Read on Twitter
So, back in the day I read romances. I mean, I REALLY read romances. I was a very serious, mostly studious, person with big plans whose reading material consisted mainly of throwaway paperbacks that people thought had no real value, but I always saw value in them. They helped
me read faster and greatly expanded my vocabulary. They also helped me control my moods bc I grew up in a somewhat oppressive home and I wasn't the silent, invisible type. My mind was always working, but having a bunch of books I could go to, helped me calm myself...
Well, after grad school I weaned myself off of romance novels. It took a few years, but I stopped reading them altogether before I turned 30. Except for a brief revisit a couple of years ago. Very brief, bc the new ones aren't as good. Then I found the Hallmark Channel and 
Well, last night I revisited my secret bookshelf, which is a row of books behind my public facing books, bc my built-in cabinet bookshelf is about three books deep, depending on the book size (FYI, I went to sleep after 5 am this morning, which might be why I'm going random) bc
of a conversation I had with a friend last night that led to me re-reading one of my old favorites. I hadn't read this romance since 1990, and I bought it years later bc I loved it so much. It's called "This Time Forever" by Margaret Chittenden. And here is why THIS thread is
actually more on-topic than my usual random threads. You see it's bc I follow a lot of people who lean further left politically than I do, and I've said before that my older, mostly White women, friends are further left than I am. I also follow many Black so-called moderates
at least according to the left-leaning people I follow, who repeatedly voice that Bernie Sanders isn't the originator of his ideas and that the idea that he's peddling a new awakening, isn't true. Remember, romance novels sell VERY well. And they aren't controversial, just
embarrassing for serious people to admit to reading. Now I offer you a passage from this ROMANCE novel from 1990, pg. 241 "The newspaper quote had been taken from a speech Robert gave before a large number of "notable individuals." He had spoken of a significant weakness in the
Scottish economy-the enormous gap between the very rich and the very poor. One-quarter of the national income, he'd said, was divided among five thousand very wealthy men - professional, businessmen, large landowners. These men enjoyed a personal income two hundred times larger
than the lowest sort, while the other seventy five percent of the whole population earned less than thirty pounds a year."...
But wait, there's more! Next paragraph. "Someone had pointed out that laborers must work for a mere pittance to enable their employers to sell their goods at a low rate, or there would be no work for them to do at all and they would starve. "Do you suppose they do not starve
now?" Robert had demanded in reply.
Just a little bit of political thought from a popular romance novel from 1990! Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Just a little bit of political thought from a popular romance novel from 1990! Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
So, if this is what I was reading in pulp fiction back in 1990, and, really, it's a BIG theme in the book, don't you tell me that noticing the wealth gap is brand new. It was on our minds back then. Along with a bunch of other things like, I don't know, AIDS, Reaganomics, gangs
the war on drugs, the ozone layer and acid rain, apartheid, the beginning of the movement against sexual harassment, finally starting to take domestic violence seriously (seriously, people attack one of the men behind VAWA like it wasn't HUGE, and controversial back then) 
My nightmares were about Black women having acid thrown in their faces and White women murdering their abusive husbands by setting their beds on fire, along with worrying that I was not going to be able to do as well as my parents, who JUST left the farm! This 
ain't new just
ain't new just
bc you JUST discovered it!