89 of 96 people found the following review helpful
The Great Betrayal,
Amazon Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass (Paperback)This is a fine book in which Theodore Dalrymple advances some common sense ideas about why the so-called "underclass" are the way they are. His time as a doctor in an inner city hospital has given him ample time to observe certain inalienable truths about the patterns of behaviour that lead to the chaotic and miserable lives lived by many in Britain today.
He argues that through a combination of bad parenting and poor education people are no longer taught to think for themselves and therefore have no comprehension of the ideas of personal responsibility, cause and effect or that their actions will have consequences. Sadly, through his daily interactions with the "underclass" Dr Dalrymple shows that many of those with whom he interacts tend to think things just happen to them rather than that, as is frequently the case, they are authors of their own misfortunes.
A damning indictment of 40 years of liberal-left social engineering that has led to this appalling state of affairs and betrayed a whole generation. Truly depressing reading.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 6 Jul 2010 09:21:08 BDT
Because there was no underclass 40+ years ago, of course. Laughable.
In reply to an earlier post on 19 Oct 2010 22:22:47 BDT
Posted on 17 Nov 2010 16:04:55 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Dec 2010 13:44:48 GMT
Orryl Oak says:
No, there was no underclass as a discrete class whose aspiration amounted to nothing more than being where they were in the world, cultivating a culture of entitlement and blame-anyone-else-but-themselves mentality, and picking up their welfare. Who has never heard, outside a pub or from a park bench, some character utter the phrase.. 'gonna take a break now' as they reached for their Rizlas. It begs the question: take a break from what? Exactly?
Posted on 23 Nov 2010 11:45:17 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 17 Dec 2010 00:35:41 GMT]
In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2011 14:45:22 GMT
Alan Urdaibay says:
There were three classes 40+ years ago. They were all participants in the same society and there was often a strong sense of class identity. An underclass is a group which does not contribute to the life of a society. My view is that the underclass is made of of directionless individuals who are essentially untrained in the art of directing their own lives or participating constructively with others either in an economic setting or in some kind of social project, charity work, or communal living. There are a lot of these around nowadays. In my view they exist because it is possible for them to exist - there are resources available for them to live off. This is not the same problem of social deprivation that was such a feature of the Victorian era. The underclass are the result of misdirected plenty, not paucity.
In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 08:49:57 BDT
The 'underclass' have always been with us. In the Middle Ages we called them vagabonds or rogues, tinkers and vagrants were similarly tainted with the same broad brush. The 1572 Vagabonds Act tried to deal with the then 'under class' as did the 1824 Vagrancy Act. In fact the 1351 Statute of Labourers was designed to control the itinerant. One of the most ludicrous themes in all of Dalrymple's works is the idea that the 'under class' is a very modern outcome of the welfare state and that if we went back 40 - 60 years or so we would find a neat ordered society made up of the traditional three classes. The reality is that there have always been groups of people existing outside of societal structures and people have always worried that this group threatens social order. The Elizabethan fears over masses of itinerant men roaming the land in no particular direction are the same fears that are expressed today in regards to our 'under class'.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›