The American Dream (1951~2000)

The American dream

In a world that is rapidly changing, historians are busy with interpreting the new sets or should I say modernized sets of documents and other sources in order to come up with a valid understanding of where our generation is actually headed to,

It might sound over generalizing but the changes in the America for the past 50 years cannot be and should not be ignored for these changes in America affected the whole world.

The time span that I’m trying to interpret is the history of America from 1951 to 2000. For the past 50 years or to be exact, 58 years, America underwent rapid changes especially in human rights.

We all know that America is a country that respects the law more than anything else. Americans respected the treaties and laws from the beginning of their colonization of America. And we can see that thorough some documents like the Mayflower compact.

Going back to the historical interpretation of the past 50 years of United States, I have used the philosophy of Collingwood in order to understand and connect the missing pieces in the history that needs fair interpretation.

As it is mentioned earlier in this paper, I would like to begin with the changes in the human rights. On May 17, 1954, there was a court case held against the board of education by an Afro-American girl who filed the case because she thought that segregation of the whites and blacks in education is not equal at all. And I quote the concluding statement of the Supreme Court for this trial

“We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

In my opinion, this conclusion is a truly comprehending conclusion for the Afro-Americans. In fact segregating whites and blacks and saying that the nation is for the equal doesn’t make any sense. The second Supreme Court case that I’m going to mention is the Gideon v. Wainwright. In this trial, Gideon who is the criminal wasn’t in a condition to afford a counsel so he asked the judge to appoint him a counsel. But the court turned him down and he had to defend himself which was truly a lonely fight.

This case was resolved by stating “The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he has a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he is not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.”

The third Supreme Court case is the New York Times v. Sullivan. In this case, Sullivan argues about to what extent New York Times has when we say “freedom of publishing?” Sullivan also argues that when New York Times was describing the revolt of Afro-Americans and about Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., New York Times was writing some things that were far from the truth.

The fourth Supreme Court case is the Miranda v. Arizona, the trial is about informing the criminal that they have the right to remain silent and everything that they say can be used against them. Because in the case of Miranda, he wasn’t foretold about these rights therefore he was forced to speak to the police officers of what kind of crimes he committed.

The fifth Supreme Court case is Roe v. Wade. In this trial Roe challenges the court and says that prohibition of abortion is the abridging of personal privacy right that is protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. And the court dismisses this case with three stages.

1) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

2) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

3) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

What is the main similarity between all these said Supreme Court cases? I have lined them up to emphasize my point in a brief yet in a very powerful way that would convince the reader. All the Supreme Court cases are talking about human rights. The cases were raised by the people who thought that their right as the citizenship of America is being abridged.

What was being abridged on the case of Brown v. board of education? The right to have equal chances in education. On the case of New York Times co. v. Sullivan the right that was over used by the publishers offended the readers who knew what was published in the magazine wasn’t true. What about the case of Roe v. Wade? Roe felt abridged of her right to personal privacy.

But can we really say that Roe is justified for aborting a baby because she had the right to personal privacy? If you have the freedom of speech that can you really say anything that you want about the government and not get caught by the police? Or because you have the freedom of publishing, can you publish things that are false and misleading people while offending them at the same time?

The right issue is something that we should think deeper before we say that our right is abridged. In the case of Brown v. the board of education, she had a valid reason to protect her right as a citizen of United States. But sad to say in the case of Roe, I can’t agree at all because killing an innocent life inside the mother’s womb because the mother thinks that prohibition of abortion is abridging the right of personal privacy doesn’t make much sense to me.

We should truly see the true importance of right because rights that we possess can be beneficial or harmful to others around us. But this importance in my opinion has been ignored when the human rights movement has erupted in America during 1950s. People thought that they were defending their right but at the same time they have lost many valuable things in order to defend their so called “rights.”
This paper is in fact not suggesting the abolishment of human rights. I think that human right is a wonderful gift for the citizens. It is a gift as well as a protection against some things that are illegal. But if we are just thinking of ourselves and our goal of protecting our own rights rather than thinking of others then the cases like Roe v. Wade happens.

If only the mother thought about the life that is inside her womb then her own rights of personal privacy, then I personally believe that many lives could have been saved. Did the emancipation proclamation which granted the right of freedom to the Afro-American people respected and followed by whites? Well it surely changed many things like banning of the slavery but there still is a discrimination going on and we should think of a better way to solve this problem rather than just being reliant to the rights that we possess.

The speech that Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. made was truly powerful. When he was making his “I have a dream” speech, he truly had a vision. A vision that one day every black man and white man would hold hands. A vision that America will become a nation without racism. But did that speech really solved the problem of racism? Did the fighting for equality really solve the problem of racism? I’m not saying that these speeches are useless or pursuing personal right is something that we shouldn’t do but I’m suggesting more of a critical way to solve the main problem rather than solving the problem partially.

On the other hand, 1950s to 2000 was also the time of war and peace. The Vietnam War, nuclear defense between America and Soviet Union, war resolution, and the meeting of the president of Egypt, prime minister of Israel and President Jimmy Carter.

I have found a very interesting statement in the speech that the president J.F. Kennedy made by the Nuclear test ban treaty between America and the Soviet Union.

“Even a nation as young and as peace-loving as our own has fought through eight wars. And three times in the last two years and a half I have been required to report to you as President that this Nation and the Soviet Union stood on the verge of direct military confrontation--in Laos, in Berlin, and in Cuba.” (Kennedy, 1963)

I think this statement contradicts itself. President Kennedy says that the United States is a peace loving country yet it went through 8 wars. A nation that doesn’t even have 300 years of history going through 8 wars is something that a war loving country would do rather than a peace loving country. The next paragraph from the same article is also very interesting.

“Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union nor the United Kingdom nor France can look forward to that day with equanimity. We have a great obligation, all four nuclear powers have a great obligation, to use whatever time remains to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, to persuade other countries not to test, transfer, acquire, possess, or produce such weapons.” (Kennedy, 1963)

United States obviously possesses nuclear power and as long as Soviet Union produces more nuclear weapons, United States is also willing to create equal amount of weapons in order to protect their own nation. But Kennedy saying that we should keep our nuclear weapons yet prevents others from making or buying nuclear weapons seems contradicting again. The ideology behind the nuclear weapons is something that is so simple yet so dangerous therefore the solution is to trash all the nuclear weapons at the same time and leave without fear.

And now I would like to conclude this short history about the events that have occurred for the past 50 years with the idea of American dream. What is American dream? Martin Luther King says that his dream is actually the American dream.

“So in though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.” (King Jr. 1963)

So does it mean that American dream is the freedom of the Afro-American from racial discrimination? Or the protection of individual right? Is going to war an American dream?

When I think of American dream, I think of living a wealthy life with two cars in the garage in California. But all these factors about racism, human right, and war should somehow be related with this ultimate dream that they have and are pursuing in the future.

America is a strong nation. We know that it is the wealthiest nation in the world and it has also the strongest military forces and advanced technology. But the question is that will the American empire continue with all the problems that are unsolved inside the nation such as racism and the problems in relation to human rights, and the problems outside the country such as war and treaty.

American dream will be kept when all these factors are solved and the nation becomes more united as a whole. But when the problems are left unsolved then the fall of the American empire will occur and the American dream will no longer be attained.