|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 05:04 PM EDT |
to see ourselves as others see us.
"That's not the American dream. It just
isn't. I'm not saying it's not a dream
that some Americans have. But the phrase
has a meaning, and that's not it."
True up to a point. User jbb even quoted an article from Wikipedia, that
unimpeachable font of knowledge, to prove that this phrase has a definite
meaning, that any usage of the phrase which differs is by definition
linguistically incorrect and therefore confusing. The phrase ought not to be
used to mean anything else, so his argument goes, and anyone who does so is
hijacking the language.
But Wikipedia is not the authority on linguistic usage. Nothing else is, either.
This was noted by Thomas Jefferson a long time ago. Moreover, for him, the lack
of such an authority to oversee American English was praiseworthy. Perhaps that
was part of his American dream, too. And nowadays there are those who point to
certain obvious shortcomings of Jefferson and say that he does not deserve to be
considered as an authority, either, because he was a Big Hypocrite and a Bad
Character. Apparently, that denigration of Jefferson is in accord with their
American dream. So, where does this all leave us?
I certainly do agree that the Wikipedia-described meaning of the phrase
"The American Dream" exists. And many of us share the dream which is
described there. When I myself have ancestors who left Scotland because of the
terrible times there in the early 18th century and ancestors who left Germany in
the mid-19th century because they were of the wrong class in that society's
then-rigid caste system and were excluded from higher education for that reason
alone, then who am I to disbelieve in that part of the American vision?
But the fact is, our "American Dream" is only an aspect of truth. In
its ideal vision, crucial things are also ignored. What we think of ourselves is
not necessarily what others see in us. Or is only an aspect of what they see in
us. And there are reasons for that which are pretty easy to see if one
approaches the matter with an open mind instead of just trying to go and preach
to those "ignorant" people in those foreign countries who "just
don't get it" about what we "really are" and about what America
"really is." It is not good to be so fixated on the American Dream of
a democratic and caste-free society that one becomes blinded to these realities,
and it seems obvious that emphasis on the American Dream and drum-beating about
it by our politicians too often go hand in hand with the spreading of that kind
of blindness to a too-receptive public. Others can see this in us, even when we
cannot.
"And taxation was an important issue that
did play a role. Maybe it's hard to
understand America if you aren't American,
even its history."
And, conversely, some from other countries might want to claim that it's hard to
understand America, or its history, if you *are* an American. Some of the more
articulate of those critics would assert that practically without exception
Americans are blinded to reality because they only see what is inside their
admittedly big and prosperous country, not what is outside, and they see the
America which they see only from the inside, not from the outside, and therefore
they cannot even begin to be objective. Not to mention that there are things
which exist in America which people ought to see even if their vision is so
limited as above but which are nevertheless systematically unnoticed. Are those
critics necessarily wrong?
As to the specific example of "no taxation without representation,"
though, I did have a bit of fun with that a couple of posts above this one. I
pointed out that it showed up a problem which they had back home in England,
too. In fact, about 50 years after the American Revoluti9on that problem came to
a head over there. They almost had blood in the streets. A system of
"voting" and "representation" in which a handful of rural
notables could elect more members of Parliament than the whole city of London,
members who faithfully enacted their narrow interests into law, simply could not
stand. For the avoidance of revolution inside of England itself, there were a
few at the top who were wise enough to realize that something simply had to be
done. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Oh really? - Authored by: jbb on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 08:10 PM EDT
- Oh, would some power the giftie gie us ... - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 08:18 PM EDT
- OK - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 11:35 PM EDT
- OK - Authored by: PJ on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 01:01 AM EDT
- OK - Authored by: kuroshima on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 04:37 AM EDT
- OK - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 07:01 AM EDT
- nonverbal cues - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 07:19 AM EDT
- nonverbal cues - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 14 2013 @ 05:15 AM EDT
- OK - Authored by: Wol on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 10:51 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
