The Lone Alliance wrote:All it really means was status quo at the time.Satuga wrote:I enjoy the fact you are all using the term "Normal" Yet normal in society is always changing. It was "normal" to have slaves back then, it was "normal" to have segregated seats on the bus back then, hell it was "normal" to kill your own child if you couldn't support it way back. The only times thing's change for worse or better is when things aren't normal. Not to mention what's "normal" in one place may be completely abnormal n another. So could we not use the term "normal" in terms of how people want society?
And in that status quo the few financial centers of the US were thriving and their wealth trickled down into the areas surrounding said financial centers.
Great if you were connected or lived near said finance centers, but outside of them you have to make do.
But is it a good thing to stay in that status quo forever? Or is it better to change the status quo in an attempt to make things better, like instead of just the few centers it were everywhere that was thriving. My point being normal shouldn't really be used in this context because normal is never really constant and doesn't mean "good" or "bad".