Mr. Carson has explicitly said that homeownership is a central part of the Dream. In a speech at the National Housing Conference on June 9, he said, “I worry that millennials may become a lost generation for homeownership, excluded from the American Dream.”
But that wasn’t what the American Dream entailed when the writer James Truslow Adams popularized it in 1931, in his book “The Epic of America.”
Mr. Adams emphasized ideals rather than material goods, a “dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement.” And he clarified, “It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of a social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and recognized by others for what they are.”
His achievement was an innovation in language that largely replaced the older terms “American character” and “American principles” with a forward-looking phrase that implied modesty about current success in giving respect and equal opportunity to all people. The American dream was a trajectory to a promising future, a model for the United States and for the whole world.
In the 1930s and ’40s, the term appeared occasionally in advertisements for intellectual products: plays, books and church sermons, book reviews and high-minded articles. During these years, it rarely, if ever, referred to business success or homeownership.
By 1950, shortly after World War II and the triumph against fascism, it was still about freedom and equality. In a book published in 1954, Peter Marshall, former chaplain of the United States Senate, defined the American Dream with spiritually resounding words: “Religious liberty to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience and equal opportunity for all men,” he said, “are the twin pillars of the American Dream.”
The term began to be used extensively in the 1960s. It may have owed its growing power to Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963, in which he spoke of a vision that was “deeply rooted in the American Dream.” He said he dreamed of the disappearance of prejudice and a rise in community spirit, and certainly made no mention of deregulation or mortgage subsidies.
But as the term became more commonplace, its connection with notions of equality and community weakened. In the 1970s and ’80s, home builders used it extensively in advertisements, perhaps to make conspicuous consumption seem patriotic.
Thanks in part to the deluge of advertisements, many people came to associate the American Dream with homeownership, with some unfortunate results. Increasing home sales became public policy. In 2003, President George W. Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, subsidizing home purchases during a period in which a housing bubble — the one that would lead to the 2008-9 financial crisis — was already growing at a 10 percent annual rate, according to the S.&P. Corelogic Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price index (which I helped to create).
This year, Forbes Magazine started what it calls the “American Dream Index.” It is based on seven statistical measures of material prosperity: bankruptcies, building permits, entrepreneurship, goods-producing employment, labor participation rate, layoffs and unemployment claims. This kind of characterization is commonplace today, and very different from the original spirit of the American dream.
One thing is clear: Bringing back the fevered housing dream of a decade ago would not be in the public interest. In “House Lust: America’s Obsession With Our Homes,” published in 2008, Daniel McGinn marveled at the craving for housing in that era: “In many neighborhoods, if you’d judged the nation’s interests by its backyard-barbecue conversation — settings where subjects like war, death, and politics are risky conversational gambits — a lot of people find homes to be more compelling than any geopolitical struggle.”
This is not to say that homes have no appropriate place in our dreams or our consciousness. To the contrary, in a 2015 book “Home: How Habitat Made Us Human,” the neuroanthropologist John S. Allen wrote, “We humans are a species of homebodies.” Ever since humans began making stone tools and pottery, they have needed a place to store them, he says, and the potential for intense feelings about our homes has evolved.
But the last decade has shown that with a little encouragement, many can easily become excessively lustful about homeownership and wealth, to the detriment of our economy and society.
That’s the wrong way to go. Instead, we need to bring back the American Dream of a just society, where everyone has an opportunity to reach “the fullest stature of which they are innately capable.”Continue reading the main story
“Sport and the American Dream”, he is trying to show us that the sport America watches and plays, portrays America’s character as a nation. Since America goes from baseball to football we it shows us that we are becoming more violent. His comparisons of sports and war is says best how America changes as a country over the years. Back when baseball was Americas’ pastime to being a totally football country.
When we were a baseball country, Americans were happier, not many cared about wars or violence Just the enjoyment they got from itching the games with friends or family at the ballpark. It didn’t matter that the sport wasn’t moving at a fast pace or so competitive. Football is the sport that we now follow; and is the overly aggressive sport that we all love. This sport is all about being competitive from having fantasy football for people of all ages to people betting a lot of money on stupid things like the coin toss, the first play, the first commercial and so on.
Also there are only 16 games in football which makes it that much more competitive, unlike baseball that has 162 games. This sport with very war like eaters tells us that America is a very active and very war-like country. Jeffrey Shrank was a teacher and a freelance writer from Milwaukee, he wrote novels in the sass-sass. This short story Just sums up how America has become such an angry and aggressive country. Shrank was writing this at the time of these events: Vietnam war, the cold war, the bay of pigs invasion, stonewall riots in New York City, the Cuban missile crisis, and many more horrific times.
This is most probably what inspired this piece because he is so into how wars affect the culture of all Americans. The comedian George Carlton had a stand up discussion on this very topic, football versus baseball and he had a couple things to say about both sides. He said, “Baseball is played in a park and football is played on a gridiron stadium sometimes called soldier field or war memorial field. In baseball people care about the ups, such as, who’s up?! , I’m up! Football is concerned with downs, such as what down is it!?
Some football terms were blitzing clipping hitting, blocking, unnecessary roughness, spearing, late hitting, horse collars, and personal fouls. Baseballs terms are the sacrifice bunt or a sacrifice fly. The weather for football could be in snow or sleet it doesn’t matter and in the rain the baseball players go back inside and don’t play. ” this is basically Just siding with what Shank said in his short story that football is tough aggressive and serious sport whereas baseball is a sport for easy going old timers that live in the past and don’t enjoy people hurting other people.
He’s also says one more thing, “the CB is like the field general to be on target with his Ariel assault over the defense hitting his receivers with deadly accuracy in spite of the lilt even if he has to use the shotgun with short bullet passes and long bombs he marched his group into enemy territory balancing his assault with a ground attack which punches holes in the defensive wall called the defensive line. Baseball the object is to go home and be safe. ” (Carlton, youth. Mom, 6/25/08) One strength that Shrank has in the short story, he mentioned, “football should become our national pastime is understandable to those who can see sports as a reflection to American character. ” What he is saying here is that, once people see that it is such a dirty and aggressive sport they will then realize why it is our national estimate, because we in wartime are dirty and aggressive players on the battlefield. As opposed to happy go lucky baseball fans that go see the game and enjoy themselves, football is a sport that states win, or go home: which could be a motto for any army.
One weakness that the author showed here is that he didn’t back up his thoughts when he states, “comparing baseball to an acting out of robber barons stage of capitalism, whereas football more clearly reflects a more mature capitalism nation, which we are now moving towards. ” Later on in the same paragraph he doesn’t back up what he means by that. Instead he talks about the Japanese becoming a football from baseball country the same way America did. Plus it is 40+ years since this was written and the Japanese still haven’t gone the football route yet.
The author says, ” baseball is a game of a more quiet age when less action was needed to hold interest when going to the park was enjoyable, while aggression was subservient to finesse. ” The he has a very strong point saying that before, the country was a much more quiet and peaceful time; this wasn’t the age of computers or cell phones. Baseball was really exciting because you can see the players, and sometimes attach a foul ball or get one from the ball boy between innings. The real Joy of it all was that you get to be with your family or friends and eat as much popcorn and cracker Jacks as you can eat.
That was then, in this society, every down in football is a different fast action play or tackle either way all 22 of the people are getting action on the field and they all serve a purpose every down. We need to see far throws and blitzes and kick offs and touchdowns. About 2 homeruns on average are scored per game, which are worth 2 points and about seven touchdowns a game, which are Roth 42 points total before the extra points. Baseball is also for easy-going people because they have no time restrictions they could take all day and go into as many extra innings as they can.
In football they do measure time split up into 1 5-minute quarters and can only play one 1 5-minute overtime; after that the game is over in a win loss or tie. Shrank in his second to last paragraph he disrupts his thesis about baseball versus football and starts to talk about mastering the fine art of golf. Which makes absolutely no sense. You can’t Just start on one topic and work your way to another id-story. One other thing he mentions in that paragraph is that golf is a nature versus human struggle; meanwhile golf is played on the most unnatural part of nature.
The grass is usually imported from other countries, and there are random canals and streams that go through the land, the courses always keep changing, nature doesn’t change like that. So basically he didn’t know what he was talking about and said a major fallacy. One last strength I saw in this short story is that a good reason football is so popular today is because the invention of a very important electronic device, the television. Football is a sport that is played through the coldest times of year through fall and winter; now people can watch in the comfort of their own homes.
Baseball on the television looks like two men having a catch with a small ball whereas football looks like 22 big, athletic guys fighting together, each serving their own purpose. All happening on a big screen with continual play and limited commercials while baseball is a slow paced game that nothing happens half of the time. Football is better than baseball because this is the time of people not being able to wait every pitch but them having A. D. D. ND having to see something new pop on the screen every second.