beyond thick hedges blocking out the reality of the outside world.
Anyways, I am rambling, but I wanted to share this passage and express how much it struck me and made me think. I am not sure exactly how to internalize it, but there it is. Read the book if you can. It is a really interesting and engaging way of presenting history and calls upon people and sources of information that are often overlooked.
