The Invention of Money – Samantha Kovnat

After having been “awakened” from the brainwashed state that is believing that money holds true worth, I can honestly say that my entire perspective on life has become altered. I’ve been to the super market, used my debit card, and left feeling as though i had “pulled the wool” over the cashiers eyes. A swipe of a plastic card in exchange for a warm sandwich, Virgil’s root beer, and an ounce of Ceviche? I was a thief. I had to be, in what type of world do people blindly accept a machine stating “transaction accepted” in exchange for nourishment? The type of world it seems, is one fueled on Blind Faith.

All of the articles and radio broadcasts urge readers/listeners to broaden their horizons in terms of how they have looked at money, and how they really interact with it. Society makes its people feel as though in order to survive you must “follow the rules”, “comply by their standards”, and “participate or suffer”. In this way, we all come out of the gate gobbling up lies and strange notions allowing them to ring as fact or “normalcy” in our ears. More money is good. Less, or no money is bad.

When I first found out how the people of Yap dealt with the issue of money, using their limestone “coins”, I saw them as irrational, outlandish, a joke. But just as The Yap had brilliantly large stones sitting idly on their yards, we have federal banking, computers telling us how much money we have in an account that exists only in their system but not in physicality, and a blind faith in the structure we no longer know how to function without. It began to seem that as foreign as the Yap’s reverence for their stones was, our blind faith and reliance on what we believed we had, but could not see, not only matched, but surpassed that which I had once looked at as alien.

This entry was posted in A01: Invention of Money, Assignments, Sammy Kovnat. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Invention of Money – Samantha Kovnat

  1. davidbdale says:

    Hey, Sammy! Really? Your perspective on life? That should be worth the tuition right there. 🙂

    P1. Your opening is fun and quite creative. Favorite moment: “I was a thief. I had to be.” I’m not sure why you capitalized and italicized Blind Faith, as if it were the title of a movie (or a late-60s rock band), but otherwise, it works very nicely as a rhetorical introduction. It only works for readers who, like me and your classmates, know you’re talking about the material we examined together. But since we are your likely audience, that’s OK. Be prepared to write for a wider, less “in-the-know” audience for most of your assignments from now on.

    P2. First person plural is the better voice for most essays, Sammy, particularly if you want to be one with your readers instead of setting yourself apart. Broadcasts urge us not them. This general strategy will keep you and your readers on the same side of the issue and avoid the sound of lecturing or preaching to them. Society makes us feel we must follow.

    More broadly, you appear to be working some territory here that’s very distant from the actual themes of the Invention of Money material. I don’t find any moralizing opportunities in the story of the Yap, the Brazilian real, or the Federal Reserve. They’re not stories about consumption or conformity, are they? I certainly appreciate your point of view, and I promise I’ll never get in the way of a good, passionate argument, but is this the time and place for this one? There’s a big difference between learning that printed money represents a warm sandwich and learning that wealth is the true measure of personal worth, don’t you think? Maybe I’m misreading you, but you seem to be reacting to lies other than those about what a dollar will buy.

    But hold that thought. It and your passion about being lied to will serve you well at another time, I’m sure.

    P3. This is nicely done, Sammy, and back on track. Be careful again not to create us-vs.-them camps, though. That federal banking system is our system, not theirs. I like “blind faith in the structure we no longer know how to function without,” but it sounds quite foreboding, as if there’s danger in our dependence on the system. If that’s your point, you’ll need to offer us reasons to fear that dependence. So far, the only thing we seem to have to fear is ceviche. 🙂

    Respond below if you want to test an angle on me before you continue (or help me see the error of my misinterpretations). I’d love to see you revise before the deadline, if you’re interested.

  2. kovnat77 says:

    I meant to respond to this sooner, but i completely agree with your input on my second paragraph, i think i have decided to eliminate it due to the fact that it is simply me getting overwhelmed and impassioned by a subject matter that is relatively underlying, and white noise to the question at hand. By eliminating that paragraph maybe i can use the space to put in more information about the reading and broadcasts, because in order to make my response more than just an emotional reaction to what we read, i definitely need to reference the subject matter more.

  3. kovnat77 says:

    I already commented, but I’m commenting again so as to put it on your radar!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s