 |
| Still from There Will Be Blood (2007) |
It is easy to say that money can't buy happiness. But how can anyone say what too much wealth is, what kind of motorcar is "too fine," and when it is too soon to buy more new clothes? Are people doomed to want more more than they have and to resent those who have much more than they do?
While it is in fact easy to say money can’t buy happiness, it can certainly help make life easier for people by allowing them to access the necessities to live such as having a roof over their head, food and water, and stability. However, in the case of the Osage Indians during the early 20th century, they had encountered much hardships due to the actions of the U.S. government that they had become almost pushed to humble. They were finally content that they had secured land that they could freely live on despite how rough it may have been. In this time, money could not fix all their problems, only their safety in knowing they could at last live together as a tribe in peace could help keep them happy and well. Unfortunately, as acknowledged in the quote above, oil was in fact a cursed blessing. While the founding of oil helped push an economic growth in the nearly destitute land that the Osage Indians called home, it came with many consequences. Staying focused on the question at hand, what Grann gives us from the quote above is that the Osage already knew what the U.S. government was capable of doing to their people. The Osage knew that the benefits of oil would be great but took caution in that they knew it would only be temporary. I do not believe the Osage had a mindset that was focused on having the most wealth and finest items, rather, I believe they knew to enjoy what they had in the moment. So, is it safe to say they were “doomed to want more” and “resent” those that already had more? My answer to this is no because I strongly believe the Osage had only wanted to live together in peace rather than be torn more apart by the evils that plagued them in the early 1900’s.
ReplyDelete-Chance Zernicek
I do not believe all people are doomed to want more than what they have. Some people, like Hale and all the others who developed plots to steal headrights, are addicted to money and would do anything to increase the size of their bank account. However, many people in the world are like Mollie: they don't care about lavish material things, and their only use for money is to provide a full and comfortable life for their family and loved ones. I would predict that many of the Osage would have happily given up all of their lavish belongings in return for a few more years with their family. They had the money so they spent it how they chose, but if they would not have been given the opportunity they would have likely been just as happy without. In a person's lifetime they will have a finite amount of money under their control, how they spend it or save it is a question that everyone has to answer for themselves.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I do not believe that people are doomed to resent those who have more than they do, I believe the opposite. People who want to become wealthy seldom accomplish it by hating those who have already done it. Rather than resenting those with more, they will look at the steps the wealthy person took to become wealthy in the first place and attempt to replicate that.
I agree to a point. I do agree that some of the individuals would rather fall back into their old ways of life rather than lose their family members but they may not necessarily feel that way after they received the oil money. I feel that it would be harder for the Osage to revert back to their old way of life after receiving all that money. It is harder to start with nothing and end with nothing rather than go from nothing to everything, you begin to treasure everything that you have because you used to not have anything. Your possessions suddenly become a part of your identity.
DeleteI do believe that people are always "doomed" to want more than they have, but I do not see it as a bad thing. If you are constantly wanting more than you have then you are setting goals for yourself. If, for some reason, the Osage had insight as to the countless murders that they would endure after their sudden influx of income they may have decided it was not worth it. But with how quickly many of those in the tribe separated from their old ways of life after receiving the money I have a hard time believing that. I believe that it is the human nature to covet what others have when we feel that it should be us that has all of the perks or money but in my eyes it makes us work harder and strive for the completion of our goals rather than a useless competition of who has more.
Lydia Bomboy
Having enough money to cover your necessities and still have some left over for things you might feel that you need is never a bad thing. It brings comfort to know that your expenses will be taken care of and you will not have to worry about where your next meal is coming from. On the other hand, I think that a lot of times people get carried away with being wealthy. It suddenly goes from being to survive to seeing who has the nicest house, car, or clothes. It soon turns into a competition to who has the most money. The Osage people had a humble way of life. When all this money is thrown at them, it is a major culture shock. They had already been put through so much with losing all of their land and having to settle wherever the government decides to move them. Then when oil is discovered on this land the headrights belong to them, the only problem is you give them this money and they do not have the freewill to spend it how they please.
ReplyDeleteLooking back at the quote, the Osage people knew that this money would bring trouble to their tribe. Like Hale, it brought out the worst in many others who also resided in the reservation along with the Osage. How could a powerful, white man like Hale sit back and let “redskins” receive more money than he would? Many others like Hale where guardians to those who owned headrights, and they would practically steal money from them. The discovery of oil in this reservation was the worst thing to happen to the Osage people.
People think differently about the thought of having money. Some people believe that they are content without having a lot of money and many other people believe that’s all they need to live a happy life.
ReplyDeleteBefore the Osage received the money for the oil they didn’t have much. So it was a complete cultural shock when they all of a sudden had extra money to spend without struggling. I agree with what Mitchell said when he talks about the Osage being just as happy without all of the money. I believe they focused their lives on spending time with their family and providing for them.
I believe the answer to the last question is no. People do not resent others for having money, but I believe they should see how that person go to where they are at that point in time. You could even look at them as inspiration towards your own life. You don’t have to resent someone for doing well in life. Isn’t that what we all want to accomplish?
When it comes to money, people rarely think they have enough. When people start bringing more money in, they will find a new way to spend it, they will become accustomed to spending that money on the new thing and then feel like they need more again, repeating the cycle. In reality, you only need enough money to pay for the necessities and to feed your family, it also brings a sense of peace to have a little extra as a ‘rainy day fund’ of sorts. When it comes to the Osage people, I think the discovery of oil was an awful thing for them simply because it brought more harm than good to them. In regards to the quote, the Osage people were well aware of the harm that the money was going to bring to them. It brings out an ugly side of people. Money makes people rude, greedy, and nasty in nature. For instance, Hale felt that he was too good to allow any native Americans to have more money than him and acted despicably to save face.
ReplyDeleteWhile having money can appear to make all hardships disappear, it is far too easy for one to become consumed in always wanting more than the next person, and money is quickly turned into a burden and a source of greed. But, it is all a matter of perspective. For example, while some Osage splurged on lavish vehicles, clothing and mansions, others were able to live comfortably without constantly making tremendous purchases. As we learned in the book, you can’t take your wealth to the grave, no matter how extravagant your lifestyle might have been. So while money can appear to be a source of happiness and comfort, real happiness and comfort comes from the people you surround yourself with, even if that sounds simple and cliche.
ReplyDeleteThe statement of "money can't buy happiness" proves itself true very often. No amount of wealth in the world can make someone truly happy if they're missing something important in their life, "more money, more problems" as some say. I think it as more about personal opinion on what "too much" wealth is because everyone's answer would differ. People will always find something to envy that they don't have, and always want more than what they have. It is just human nature to wish for certain things; however, I don't think people are doomed to resent people who have more than them. Wealth can still be appreciated, no matter who it is obtained by, in the right circumstances. It truly depends on the person's outlook of their life, and wether they would like to control their "happiness" with money or not. Clearly though, this was not the case with Hale and his nephews against the Osage, as he went on a massive killing spree in order to become rich.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that money can’t buy happiness is questionable. Without a substantial amount of money or steady income, a person is left to stress over making ends meet; whether it being having enough money to pay bills, buy groceries and utilities, etc. It is fair to assume that once a person is given access to enough money that would allow him or her not to worry about financial issues, much worry is removed from his or her life. As a result of the lack of stress, it is probable that a person would be happier. It could be argued that money could buy happiness in this way. People are not doomed to resent others who have more than they do. People always are wanting to improve their lives, one way or another. They might exercise, eat healthy, or attend classes as a way of self-improvement. People use money as another means to improve their social standing and well-being. And with more access to money, comes more possibilities to improve. However, while money could buy temporary happiness, it could not buy true content in life. Money is not the thing that gives a person meaning and purpose. Money may help achieve this goal in some ways, it is not the cause of a content life.
ReplyDelete-Natalie Hegwer
I agree that money doesn't buy happiness. As a poor college student, money represents time and work, so I see my purchases as an exchange of my work/time for an item. I think the way people treat money is based on their perception of what it represents- it was much easier to spend money on non-necessities when I was handed money as a kid and all of my basic needs were met for me by my parents.
ReplyDeleteWhen people are given money without earning it (gambling, inheritance, etc.), I think that's when resentment from others sets in and people begin to want "too much." Earning your belongings is satisfying, but when other people are able to live far more extravagantly without leaving their couch, it is easier to be jealous of things we can't have. To an extent, I think everyone wants more than they have, but I do not think they are doomed to live a life full of resentment. Whether or not they live in contempt is based on their attitude, as Mitchell said, there will always be the Mollies of this world who hold value in things other than just money. Money is symbolic and can represent freedom, food and shelter, or a brand new Mustang, so its roots in good or evil are circumstantial to the individual perspective.
Katie Cowger
I completely relate to Katie Cowger. As a kid, money would burn a hole in my pocket. As soon as I got any type of money I had to spend it on some new toy or game, but since starting college it is a lot harder to spend my money on frivolous things. One of the ladies I work with was talking about how expensive it is just to be alive and that she was not even having fun yet. No money can not buy happiness, but for people like my coworker, it can help her feel like she is doing more than just surviving. Som people, like Mollie, are content with just their family and necessities, but other people will always want more than they have.
DeleteMany people believe money can buy happiness, but money can only buy objects. Objects may make some people happy; however, this happiness contingent on the person still enjoying the object and not becoming bored with it. Wealthy people may become tired of other people always being envious of their wealth. Also, wealthy people may receive threats from those believing the wealth is their own. Many people want the newest gadget, such as a new phone or laptop, or a bigger house, or a nicer car. Those who cannot afford such luxuries may resent those who can.
ReplyDeleteYes, you can say money can't buy happiness, but it does provide comfort in living. Saying someone has too much money and restricting them could effect the ability to feed their family. I don't believe people are doomed to want more than they have or resent others that have more. I know people who live comfortably with what they have and what they earn without feeling the need to always spend the extra that they may have whether its a Christmas bonus or they just budget well and have extra to spend. Mollie felt content with her necessities but there will always be those who want more, but to make assumptions and say you are doomed to always want more is untrue. In college I have learned how to make twenty dollars stretch a week or two whether I need gas or food and I am always happy no matter how much or little money I have that week.
ReplyDelete-Hannah Rios
In America, we claim that we want to be free in every sense of the word; yet, free can be considered to be applicable to only one of the parties. In the free market, the sellers are 'free' to charge however much they would like, but one could argue that that infringes on the buyers right to a fair price. I believe that the government should intervene in the free market only when the principal of supply and demand infringes on the fairness of one certain group (or groups) of people. Businesses should not be able to charge way over price to someone that they know is in need of the product; it is simply immoral. --Kelsey Mader
ReplyDelete