How would you define 'The American Dream'?

[Full Tilt Boogie]

What is it?

What does it deliver (if anything)?

Does it actually exist - is it real or just a commonly-held aspiration?

Over to you.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Interesting piece from The Daily Kos.

'Why Europeans Think We're Insane - The American Dream vs. The European Dream (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/26/976550/-Why-Europeans-Think-Were-Insane-Warum-glaubt-Europa-Amerika-Sei-Verr%C3%BCckt-Geworden?via=blog_791811)'

[Stephen]

A fucking nightmare

[Full Tilt Boogie]

A fucking nightmare

Robustly glib - but care to take a shot at trying to define it?

[Stephen]

A fucking nightmare

Robustly glib

Whatever.

"The American Dream™" is cocaine to a crack den. It's a diliberate lie designed to proliferate consumerism and capitalism in a way that makes the individual a slave to money and defined by their economic class. What exactly is the American Dream? A detatched house in the suburbs with a white picket fence and a beagle dog? A state of mind? A percived level of liberty, within the boarders of America?

The American dream is the daily editorial some choose to subscribe to. A decent life, a decent living and acceptable standards of living is somthing all people aspire to. "The American Dream" is a product, designed to sell you products.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

A fucking nightmare

Robustly glib

Whatever.

"The American Dream™" is ... A detached house in the suburbs with a white picket fence and a beagle dog? A state of mind? A perceived level of liberty, within the boarders of America? A decent life, a decent living and acceptable standards of living is something all people aspire to.

So, sardonic comments aside, the picture you paint is of quite modest aspirations and not particularly, or uniquely, 'American' at all, indeed pretty universal, wouldn't you say?

[Stephen]

A fucking nightmare

Robustly glib

Whatever.

"The American Dream™" is ... A detached house in the suburbs with a white picket fence and a beagle dog? A state of mind? A perceived level of liberty, within the boarders of America? A decent life, a decent living and acceptable standards of living is something all people aspire to.

So, sardonic comments aside, the picture you paint is of quite modest aspirations and not particularly, or uniquely, 'American' at all, indeed pretty universal, wouldn't you say?

It's still a nightmare

Superficial.

If everyone lived as I said, there would be nothing extraordinary about it - and the "modesty" of such ideals would turn to greed.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Any Americans care to pitch in with their definition?

[Stephen]

The "American Dream" relies on the misfortune others not living it for it to be "The American Dream".

[Full Tilt Boogie]

The "American Dream" relies on the misfortune others not living it for it to be "The American Dream".

Nice bumper-sticker sound byte - care to substantiate it?

[Stephen]

The "American Dream" relies on the misfortune others not living it for it to be "The American Dream".

Nice bumper-sticker sound byte - care to substantiate it?

How captious can you get? You seriously are boring me now.

It is a product, a lifestyle - that you either have, or you don't. It's a benchmark - That is all the American Dream is. It makes those above it feel good about their lives, and those below it feel bad and they struggle.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

The "American Dream" relies on the misfortune others not living it for it to be "The American Dream".

Nice bumper-sticker sound byte - care to substantiate it?

How captious can you get? You seriously are boring me now.

Sorry, this is the philosophical debate section - if you can't articulate an answer over and above your stock cynical, bumper-sticker rhetoric, then no one's insisting that you post here.

It is a product, a lifestyle - that you either have, or you don't. It's a benchmark - That is all the American Dream is. It makes those above it feel good about their lives, and those below it feel bad and they struggle.

Well, it's certain an opinion.

Any Americans care to offer up their definition?

[Stephen]

The "American Dream" relies on the misfortune others not living it for it to be "The American Dream".

Nice bumper-sticker sound byte - care to substantiate it?

How captious can you get? You seriously are boring me now.

Sorry, this is the philosophical debate section - if you can't articulate an answer over and above your stock cynical, bumper-sticker rhetoric, then no one's insisting that you post here.


I'm afraid I have little interest in Beauracracy. It was clear from my second post what I was saying. You, on the other hand - clearly have a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome from this thread.

cynical, bumper-sticker rhetoric

Cynicism tends to be derrived from experience, you have every right to hold your idealistic notions close to heart - just don't preach.

And nobody uses "bumper stickers" here in the UK, you should know that, and even if they did - if anyone had a bumper sticker on the very paticular topic of "The American Dream" they'd be loons unfit to drive.

[premjan]

Chicken in every pot, car in every home. Rags to riches. Self-made rugged individualism. Free market capitalism. Save the world from themselves.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

The "American Dream" relies on the misfortune others not living it for it to be "The American Dream".

Nice bumper-sticker sound byte - care to substantiate it?

How captious can you get? You seriously are boring me now.

Sorry, this is the philosophical debate section - if you can't articulate an answer over and above your stock cynical, bumper-sticker rhetoric, then no one's insisting that you post here.


I'm afraid I have little interest in Beauracracy. It was clear from my second post what I was saying. You, on the other hand - clearly have a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome from this thread.

Correct, I do: shocking as it may seem for a forum like this, I'm trying to illicit worthwhile debate and lucid, meaningful replies to an open philosophical question - not merely having to sit through your apparently world-weary cynicism and glib asides, which bring nothing to the thread. If you don't like the question, again, no one's forcing you to answer.

cynical, bumper-sticker rhetoric

Cynicism tends to be derrived from experience, you have every right to hold your idealistic notions close to heart - just don't preach.

So, from that statement we can take it that you've had vast experience of the American Dream, then? Strange, as that that's not what's coming across in your answers.

I'm asking a question - you're the one who's preaching. Now either offer up something useful and less petulant or allow others to take the field, as you're now thread-crapping and hijacking the thread.

And nobody uses "bumper stickers" here in the UK, you should know that, and even if they did - if anyone had a bumper sticker on the very paticular topic of "The American Dream" they'd be loons unfit to drive.

I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere trying desperately to make itself known...

[Stephen]

Sorry, this is the philosophical debate section - if you can't articulate an answer over and above your stock cynical, bumper-sticker rhetoric, then no one's insisting that you post here.


What do you want me to say? I could easily convolute what I have already said with extraneous vocabulary and an intellectual emulating tone. Every position one individual has is an oppinion, no matter how informed their opinion. Some positions are better than others, but you can't cover every flank. I reject the formality, of rehashing established knowledge to engage in casual debate on an internet forum (Internet serious business much?). Everybody knows what I have said/mean - and I have spend the last 2-3 posts explaining it to you out of formality, and plainly good manners - but my patience has worn thin. You are ad-hominem in your refutal, because it is based in sheer pedantary.


So, from that statement we can take it that you've had vast experience of the American Dream, then? Strange, as that that's not what's coming across in your answers.

I'm asking a question - you're the one who's preaching. Now either offer up something useful and less petulant or allow others to take the field, as you're now thread-crapping and hijacking the thread.

No, but I am perceptive enough to understand the implications of such a "dream" on the world stage in the context of humanity and societal motif.

The thread is crap, it's uninspired and ridiculous. "How do you define the American Dream?" - is akin to asking "What does ice cream taste like?"

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Sorry, this is the philosophical debate section - if you can't articulate an answer over and above your stock cynical, bumper-sticker rhetoric, then no one's insisting that you post here.


What do you want me to say?

Actually, I think we'd all prefer to hear from someone to whom it pertains, and not a lad from Liverpool waxing cynical and tying himself in knots on the topic.

The thread is crap, it's uninspired and ridiculous. "How do you define the American Dream?" - is akin to asking "What does ice cream taste like?"

And, sadly, that tells us all we need to know about your capacity for rational, philosophical discussion. Toys out of the pram because you don't like (and more likely can't handle) the question.

Oh, and you're wrong: as ice cream has a distinct and perceptible taste - as you've adequately illustrated, trying to define the American Dream is somewhat harder - thanks for proving my point. You've served that purpose, at least.

Any one else care to take a crack it?

[Stephen]

And, sadly, that tells us all we need to know about your capacity for rational, philosophical discussion. Toys out of the pram because you don't like (and more likely can't handle) the question.

Oh, and you're wrong: as ice cream has a distinct and perceptible taste - as you've adequately illustrated, trying to define the American Dream is somewhat harder - thanks for proving my point. You've served that purpose, at least.

Any one else care to take a crack it?

You can not describe the taste of anything in entireity, taste is an experience - not an event :facepalm:

You have succeded in making the matter personal, and exposed yourself as a sanctimonious little shit.

It's like debating with a Theist. If in doubt, revert to square one. Have your thread.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

And, sadly, that tells us all we need to know about your capacity for rational, philosophical discussion. Toys out of the pram because you don't like (and more likely can't handle) the question.

Oh, and you're wrong: as ice cream has a distinct and perceptible taste - as you've adequately illustrated, trying to define the American Dream is somewhat harder - thanks for proving my point. You've served that purpose, at least.

Any one else care to take a crack it?

You can not describe the taste of anything in entireity, taste is an experience - not an event :facepalm:

Who mentioned anything about "entirety"? You certainly didn't. You said, before you convenient sort to change horses mid-race, that "What does ice cream taste like?" - in my experience people have very little difficulty in describing the taste of ice cream. I feel you're back-pedalling now and going off at tangents. Pleas stop hijacking the thread.

You have succeded in making the matter personal, and exposed yourself as a sanctimonious little shit.

Ah, this from the man who wandered out with: "The thread is crap, it's uninspired and ridiculous." So no double standards there, then? OK.:rolleyes:

It's like debating with a Theist.

And, had you actually attempted any debate, I might have been able to judge - as you didn't...

If in doubt, revert to square one.

Now that would be radical, eh? What, you mean like actually addressing the OP? Heaven forfend! :eek:

Have your thread.

I'd like to believe that you mean that and won't trouble us again - alas...

[LoneWolf]

I guess I have never given it that much thought. But whenever I have heard the term "the American dream" there are two vague images that enter my mind depending on the nature of the conversation:

Image one: A husband, wife and two children. They own their own home outright and live in a nice suburban neighborhood. The husband works a 40 hour week and earns enough that they can live comfortably on one income. They own two cars and have little to no debt.

Image two: A poor kid who grew up in a poor neighborhood studies hard in school and earns a scholarship to college. He excels in school and earns a degree and becomes some sort of an entrepreneur and ends up becoming rich.

For better or worse, those are the images that have popped into my head over the years.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

I guess I have never given it that much thought. But whenever I have heard the term "the American dream" there are two vague images that enter my mind depending on the nature of the conversation:

Image one: A husband, wife and two children. They own their own home outright and live in a nice suburban neighborhood. The husband works a 40 hour week and earns enough that they can live comfortably on one income. They own two cars and have little to no debt.

Image two: A poor kid who grew up in a poor neighborhood studies hard in school and earns a scholarship to college. He excels in school and earns a degree and becomes some sort of an entrepreneur and ends up becoming rich.

For better or worse, those are the images that have popped into my head over the years.

Very clear images, LW, and thanks for getting the thread back on track! :)

I tend to agree with these two oft-delivered summaries - I'm just struggling to see or find anything within them that's either uniquely 'American', or indeed a 'Dream'? They both seem so universal and modest in their aspiration.

Any one care try and throw some light on it for us?

[MattShizzle]

Yeah, the gap between rich and poor in the US is close to 3rd world levels and something to be ashamed of. There tends to be this delusion - especially among the right - that anyone can become succesful if they work hard enough. This leads to blaming the poor for being "lazy" or whatever and saying they don't deserve any more than the bare minimum to survive on (if that.)

[Stephen]

Yeah, the gap between rich and poor in the US is close to 3rd world levels and something to be ashamed of. There tends to be this delusion - especially among the right - that anyone can become succesful if they work hard enough. This leads to blaming the poor for being "lazy" or whatever and saying they don't deserve any more than the bare minimum to survive on (if that.)

Which is exactly what I was saying to FTB, and he may have understood - had he been literate.

But you're not following debate procedure! SO GTFO!!!!

[DanB]

I tend to agree with these two oft-delivered summaries - I'm just struggling to see or find anything within them that's either uniquely 'American', or indeed a 'Dream'? They both seem so universal and modest in their aspiration.

I agree that the dream may be universal. The dream being; opportunity is not restricted by artificial casting, so all persons are welcome to participate, without arbitrary impediments being imposed on them.

However, rightly or wrongly, it was perceived to be first made an inherent part of a societal philosophy, by the U.S. At least, the idea was inherent. The struggle to realize that ideal is ongoing.

[Notta]

Not having to live from paycheck to paycheck. Being able to save for your future/retirement/vacation/college tuition for kids.

Owning your own home.

Not overly worrying about whether you'll have a job in a month or two.

Being able to go to college, if you wish, by being eligible for low-cost loans.

I disagree with Lonewolf's comment, though, about the husband being able to support his wife and kids. I've been the major or sole financial contributor for my family for decades.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

I tend to agree with these two oft-delivered summaries - I'm just struggling to see or find anything within them that's either uniquely 'American', or indeed a 'Dream'? They both seem so universal and modest in their aspiration.

I agree that the dream may be universal. The dream being; opportunity is not restricted by artificial casting, so all persons are welcome to participate, without arbitrary impediments being imposed on them.

However, rightly or wrongly, it was perceived to be first made an inherent part of a societal philosophy, by the U.S. At least, the idea was inherent. The struggle to realize that ideal is ongoing.

Good point - although there is nigh-on a century's difference between the abolition of slavery in the US and [what was] the British Empire.



http://www.cslacker.com/images/file/mediums/worlds_highest_standard_of_living.jpg

[Full Tilt Boogie]

I disagree with Lonewolf's comment, though, about the husband being able to support his wife and kids. I've been the major or sole financial contributor for my family for decades.

I think LW's comment represents the historical image/mindset as represented by the family in the poster in the above picture Notta.

[Stephen]

Contrived too.

[DanB]

This leads to blaming the poor for being "lazy" or whatever and saying they don't deserve any more than the bare minimum to survive on (if that.)

Some of the poor are lazy. So are some of the rich. Its just easier to be lazy if, you're rich. If, you're poor and lazy, you complain about not having more than the bare minimum to survive on (of course, this is just an unfair generalization).

[DanB]

Good point - although there is nigh-on a century's difference between the abolition of slavery in the US and [what was] the British Empire.

It can be argued, that the main impetus of England's abolition of slavery, was to adversely affect the economy of its impudent former colonies. So, maybe there's not much difference in elevation on that moral high-ground.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Good point - although there is nigh-on a century's difference between the abolition of slavery in the US and [what was] the British Empire.

It can be argued, that the main impetus of England's abolition of slavery, was to adversely affect the economy of its impudent former colonies. So, maybe there's not much difference in elevation on that moral high-ground.

The abolition of slavery in England came with the Somerset Case in 1772.

The abolition [though not the illegality] of slavery throughout the Empire (note, not just its "impudent former colonies") came in 1807, with passing of The Slave Trade Act, with it finally becoming illegal throughout Empire with the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.

Now given that the Empire spanned a quarter of the Earth's surface, with slavery having brought in a sizeable chunk of Empire's wealth, I think it might be stretch to suggest that abolition was introduced merely to punish the economy of the US - rather, and thankfully, it was a philosophical argument that was won in the hearts and minds of men to end it.

[DanB]

The abolition of slavery in England came with the Somerset Case in 1772.

Noted.

The abolition [though not the illegality] of slavery throughout the Empire (note, not just its "impudent former colonies") came in 1807, with passing of The Slave Trade Act, with it finally becoming illegal throughout Empire with the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.

It was abolished in all the States, by the 13th Amendment in 1865. Not quite the "century" you declared previously, unless "nigh-on" means "not even close".

Now given that the Empire spanned a quarter of the Earth's surface, with slavery having brought in a sizeable chunk of Empire's wealth, I think it might be stretch to suggest that abolition was introduced merely to punish the economy of the US - rather, and thankfully, it was a philosophical argument that was won in the hearts and minds of men to end it.

Granted. Perhaps, "main" was the wrong adjective to use. Maybe "deciding" or "final". Or we could agree simply "an impetus"?

[MattShizzle]

Also, the actual slave trade from Africa was banned iirc in the 1820s in the US.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

The abolition of slavery in England came with the Somerset Case in 1772.

Noted.

The abolition [though not the illegality] of slavery throughout the Empire (note, not just its "impudent former colonies") came in 1807, with passing of The Slave Trade Act, with it finally becoming illegal throughout Empire with the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.

It was abolished in all the States, by the 13th Amendment in 1865. Not quite the "century" you declared previously, unless "nigh-on" means "not even close".

Then, by the same token, when, in 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote (in the Declaration of Independence) "All men are created equal" - unless you're black - then there are those (me included) who might argue that it took until the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 for black folks actually to see an end to slavery in the US (as they effectively had second class citizenry status up until then), then that would be nigh-on two hundred years difference. So not one, but two centuries. ;)

Now given that the Empire spanned a quarter of the Earth's surface, with slavery having brought in a sizeable chunk of Empire's wealth, I think it might be a stretch to suggest that abolition was introduced merely to punish the economy of the US - rather, and thankfully, it was a philosophical argument that was won in the hearts and minds of men to end it.

Granted. Perhaps, "main" was the wrong adjective to use. Maybe "deciding" or "final". Or we could agree simply "an impetus"?

To be fair, I don't think that's giving William Wilberforce his due credit. You have to remember that he was up against the vested interests of not just the slave traders plying their trade from Africa to the 'New World' and the Caribbean, but the might of the British East India Company (who had their own standing army and the ear and pocket of every politician holding out his hand for a bribe in Britain - indeed the East India Co weren't merely treated in a laissez faire manner by politicians, they had virtual carte blanche to conduct themselves as they saw fit, just as long as Empire's money kept rolling in).

He finally achieved his aims by convincing Pitt the Younger (then British Prime Minister), who then threw his support and that of his cabinet behind the argument that slavery was/is indefensible - and Pitt was the man, as Prime Minister, changed with safeguarding the wealth and fortunes of the Empire, so the argument for abolition had to be won from a philosophical standpoint for it have a hope of becoming law.

[LoneWolf]

I disagree with Lonewolf's comment, though, about the husband being able to support his wife and kids. I've been the major or sole financial contributor for my family for decades.

Just to be clear, it is my interpretation of what the term generally has meant. It isn't what I personally think as the ideal. My dream isn't to live in the suburbs either. ;)

[Octavia]

I guess I have never given it that much thought. But whenever I have heard the term "the American dream" there are two vague images that enter my mind depending on the nature of the conversation:

Image one: A husband, wife and two children. They own their own home outright and live in a nice suburban neighborhood. The husband works a 40 hour week and earns enough that they can live comfortably on one income. They own two cars and have little to no debt.

Image two: A poor kid who grew up in a poor neighborhood studies hard in school and earns a scholarship to college. He excels in school and earns a degree and becomes some sort of an entrepreneur and ends up becoming rich.

For better or worse, those are the images that have popped into my head over the years.

Very clear images, LW, and thanks for getting the thread back on track! :)

I tend to agree with these two oft-delivered summaries - I'm just struggling to see or find anything within them that's either uniquely 'American', or indeed a 'Dream'? They both seem so universal and modest in their aspiration.

Any one care try and throw some light on it for us?

I'm not American, so this may be completely off-base, but it seems to me that the idea of the "American Dream" (i.e that an individual of any background can achieve a life of comfort and success with hard work and bootstrap-pulling) is as much a reactionary idealism as anything else.

We have to remember that America is a nation of migrants. A lot of those migrants came from countries - such as the UK - with entrenched social classes. I think the idea there is that in the old country, no matter how hard you work a) the system will also keep you in your place, and b) even if you do manage to make a modest success of your economic life, your social class will still drag you down, and keep you from hobnobbing with the upper echelons of society. At best you can be nouveau riche, and fit in nowhere.

Whereas in the land where "all men are created equal", your possibilities are only limited by your own efforts, not your social background or your accent. Anyone can achieve the American Dream.

It's a rather lovely idealism, but of course it falls flat on a practical level. If your parents are blue collar workers, then that in itself doesn't prevent you from rising to greatness - but the fact that their lower income impacts on your diet and education, for instance, might.

In a nutshell, then, American Dream = migrant idealism, so assimmilated into the cultural fabric of American culture that it's become a sort of nationalist lullaby.

[davidpbrown]

The Whitest Kids U' Know - Pledge of Allegiance
Q2BfqDUPL1I

[Politesse]

Someday we'll have enough "things" to make us happy.

[sohy]

Obviously, the American Dream has always been an idealistic concept, a fantasy for the most part. Originally, it was about equality for all. The value that everyone, regardless of their position in life was to be treated as equally as everyone else. We know this is a fantasy, but it's still a lovely ideal. At least America tried to put this concept into practice, something that was very different from our colonial overlords. :D But humans being the sometimes big nasty apes that we are, it was never to be.

It wasn't until the mid 20th Century that the dream became more about material things. When I was growing up in the 50s, the American Dream became equated with the idea that regardless of your background, if you worked hard, you could achieve financial success. While historically, it is probably true that for a longtime, the US was the land of opportunity. This was especially true for immigrants. That is also becoming a thing of the past as we are in decline and other countries are starting to emerge as the new world economic leaders.

[Clivedurdle]

Kodak Photo Points.