Russel Conwell (February 15, 1843 – December 6, 1925) (from wikipedia) “was an American Baptist minister, orator, philanthropist, author, lawyer, and writer. He is best remembered as the founder and first president of Temple University in Philadelphia, as the Pastor of The Baptist Temple, and for his inspirational lecture, ‘Acres of Diamonds’.”
A link to the full text of Mr. Conwell’s speech is available on the Temple University page
The story given as inspiration for the lecture (and as the introduction to the longer lecture) is available here
100 years ago …
Mr. Conwell would give the speech 6,000+ times – which is impressive. The “legend” is that when arrived in a new town (where he was going to perform the speech) that he would find out the “prominent”/successful folks in the town and work them into the performance.
ONE of the “points” of the speech being that “opportunity” can be found everywhere. The entrepreneur doesn’t (automatically) need to travel far away looking for opportunity, it (might) be in the backyard.
A hundred years ago, Mr. Conwell had to argue that “making money” was a worthwhile endeavor. The “common wisdom” of the day being that “extreme wealth” MUST have been achieved by some form of skullduggery.
Historically, the human “founders” of these United States had come from a culture where land equaled “wealth.” In the “old world” land was in short supply AND passed down by inheritance. Someone born a “peasant” was going to stay a “peasant” because those “to the manor born” controlled the vast majority of land – and therefore “wealth.”
A rising “merchant class” was in the process of disrupting things when the American Colonies and the U.K. had a disagreement in the late 18th Century — BUT most folks still lived/worked on farms until the early 20th Century.
It is unfair to call ALL of those born into privilege “parasites.” However, 18th Century England is a good case study of “those in power” using the system to keep themselves in power AND wealthy.
The grand point being that “money”/wealth is not evil. Money is a tool which can be used for good purposes OR for bad/”greed.” 1 Timothy 6:10 tell us that “LOVE of money is the root of all evil.”
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
1 Timothy 6:10
Note that “greed” is never “good.” Greed implies “getting more” at the expense of others – which is obviously impossible to reconcile with “loving your neighbor as yourself.”
New World
It is fun to point out that “technology” has always been a disruptive force. Technology is always about “application” of knowledge. Advances in “farming technology” helped farmers be more productive – while also freeing up “labor” for the factories of the industrial revolution.
If we could do a survey asking “average farm workers” (back when Mr. Conwell was giving his speech) how they could get “wealthy” they PROBABLY would have said some variation of “striking gold.”
(… and historians can point at the “gold rushes” in the middle of the 19th Century as helping populate the western United States. Of course more “wealth” was generated from folks helping the “prospectors” than from folks “striking it rich” pulling gold/silver out of the ground …)
Of course if one of those “average farm workers” that sold everything to go gold prospecting had created a “better plow” they would have been much better off.
e.g. A Vermont born blacksmith solved a common problem for farmers – and both he AND the farmers prospered. John Deere, Inc is still helping farmers be productive in the 21st Century.
Transportation
If you look at the “super wealthy” from the late 19th and early 20th Century, the common theme might be “transportation.”
e.g. Cornelius Vanderbuilt built an empire from ferries – from the time when “waterways” were the primary means of transportation in the U.S.
John Rockefeller built an oil empire – from the time when oil was used for light and heat. When Henry Ford made the horseless carriage affordable, “oil” being refined into gasoline made the Rockefeller clan even more wealthy.
Sandwiched between Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Ford as “wealthiest American” was Andrew Carnegie – who had worked his way up from “child labor” to “steel magnate” – from a time with “railroads” and the telegraph were the latest and greatest “technology.”
No, I am NOT holding up ANY of these men as “moral exemplars” – the grand point is that they helped “solve problems” for a large number of folks, and solving those problems was the root of their wealth …
The musical “Oklahoma!” (1943) has a song where “rural residents” marvel at the advancements of Kansas City (“She went about as fur as she could go!”). By the mid 20th Century things like automobiles and the telephone system were commonplace enough to be a plot point in a musical.
(“Oklahoma!” is set around the time the territory became a State. Oklahoma was the 46th State admitted to the Union in 1907)
Again, the grand point being that some folks got wealthy from disrupting the status quo, and MANY more got wealthy by making incremental advances to cars and phones.
e.g. Thomas Edison’s “diamonds in the backyard” looked like improvements to the telegraph system of his time long before “Edison Electric.”
random thought – I’m sure there is an interesting story with the “cigarette lighter” technology. The actual “cigarette lighter” part isn’t a “standard feature” but you can find a lot of “accessories” that use the “automobile auxiliary power outlet.”
Modern Times
The sad fact is that in a LOT of nations the “economic game” IS stacked against the “average individual.” Which is why we see so many folks willing to risk everything to immigrate to “opportunity.”
Obviously a complex subject – and someone living in a “warzone” is more concerned with survival than anything.
For those NOT living in a warzone or an extremely dysfunctional government the big question becomes which “career path” to pursue.
Charlie Chaplin made a movie called “Modern Times” back in 1936. Mr. Chaplin was a world famous “movie star” at the time – the movie sometimes get held up as an example of “radical political beliefs.” I’m not sure the movie has any agenda except “entertainment” – e.g. Mr Chaplin’s “tramp” character is pursuing “happiness” NOT a political agenda.
That same idea applies to “modern workers” in the 21st century. “Happiness” probably won’t come from a “job.” Generic advice like “follow your bliss” is nice, but not particularly useful.
There is nothing wrong with “working for a paycheck.” The best case scenario is to “do what you love” for a living. the WORST case scenario is doing a job you hate to survive …
Education, intelligence, and “degrees”
“Education in the United States” has changed a great deal in the last 100 years. The first “colleges” in the North America existed to train “clergy” (e.g. Harvard was founded in 1636) and then “academics.”
The “Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges” came along later with the “land grant” colleges in the late 19th Century. The GI Bill sent 2.2 million WWII veterans to college AND 5.6 million more to other training programs.
Sputnick I (1957) had the unintended consequence of changing national educational priorities in the U.S. – as well as kickstarting NASA (founded July 29, 1958). Both events helped the U.S. get to the moon 11 years later.
World war and cold war politics aside, the 20th Century workplace was probably the historical “anomaly.” At one point in the 20th Century a “young worker” could drop out of high school, go to work at the local “factory,” and make a “good living,”
Remember that for MOST of human history, folks lived and worked on farms. Cities provided a marketplace for those agricultural products as well as “other” commerce. Before mass media and rapid transportation MOST people would live and die within 20 miles of where they were born.
Again, maybe interesting BUT I’ll point out that “compulsory” public education PROBABLY doesn’t have a great record of achievement in the U.S. (or anywhere). i.e. if the ONLY reason “student” is in “school” is because they “have to” – then that student isn’t going to learn much.
This has nothing to do with “intelligence” and everything to do with “individual interests” and ability. “Education” is best understood as a live long process – not a short term goal.
“I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”
— Mark Twain
Part of what makes us “human” is (probably) the desire for “mastery” of skills. In the “best case” this is how “education” should look – a journey from “untrained” to “skilled.”
If an individual’s investment (in time and money) results in them having a valuable “skill set” – then they are “well educated.”
The contrast being the “academic” that has a lot of “degrees” but no actual “skills” — i.e. having a “doctorate” doesn’t automatically mean anything. “Having” a degree shows “completion” of a set of requirements not “mastery” of those subjects.
Of course that distinction is why we have “licensing” as well as “degree” requirements for some professions. e.g. The law school graduate that can’t pass the “Bar examination” won’t be allowed to practice law, but might be allowed to teach.
Nepo babies
Now, imagine we did a survey of “modern high school students” in the United States asking them “how can you become wealthy?”
It would be interesting to actually perform the study – i.e. I’m just guessing here from MY personal experience.
We would also have collect data on the parent’s education and career — i.e. if a child grows up in a family of “fire fighters” then they are (probably) more likely to pursue a career as “fire fighters” simply because that is what they are familiar.
The term “nepo baby” gets used (derisively) for some entertainment industry professionals – but if mom and dad are both “entertainment industry professionals” then a child pursuing an acting/performance career kind of becomes “going into the family business.”
Now, “having good genetics” (you know “being ridiculously good looking”) is always a positive – so there are certainly “nepo babies” out there.
I’m not throwing stones at anyone, “hiring” is not an exact science in ANY industry. That “genetic component” probably applies to families of doctors, lawyers, and educators as well — i.e. if mom and dad were both “whatever”, it is possible that “junior” will have those same skills/personality preferences.
… and it is also possible that “junior” will want to do something completely different.
BUT if “student” has minimal exposure to “work life” outside of what they see at home and school – MY GUESS is that the majority (of my hypothetical survey of high school students) will say the “path to wealth” involves professional sports or “entertainment industry.”
umm, both of which may be more likely than “winning the lottery” or speculating on the stock market — but not exactly “career counsellor” advice
(… oh, and you only hear about the “big rock stars” being told by their “career counsellor” that they couldn’t make a living as a “rock star” AFTER they became “big rock stars” – if someone quits after being told they “can’t do it” or that the chance of success is small, then they PROBABLY didn’t want to do “it” very much …)
“Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars.”
– Casey Kasem
Did I have a point?
“Well, the “message” in “Acres of Diamonds” is still valid 100+ years later.
A certain amount of “knowledge” is required to be able to recognize opportunity. e.g. The person to “build a better mousetrap” is someone that has experience catching mice.
BUT simply inventing a “better” mousetrap is only half of the problem – the mousetrap needs to be produced, marketed, and sold.
Two BIG things that weren’t around when Mr. Conwell was giving his speech are “venture capital” and “franchising.” Neither of which “negatively” impacts the argument he was making – and if anything make his argument even stronger …
check out https://curious.iterudio.com for a short (free) class on “success”
You might also find this book interesting
Leave a Reply