American Dream

What common considerations inform the two arguments and to what extent do you consider these real threats to the American dream?

The American dream was used as an advertisement for the new America. It was used to build a large piece of empty land into a country. It was an idealistic dream that had no real control on how the environment would take to it. Both The Disuniting of America and The Other America show history repeating itself or foretelling the future. So we mustn't have boundaries as to how far back it dictates. We must critique the past from the Mesozoic era. Nature is the final word to the progress made in time. The common consideration that both of these arguments hold is that they both follow the path of evolution.

Most species that have been researched show habits to motivate in packs. Each pack with a leader. This leader first had to prove himself through determination and motivation in order to gain this rank. These groups consisted of a family within a species. Unheard of was a zebra with a pack of tigers. Other strays were always pushed away, and the weak, old, and uneducated were always susceptible to be killed. An example of these groups with leaders would be Lions or Bees. A king in one group and a queen in another. Each leader teaching its ways in almost a centric mannerism.

" The new ethic gospel rejects the unifying vision of individuals from all nations melted into a new race. Its underlying philosophy is that America is not a nation of individuals at all but a nation of groups, that ethnicity is the defining experience for Americans" (Schlesinger 20). The past shows that animals had to adapt in order to avoid extinction. By adapting they learn from others, other groups and other species. In a similar case as we did to co-exist with them and vice-versa.

Life goes as far as you take it, as far as your determination, and motivation allows you to take it. No one's future is limited by constraints, unless they allow themselves to be limited.

But then, there are those whom have an easy answer, who can tell a man how to avoid becoming poor. Their advice is summed up in a single word: Move! Here again, however, a familiar irony is at work. The poor generally are those who cannot help themselves. And those most hurt by class unemployment are precisely the ones who can't move (Harrington 33).

Survival of the fittest only the strong survive. The strong being the confident, competitive, over-comer of odds. That person then becomes a receiver of awards. Nothing is handed out, it is earned. " The familiar America of high living standards moves upward; the other America of poverty continues to move downward" (Harrington 30). To be impoverished one must take as motivation to move upwards. But instead is taken for granted and used as a label for pity. Once an escalator is stepped on one must make sure it's on before it will take you to the top. Once it is on if you simultaneously walk up with it you will reach the top sooner. In my opinion the unskilled and single skilled person is the equivalent to the weak or wounded zebra that gets caught by a lioness. Only the lioness in the case of the unmotivated and undetermined person is a world of poverty, and the fact that they lack motivation and determination is a sign of weakness.

In a world of steadily evolving technological (man-made) advances, one must learn to adapt. The inability to do so is a lack of motivation and determination. "They never had the right skills in the first place, or they lost them when the rest of the economy advanced. They are the ones who make up a huge portion of the culture of poverty in the cities of America. They are counted in the millions" (Harrington 20). At the present point of time we are more intelligent then the animals of the past, therefore instead of being killed and eaten we are set to regress while the strong succeed.

Is it possible that our first president George Washington was in a state of ignorance