Who went to war with itself to end slavery? There has been a war against slavery for a long time, but America actually went to war to put an end to it ... in America. That's dedication to a cause.
Who defeated the Axis, who planned to take over the world? During World War II, Americans lost 292,000 of its own in combat deaths with a total of more than 400,000 total military deaths fighting to keep Europe and America free. These numbers are just the beginning. America spent the equivalent of trillions of dollars in this fight. The American people themselves put up happily with shortages and rationing to support the fight. Mothers went to work to build weapons. Children helped gather things to assist in the effort. As a country America gathered in a national sacrifice of comfort, time, money, and lives to fight for freedom.
Who turned back the North Koreans and the Chinese when they tried to overrun South Korea? Between 1950 and 1953 America once again threw themselves into the breech, standing between North Korea with their Chinese allies and freedom-loving South Korea. During that conflict, America suffered nearly 110,000 casualties, including 27,000 deaths. Another 50,000 Americans died defending South Vietnam against North Vietnam. What other country has expended so much time, effort, money, and lives defending others?
There are many outside and inside America that would like you to believe that we're a bad country. We're not generous enough. We're arrogant. We're wasteful. We don't take care of our own. We're a bad country. But you have to ask yourself, "How many countries in this world have a flood of illegal immigrants willing to break the law to get in?" Estimates are someplace in the vicinity of 10 to 20 million people are currently in this country illegally. They apparently don't understand that this is a rotten country. They are apparently deluded into thinking that this is a place where people are free, living better lives than wherever they came from. In fact, how many countries even need an immigration policy? A few, I suppose, but no other country has to regulate the influx of legal immigrants wanting to cross our borders. That is a powerful contradiction to our naysayers.
But it doesn't stop at that. Where do the brightest university students in the world go for their further education? While many complain that Americans are falling short of advanced education, students are coming from all around the world to go to American colleges and universities. We're so used to it that we don't think about it. These countries -- countries like India and China -- all have colleges and universities. Why is it, then, that their best students want to leave their homes and come to the United States for the best education they can get? It would seem that it's not because we have a poor educational system, is it?
And it doesn't stop there. When the tsunami struck Asia in December of 2004, who showed up with the fastest and largest assistance? In disaster after disaster, we've been there to help, to render aid, to give assistance. We've fed, clothed, medicated, and housed people around the world. They weren't Americans, but we were there for them. Even when disasters aren't happening, it is largely American charities that are hard at work in hungry nations feeding hungry children. It is America that is spending the most money to fight AIDS, cancer, and other medical conditions that plague the world. Did you know that there are more Americans than any other nationality that have won the Nobel Peace Prize? If you think about it, beyond the Peace Prize, Americans have practically invented the world. Oh, sure, that's an exaggeration, but think about it. Most modern conveniences are American technology. We have been on the forefront of technology in most fields for the longest time. That's part of America.
No country is perfect, and America is the perfect example. No country is without its problems. To deny that would be foolish. Yet, with all our problems, there is still no other country on this planet that can claim for itself all of the good that is the United States of America. No other country gives as much. No other country enjoys such freedoms. No other country is as prosperous. We need to fight for our country. We need to solve our problems and country our failings. On the other hand, it is important that we remember with pride and gratitude on this 232nd anniversary of our declaring independence that we are a wonderful country. Don't let them tell you otherwise.
20 comments:
A correction, the best students of India and China are not studying in American universities. Only those who didn't get an admission into universities in India and China are going to U.S. simply because there are more students than the number of seats in these universities.
But U.S. universities are themselves going to India and China so they won't have to go to U.S. anymore.
I'm not one to refuse to admit when I'm mistaken, and you're certainly free to your opinion, but I'm not going to change here. I work at an American university. I know the numbers of students we get from India and China. Furthermore, I know the students. They're the ones who are telling me that the top students from these countries are coming to America for their higher education. I've known hundreds of university students from foreign countries. They're all telling me the same thing.
(I'd also respond to your second paragraph, but I don't understand what you meant. American universities are going to India and China? Perhaps you meant American students?)
Of coarse they will claim that they are the top students in their respective countries. I am not surprised.
By the second paragraph I meant, American universities are setting up campuses in those countries or collaborating with the universities there.
It appears that you are suggesting that 1) as a whole, students from India (and I would guess China) are fundamentally deluded at best and liars at worst 2) and their parents. You see, what I've heard from a large number of both Indian and Chinese students is that their parents wanted them to have the best education so they sent them to the U.S. for the universities here. If you are correct -- they are falsely claiming to be top students coming to America for a better education -- then it follows that their parents lied to them and they are lying to me.
As for me ... I prefer not to think of them that way.
And if U.S. universities are setting up campuses in foreign countries so students can get a quality education from a U.S. university while remaining in their own countries, doesn't that add to my point that the world recognizes American higher education as somewhat better than others?
I agree that as American universities have been around for 200-300 years they are the best in the world. But if most of the students are not American i.e. if American students are not benifitting by them, they can no longer be called American universities even if they have an American name. Also, as India was under the repressive rule of the British until 1947 while America was flourishing, they are not going to allow any Indians to recieve education till then. So it is only true that most Indian universities were established only after the 1960s.
The parents are right when they say they are sending their children to recieve the best education in U.S. but the students are wrong in claiming that they are the best simply because a degree in U.S. is affordable by only a tiny population in India. It is too costly to Indians because the cost of living is less in India because India did't have much inflation till now unlike U.S. which is also because India did't have much growth till now.
Okay, now I am officially confused. I posted this to talk about what's good about America. One thing I talked about was that America has some of the best higher education in the world. You appeared to disagree with me. Now you say, "I agree that as American universities have been around for 200-300 years they are the best in the world." That was my point. (I also agree that there are fewer and fewer Americans attending them, but that's not a comment on their quality nor does it change the fact that they are American universities.) So it appears that you agree with me on this point about American universities. So ... what's the "correction" (your word in the first comment)?
It was written in the blog that the best students of India and China are coming to U.S. for education which I disagree with because only a few can afford it and among those who can afford it, only few are toppers.
Also, the trend of more and more Indian and Chinese students studying there will continue until the universities here are better than those in U.S., which will take at least 2 decades.
Also, U.S. universities are finding it harder to find students from the developed countries because of the aging population. It is all about the demographics of the population. There are 50 crore or 500 million people in India below the age of 25 years. Just imagine all these people need education and jobs and so will go to other countries for education but may return to India as many jobs are going there as that economy develops.
1) Would you feel better if I said, "Where do some of the brightest university students in the world go for their further education?" I was employing a tool we use in expressing ourselves sometimes known as "hyperbole" where I overstated the truth to make a point. Since you agreed that the point I was making (America is recognized as having some of the best colleges and universities in the world), I would think that the point was made.
2) I suspect you felt that I insulted India (and China). Since the purpose of my post was "What's right with America?", I would urge you to take away no such insult. None was intended.
3) I made no prediction about the future of education in India (or China) and no prediction about the future of American education.
I hope that these three points might help you have a better understanding of my comments.
I hope the whole world knows about "hyperboles" or else they will interpret it in the wrong way!
Also, I really didn't think your blog was insulting any country. I just didn't want anyone reading the blog to get a wrong impression about other parts of the world.
By the way, I don't think there is anything wrong with America. It is doing fine as a country. Its share of the world GDP is decreasing only because other markets are growing fast.
You have not displayed a comment of mine. If you don't want to continue the discussion, it is ok. I won't disturb you further.
I have published every comment I've received. I have not rejected any comments from you. I have no reason not to continue to discuss with you.
I've seen some occasions where people make comments and I don't get them. That's not my doing. If you made one and it didn't get in here, it's because something happened between when you wrote it and getting to me. Try again.
Oh, I thought everything was right with internet! Anyway, many countries lost millions of lives in the second world war. Isn't that a bigger figure than four hundred thousand? For example, 3 million died of hunger in the year 1943 in Bengal state because foodgrains were forcibly taken away from them to supply food to the British army.
Well, obviously "millions" is more than "hundreds of thousands", but you've seriously missed the point.
First, nothing in what I wrote suggested in the least that America lost more lives than anyone else. There were lots more lives lost than American lives. But ...
... there is a vast difference between the 400,000 American lives from WWII and the number of deaths in Bengal. You see, those people didn't give their lives; they were taken. The Soviet Union lost huge numbers of soldiers in their fight against the Nazis, but those lives were lost in defense of the homeland. America, on the other hand, didn't need to go to Europe and help the British defeat the Axis. They chose to. They volunteered to give their lives in defense of other countries. That's radically different than either the tragic loss of civilians or the tragic loss of soldiers defending their land.
I'm not saying that American lives are more valuable or the other lives lost are less tragic. I'm simply suggesting that one of the unique things about America is that, in the past, we have been willing to sacrifice life and property to defend others ... and we haven't even taken land in doing so. Very rare indeed.
Look, I understand you don't like the British, and I wouldn't doubt you're not very happy with America (I mean, who is?), but it cannot be disputed that America, in its history, has done some truly remarkable things and continues to be one of the best countries in which to live. Many people choose to hate the United States, including people within the U.S. My point was that there are many reasons to appreciate this country.
Yes, in that way I did miss the point. American soldiers did go to a different country and fought there to save freedom in those countries. That is a good thing about U.S. But it is a different thing that U.S. was provoked into the war (the Pearl Harbour and the sinking of the ship full of scientists). Also, if U.S. hadn't plunged into the war it would have been the next target and it would have been difficult to stop Hitler. So we can say it was saving its neck, really.
P.S.: Isn't it funny that U.S., in all the wars it was involved in, almost never had to face any property damage or loss of human lives in its soil, considering that in the case of other countries, whether they are perpetrators of the war or victims, they have to suffer those damages. This is excluding the loss of military lives or expenditure of war.
How can I be not happy with America? Not being happy with U.S. is like not being happy with India, right? Because U.S. is in the same position today as India was for the past few millennia (except, of coarse, the last 3 centuries).
But, yes, there is a fundamental difference between these two countries. Whereas people in the West are proud of the wars their ancesters fought, Indians are proud that in the whole of human history no Indian king or soldier stepped out of the borders of the country (actually there was an unwritten rule among them that they can't cross the borders). Infact they would be sorry for the loss of lives of the emeny side. ( that is one reason why the Eastern cultures were very rich in ancient and medieval times as they had periods of stability while Europe and other areas which constituted the western world war marred by wars and destruction). Of coarse, I agree that sometimes wars are inevitable.
A lot of people, inside and outside the U.S., hate America. My goal was to point out that America has a lot of things about which we Americans can be proud. If you are not disagreeing, perhaps you should stop disagreeing.
Have you seen the recent survey on the approval of Americans by people from different countries? Americans are approved the most by Indians than anyone else. Whatever is written in the blog is true. Only thing is, if we look at it from a broader perspective it becomes less powerful. Anyway, looks like you are tired of the discussion. I learnt a lot from you and I hope you learnt something.
America has a lot of problems. As I said in the post, no country is perfect and America is the perfect example. But we suffer from an unmerited image problem. We are hated because we are resourceful and hard working and productive. We are hated because we are not isolationists, but have intervened in the affairs of other countries who were being attacked or were in trouble. We are hated because we have perhaps the most powerful military on the planet. And our image problems are not just from nations like France (who we freed in WWII or other European countries; it is also within. Americans hate America because we are successful.
There are certainly some valid reasons to be unhappy with America. I intended, on the anniversary of our independence, to point out what is rarely pointed out -- that there is a lot to be proud of here. I don't mean at all to be rude or disrespectful to you, but I don't see how "a broader perspective" has made it any less powerful.
It is difficult to explain. We will just have to wait for 20-30 years to see the state of the world. Anyway, it was nice talking to you.
Post a Comment