Jump to content

Talk:American Dream/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hochschild References

In the section quoting from and relying on Hochschild, what are the parenthetical numbers supposed to represent? Are these pages in Hochschild's book? And it seems to me that the 'flaw' in this part:

Question How does one pursue success?

Answer- “through actions and traits under one’s own control”(18). Flaws Ignores the fact that if one may claim responsibility for success one must accept responsibility for failure. Therefore people who fail are presumed to lack talent or will (30).

is that the stated flaw is exactly backwards. Rather than ignoring that one must accept responsibility for failure, the belief in question requires it. What it ignores is the role myriad other circumstances, such as race, class, and dumb luck, have in both success and failure. Then it follows that people who hold this belief would also therefore believe that those who fail are morally responsible for that outcome. Natcolley (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Point of this Article

The point of this article is to define and explain the American dream. Since it is a concept, this article should not pose arguments on either side (claiming that the American Dream is successful or unsuccessful). This concept is abstract, so there is no specific dream. This article is an attempt to explain how the american dream of free economic choice led to large-scale immigration, and what caused the flourishing of the American Dream.
Let's inform readers what the AD is about, the history behind it, etc....they can form an opinion for themselves.

Major Changes

This page is in need of some serious help.

1. Everything from Immigration down needs to undergo serious revision. These sections seem to lose focus of defining and describing the American dream.
2. Remove the paragraph about the cabbie success story. Keep the reference as an example, and link it to an article about him, possibly having one or two sentences that sum up his rags to riches transition. This article is not the place for a short biography. Done.
3. I'm not so sure that the image of American income is exactly necessary. While the American Dream does have something to do with income, there is not exactly a set income at which you are now living the American dream
4. This page should include, since it is inextricably tied and mentioned in the opener, how the Bill of Rights, Capitalism, and Meritocracy have hampered, helped, whatever...the American Dream
5. A lot of the last part is irrelevant. The Dot com boom, Computer crap...it needs to be weeded out and removed. This is where most of the problem lies. I took care of a lot of this...however, the paragraph about hippie ideals, etc, needs some review.

--FivePointCalvinist (My Friends Call me 'Cal') 21:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Higher Education

Under Criticisms, there is a whole point based on Higher Education, stating that Higher Education "can" be expensive. While this is true, this is no basis for an argument because higher education "can" be inexpensive. Heck, cars "can" be expensive, yet that hasn't stopped Americans from having a national average of about 1 car per person....

--- I really don't understand your point? A good education helps you to get a good job. If you can't afford the best education, you won't be able to get the best jobs. Most Americans might be able to afford a car, but how many can afford a porsche. Likewise, most Americans might find it easy to afford to go to college, but very few can afford the fees for an Ivy League college without a scholarship. Therefore the best educations, and by extension many of the best jobs, are reserved for the children of the rich.

---While this is true, I think this person's argument is that you don't need an "expensive" education to live the American dream, so this can't exactly be a criticism of the American dream

It is possible to get a good college education on the cheap. I did my first two years at a community college then transferred to a relatively unknown 4-year school. What I didn't have I borrowed. I went toe to toe with ivy league graduates. Good schools don't make you smart it's just that smart people go there. Anyone that wants a college education can get one if they have the chops, and that is part of what the American dream is about.

Doesn't make sense

I removed "This ideal is closely related to Horatio Algerism.", because it doesen't make sense. Mhocker 06:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC) I thought american education is equal. If American education would be equal, then they will help anybody who resides in the United States to continue their education. My friend, juan, 21 year old, smart guy, is having difficulties to get the money he needs for his books and tuition because he was brought into this country illegal. He's probably going to drop off, he has a a 3.5 gpa. He needs the financial support. He doesn't receive financial aid because "he's illegal" because his parents brought him to this country. He had no choice. America is not equal in terms of giving financial aid and education to those who deserve an education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.228.4 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

Thanks to user User:Ertyqway for flagging all the unattributed statements that need referencing. I think that at some point, any unattributed statements should be removed. The flags were posted on Sept 1, 2006. --Docmgmt 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What I have done

I have made signifigant edits to this mess, particularily multiple edits to the criticisms section. If you take issue with any of my edits, or think I missed something major, tell me under this heading.--Vaergoth 30 June 2005 12:22 (UTC)

Uh yeah... i see absolutely nothing under the heading "criticism"

Hi, I put each of the criticisms as its own bullet point. --Docmgmt 22:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikifying the criticism. I have since done some editing on the various criticisms, expanding some, adding one about social justice, refining some of the criticisms and some of the counter points. I'm concerned that not all of the criticisms or counter-arguments are attibutable, (although as I read them, various quotes come to mind) but I think that implementing linked headings like Social Justice or Social Control or Social Darwinism will allow others to read up on the expanded points if they so choose. --Docmgmt 19:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The poor are ******* stupid?

Am I only one who find the following part quite offensive? Yes. I am rich. "...the American dream also ignores other factors of success such as...inheritable traits such as intelligence."

What? Am I reading this wrong or is it implying that people are poor because they are stupid? No they put it in a question format they did not want u to take it like that ---

I believe the implication is a different one: People who a poor and less intellectually gifted will find it difficult to escape poverty by means of work alone. However, it is possible to be poor for many other reasons as well.

Although somewhat controversial, you may find it interesting to read Wikipedia's article on intelligence quotient, where the fraction of people living in poverty is compared to their score on a standardized IQ test. It drops from around 30% among those with the lowest scores to only 2% among those with the highest.

Filur 01:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

That is justified. People who have a low IQ will find it hard to have the 'American Dream'. --Nukethewales 14:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Can" is the key word here

Some of you seem to miss the word "can" in the opening sentence. Contrary to what has been posted below, the dream does not involve *everyone* in the country getting rich. If that were true, it would suggest that people in America are entitled to wealth because they live here. That misses the point entirely. I deleted a paragraph in the criticism section that reflected this inaccurate viewpoint.

The gist of the American dream is that if you work sufficiently hard, you CAN be a success--not that you're guaranteed to do so. The point is that in other places (like, say, North Korea) you do not have that opportunity. You could work your butt off until the cows come home in Pyongyang and you still ain't getting rich. The American dream is related to the general idea of freedom--that you're free to make your own economic decisions, and that maybe, if you play your cards right, you'll make it big.

I may be wrong hear, but i don't think this is true. I have lived in US and have heard this dream a couple of times. And in all cases, the speaker was implying this applies to everyone. And if this doesn't apply to everyone, then its not unique to America at all. Luck my friend is universal. For example, i am Kenyan and can name a number of people born poor but ended up filthy rich. An example is Josiah Mwangi Kariuki. One more thing, your chance for being rich depend with how ethical you are. The more ethical you are, the more remote your chance of getting rich. Probe a couple of the rich figures around. There is one common characteristic with all of them. They were all willing to do evil, ranging from simple back stabbing to embezzlement and murder.
In fact, i even know of a primary school classmate who was really freaking rich. After leaving primary school for secondary school life, i never say him again. At that time, he was a dirt poor village boy. One day, i was reading news when i came across his name. Since i was at US then, i called home and to my surprise, my instinct was right. I was even told the guy had a huge house, numerous girlfriends and drove a Range Rover. Since he even never went to high school, i knew he must have been up to no good. He did eventually close the wrong person. I hear he had contact with one of the Rwanda's criminals. (That imply he was working with him, as i can see how else he came to know this criminal) He approached the USA embassy and offered to assist them catch him(the criminal) in return for money. Someone buggled it up and he ended up with a bullet in the head. This is the story i am refering to. [1]
In short, as recently as two years ago, someone in Kenya had managed to go from rugs to riches. Granted, he didn't use means that anyone should be proud of. In fact, i have no sympathy for greedy people as i think they are the root cause of the world's evil.
Surely the American Dream as a concept, well known around the World exists whether or not poor people can get rich in other countries. I thought it also referred to the large number of immigrants believing that America was a land of new oppurtunity, not only poor people already resident there. Jameskeates 09:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What happens when you wake up?

Just a thought...

Then you daydream.

I can understand the thought behind this but it is very poorly written. Also, it is presumptuous to denote a single nation to this cause. SD6-Agent 01:18, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Word to SD6. This is an important topic, but the entry itself is kind of dreamy, and does not attempt to define what, in fact, the American dream might be. There is value in this topic--many American studies majors have ponder the question of the American dream, but this entry needs a great deal of enrichment.

Nice dream, but here's our wake-up call:

  • (and dealt with the native Americans)
  • (and shared anew by later generations of immigrants)

We need some contrast between the airy idealism of the American Dream and the harsh realities of real history and real life. --Uncle Ed 19:16, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I inserted the above parenthetical remarks as ironic comments, the page started off in a very ironic fashion, and I was surprised to see that my ironic comments ('blazing trails', _dealing _ with 'Native Americans') were built upon in the eulogistic expansion of the page. Perhaps irony is wasted in the histrionic larger than life image of the american dream? If wastedm then these remarks are better left out, but where do you stand, Ed? TonyClarke 19:40, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I like irony, but find it hard to apply it in writing encyclopedia articles. Also, I think the topic of the American Dream is a worthy one.
We should describe what the American Dream is, as well as mention problems attaining it, or objections to it.
My understanding is rather vague, but as an American I feel there is some sort of shared aspiration there -- not that it shouldn't be critiqued, don't get me wrong. Just that if there's to be an article at all, it should come up to our usual standards. --Uncle Ed 20:59, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes you are right Ed.

TonyClarke 21:50, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Here's a nice quote:

For our parents and grandparents, the American dream meant hope – an unshakeable belief that happiness and security were truly possible. They knew they had a unique opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families. That dream still exists. [2] --Uncle Ed 22:02, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

____

But we all have that dream, hope isn't unique to America TonyClarke 22:43, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • I'm glad at least one person, I hope you're American, has enough sense to realize hope isn't just some word exclusive to the United States.

SD6-Agent 22:51, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

____

Nope, sorry there boy, born and reared in Ireland. TonyClarke 23:56, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

But maybe to paraphrase JFK, nowadays we are all american. Silly remark, really. TonyClarke 23:58, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Silly is an understatement SD6-Agent 10:05, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, and people thought JFK was silly when he declared himself a Berliner: but look at the place now. No offence intended.

TonyClarke 11:41, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't even know WHO that would be offensive to! SD6-Agent 00:22, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I still think this page should be deleted. It's patriotic rubbish. That definitely falls into the category of it being a candidate for VfD due to it being a biased article. SD6-Agent 04:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This page really ought to be rewritten from scratch. It offers little to no definiton for the phrase American Dream and contains quite a bit of bias. There should still be an article on the phrase, though--not because the concept is limited to America (which it isn't), but because the phrase is in the vernacular. --Erik Carson 20:16, 2004 May 7 (UTC)
The whole article ought to be scrapped. I don't even think there is a place for such an article on Wikipedia. SD6 is almost right: it's nationalist rubbish. The same people who promulgate it would likely oppose, for example, an article on the Cuban Dream or the Vietnamese Dream, etc. The supposed basic premise, that if you work hard you'll succeed, is true in America today only for young white heterosexual men. If you're over 50, or a person of color, or gay, or a woman, good luck, chump. No American dream for you. This is little more than a fairy tale myth. - Mark Dixon (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The section "Critisism of the American dream" needs to be rewritten. As it stands, it is really not a critisism at all.

The real critisim is that the American dream is false and misguided. It is not possible for everyone to become prosperous through determination and hard work. This false belief is likely to have negative consequences, such as the poor feeling that it is their fault that they are not successful, and less effort being put into raising standards for the poor since they "are all lazy" (according to one survey I saw 60% of Americans believe that the poor are poor because they are lazy, while this was true for only around 25% of Europeans).

Actually, your definition of the American dream is false and misguided. See above.

Just as important, or perhaps more important, than hard work is the family one is born into and inheritable traits such as intelligence. Although many people may think that George W. became the current US president because he worked so much harder than anyone else, a more plausible explanation is that he was born into a family of politicians. Filur 30 Jul 2004

The American dream is like a rainbow...a beautiful illusion. You think you see it; you believe that at the end of it there is your pot of gold, but if you look for it you are searching in vain. Why does America not stop searching for its 'dream' and actually do something constructive and usefel for the world? - Ruthie14 19 Nov 2004

Filur, perhaps unwittingly, showed something important about the American Dream: that it is strictly American. Social attitudes in America are different from those of the rest of the world. Beliefs about life and about history in America are different fromt hose of the rest of the world. This particular fantasy of a prosperous, suburban existence is a uniquely American one. Here there is a blend of laissez-faire capitalism and nationalistic pride that doesn't exist wherever else one looks. For better or worse, this dream was bred in America and is maintained in America.

And Ruthie would do well to recognize that there are a number of selfless Americans who do concentrate on the needs of the world over their own.Lebob 06:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I re-wrote the Criticism section to try to make it more NPOV. Regarding most of the material I removed, I did so because it seemed to be more of a criticism of American policy than of the American dream. It was valid criticism, but it didn't seem to belong in this particular encyclopedia entry. Please feel free to edit/re-add material. (I suggest just adding a wiki-link-- these topics must have been dealt with in other articles.) I removed the Israel/Palestine sentence because I just didn't see the connection or parallel to criticisms of the American dream. Please feel free to re-add it with information that would make it more clear. Thanks. --Ben James Ben 23:51, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Ha, I hope I don't sound rude, but find your reasoning a little bit odd. You say the problem with American dream has more to do with government policy than the dream. You also insist that government policy should not be mentioned in this article. Its like saying someone shouldn't mention about gravity when discussing why water doesn't flow upstream. How else can one explain critism, other than mentioning factors that make the concept impracticle? [3]


The American Dream is something that only Americans can possess. I'm sorry to inform you of this fact. It is not only a reflection of our wonderful American values, but it is also a statement of being proud to be an American. I am so sorry that all of you foreigners are mad because you cannot share in this dream.

God Bless America and nowhere else!

The American Dream revealed

The American Dream is a dream of a better life, with more freedom and more OPPORTUNITY. For any American, there a potential for he or she to become rich. How? All anyone has to do is make the right choices. Choices that will bring him finacial success. For example, anyone in America has the opportunity to buy a McDonalds franchise. Everyone in America has access to the same oppertunities. That's the basis of equal freedoms. The difference is that most people who find out about the franchise would ignore it.

Here's an example. Two middle class people with equal incomes and $70,000 savings. The first person reads that the paper and thinks:

"Hmmm... Nah! I don't have enough money to buy that. I'd have to get into debt. And what if the franchise fails?!? Then I'd have a lot of debt and not enough income!! Better not take the risk and live my employee life. Besides, I want to buy that new car I was saving up for."

The second person, however, invests in the franchise with his $70,000. He gets a $600,000 morgage on the franchise. He manages the franchise, and at first the franchise isn't making enough profit cover the morgage. But the franchise makes a come around and starts making a profit. He hires a manager and the franchise is no longer consuming his time. Now he earns money, even though he isn't working. It's because he owns the franchise, and the franchise is making money on its own (thanks to the hard working employees who make him money every time they sell a burger) The value of the franchise goes up to 1.3 million dollars, and he decides to sell it. He now has $700,000 dollars in his pocket. He took the risk of investing and it paid off. Greedy people are NOT more likely to become rich. Being cheap is not the only way of becoming rich (there are much faster ways). They don't break the law or use corruption. Most poeple who try are caught right away, or relatively soon because people notice the rich. The rich are rich because they've made and continue to make good investments.

I'm not getting how this example uniquely American. There are plenty of free/open/market/unplanned economies on the planet. A thousand years before Washington ever even thought of chopping down that cherry tree, a Mongolian goat-herd could make a pretty nice life for himself if he made and continued to make good choices about where to pasture, etc. Hard work and a little faith in the Ancient Mongolian Dream, my boy, and you could have a flock of hundreds! I wonder if there should be a note like 'although there are distinctive elements to the dream, such is the forcefulness of the national self-image that many proponents overstate its uniqueness, often attributing it with having invented basic human motivations (such as the desire for a better life)'. Ok, so a little sarcastic :)
In general, I think we have to remember to treat The Dream as national mythology or self image. There is such a thing as 'The American Dream' which is independent of whether it actually pans out. The main point of the article should be to describe what the concept means to the people that believe it (and to clearly express that these are beliefs, not facts), not how successfully realized it is. As for the criticisms, they are probably so numerous and complex as to warrant a separate entry.

Here are the things you need to become rich: Make more good investments than bad ones (we all make mistakes)

Have determination to grow assets (don't chicken out in the middle of creating a business)

Get involved in things that you can commit to (If biochemistry doesn't interest you, don't start a biochem business)

Ha, I just came across another article that look at this issue. I initially thought of finding where this survey is hosted and start an "External links" section, but then realised someone will quickly pull it out. This is from observing the dynamics that wikipedians currenly exhibit. The pertinent paragraph follows below
"If you are born into poverty in the US," said one of its authors, "you are actually more likely to remain in poverty than in other countries in Europe, the Nordic countries, even Canada, which you would think would not be that different."
Anyway, this is the link to the BBC article that I pulled the above paragraph from. Stark reality of the American dream gathima 16:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It is ashame that many of the Europeans view this as rubbish and an insult to them. When the "Dream" was coined it was because many people were leaving bad situations with the hope that the "New World" also known as America would provide them a better life. Hence the term the American Dream. Now the premise is that the "Dream" is that if you work hard and are frugal you CAN not you will definitely become more prosperous. More prosperous meaning you will be better off then you are now, and this is true. The fact is in the United States you can compile wealth through hard work, is that true in other countries most likely yes, but when the term "the American Dream" was coined the place where the opportunity could be found was the United States. I have been witness to many immigrants coming to the US with nothing and through hard work and perserverance do very well for themselves. What you are missing is these immigrants do not come from Europe anymore they come from South East Asia and South America, the same as many African and Asians move to European countries for opportunity.

I just passed by this article and it seems that all the external links are critiques of the American Dream. This indicates a subtle, but noticeable imbalance in POV. It'd be nice if one of the contributors would be able to post some positive links as well to give the section more credibility. Just a thought.

-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 23:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

There is another possibility. The whole dogma is so unrealistic nobody can write an article supportive of the idea without pulling out his/her hair. Seach around for such articles and you will be amaized by who thin they are. I can't help laughing to death when reading some of them. [4]


I've been searching for articles which support the American Dream with hard data, but can't find any. All data suggests that it's harder to get rich in the US than it is in other wealthy western countries. 217.196.239.189 11:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup/Paragraph Spacing

Looking at this article espcially the first section (Historical Background) this article needs to be spaces out a bit more, as having large blocks of text to read is distracting. Also wikifying that section might be good too... (Ill probably come back later today to do some wikifying) --KaiAdin 13:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Bear in Mind

"They call it the 'American Dream' because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin

The entire content of this section

I have been studying the concept of the American Dream for years and the content in this section simply does not match what I have seen scholars across disciplines talk about when they discuss the American Dream. But I wouldn't even know where to start with rewriting this rather odd collection of half-developed ideas. The wording is strange (the American Dream as a "faith"?), the pictures inappropriate, and the examples, like the Dot.com one, put too much emphasis on making a lot of money fast. This idea, whether you like it or not, has a rich, deep history that has guided much of American culture for 2 centuries. Is it worth starting over with a less slanted and more informed essay?

Most of these pictures and captions have nothing to do with the article. 172.184.132.171 06:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The historic facts

I was just doing some research on the American Dream for school and it seems no good resources can be found. What I'd really like to know is when the idea was originally brought up, who coined the term, who first wrote about, especially defined it. I always thought the American Dream was that through hard work and determination you can gain wealth, be as money or something else and eventually end up in a higher social class to give back to your community. - JHY

Hey, the term was first coined by James Truslow Adams in 1931, and primarily used it as a term to "describe his vision of a society open to individual achievement". It was thought to have been popularized due to the time the term was announced, shortly after the Great Depression hit, when people needed something to revitalize them and give them hope. -- MacAddct1984  23:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

suggestion

might it be a good idea to expand more on examples of fulfillment/failure/differing views of the American Dream? just a thought --M1ss1ontomars2k4 03:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Innate Intelligence

Perhaps I misenerpreted the meaning of 'intelligence', but I question the validity of the following statement: "It also fails to take inheritable traits such as intelligence and physical attributes into account".

Has IQ been proven experimentally and rationally to correlate with genetics? Aside from memory retention and other proven phenotypical attributes, I am unaware of IQ being an inheritable trait.

I would also like to raise the question of legitimacy of IQ scores in accurate indication of one's intelligence (relevant to the ability to succeed socially, politically, and financially). If these things have indeed been logically substanciated please inform me. Flux 08:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I.Q. is inherited, but certainly a poor person with a low I.Q. will have more difficulty in getting rich than a poor person with a high I.Q. Also, the quality of education tends to vary based on wealth, giving the rich an advantage in that respective. BTW, please sign your comments by adding four tildes ~~~~ after your comments. Emmett5 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it truly proven or evident that such a statement is true? Please find a viable source of data. I agree that it seems logical at a glance. However, ironically, it is my opinion that subjectivity isn't what this site is about. Flux 08:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Content

I feel the content of this article is unnecessarily 'depressing' (see POV) which is against how an encyclopedia should be written. We should revamp to include a balanced and neutral version. 60.50.255.147 20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think is depressing about it? Can you be more specific? I'll change it if you can give me some good reasons about what needs to be changed, why it needs to be changed, et cetera..-- The ikiroid  21:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons with other countries

I think this article is a bit solipsistic and the criticisms paragraph is really lacking in any sort of coherence.

We need some sort of discussion of how the ability to make money, or rise out of poverty in America differs from other capitalist countries, if indeed it does?

Also, what about the role of education? Isn't that one of the main criticisms of the American Dream? In most European countries, higher education is free, whereas in the US, poorer students need to gain a scholarship to enter the best universities. And what about nepotism, don't family connections make a huge difference?

The article just seems a bit one-sided.

NPOV Disputed on Criticism Section

Many of the criticisms listed in this section are not only highly controversial in their contents, but are provided without any balanced discussion or citations. This entire section should be re-written. It's fine if these criticism are included, but it should be pointed out that the bases of most of them are hotly disputed at best. Instead, they are being presented as if they are innocuous and mainstream. This section of the article reads like far-left political propaganda rather than a balanced review of criticism.

Ertyqway July 14, 2006

Hmmmmm - unlike much of the rest of the article which reads like corporate propoganda - to me the only POV content in this section is the inclusion of a misleading photo with the vague title “Harvard University offers a free college education to all accepted students from low-income U.S. families” How many students exactly?

Aside from that, the photo surely does not belong in this section which is after all entitled “Criticism”.

--Damnbutter 16:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Isn't the whole point of the criticism section that it offers a counterbalance to the rest of the article which is very uncritical of the concept. And what is so controversial- higher education in the US is expensive and often involves prohibitive amounts of debt, even if some students get grants. America does have lower social mobility than some other countries with a similar level of development- this point is backed from evidence from a major international organization (the OECD). Where the hardline communist propaganda in that?

Partly why social mobility is lower is because Americans (or at least the classic Americans who believe in the American Dream) also believe that the government shouldn't help people achieve their goals, only provide the conditions wherein the goals are possible to obtain. 24.90.172.131 14:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mcarthyism

There was concern about the undemocratic campaign known as McCarthyism carried on against suspected Communists.

Ain't that absolutely POV???

TommyStardust 20:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the title "Criticism" inherently another point of view?

I think it is silly to add POV to a section called "Criticism!" It's a redundancy. Yeah, the criticism is a bit left because the American Dream is often pushed by the right as a way to keep the poor where they are. I also think the whole POV label is b.s. Unless you are talking about undisputed facts that everyone agrees on, it's a matter of POV. The fact that there are some entries and not others in Wikipedia is an unsaid bias. The fact that the American Dream is this entry, but "criticism" is relegated to a POV, is a bias. Criticism of the American Dream, the Myth of Meritocracy (which has no entry) could be an entry unto itself. greenwoodjr

Disagree with Assertion

I haven't thought of a better way to place it or remove it, but the first paragraph has the following: "As of right now, the American dream is a dream of having 2 children and living in a perfect house with financial security."

I disagree with it and want to know who the hell came up with that. Two children, who decided that? What's "perfect" and what is "financial security?"

I was always under the impression that the American Dream was making yourself something big, becoming something great, making something out of your life. Not "boring life with 2 children and enough money."

I highly dispute this part of the article. --Mystalic 00:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not so much the American Dream as it is the '50s Ideal.



Am

I the only person who has the sense that much of this is written like the Libertarian Party platform, or, possibly the Republican't Party, or, even the Democan't Party??,...??

hopiakuta 23:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've found that "Republican_Party_(Ireland)" leads to "Fianna_Fáil". Does "Fáil" mean "political party", or "fail", or what?? "Fianna" "...were Irish warrior-hunters,..."

hopiakuta 00:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The "other" American Dream

Most of you are forgetting the work of a very important hero in the fight for the American Dream: Hunter S. Thompson. Many of popular society only viewed him in the light of Hollywood and in the character portrayed by Johnny Depp in the film "Fear and Loathin in Las Vegas." Though most of the film has been believed to be fact, the point still goes consistantly missed. Hunter S. Thompson's fight for the survival of the American Dream lied solely within truth and noncorruption. He was simply fighting to keep strong the foundation penned by our forfathers during this country's creation. His battle, which he believed finally to have been "****ed" upon his failure to enter the government body, was in disregard of any monetary desire. Yes, too often people believe that what they really want is two cars and a house, when in reality the American Dream lies in simply holding our country sacred and in the genuine pride in actually BEING an American. Thank you. ~Bo Hotchkiss

Literary examples?

There are loads of books out there that revolve around the American Dream. Perhaps those should be mentioned, in order to make the meaning of the American Dream clearer. I suggest The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. 01:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Snurtz

Indeed. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is also relevant. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 03:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck is another book in which the pursuit of the American Dream is a major theme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.10.104 (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't get the memo

Kinda like North Korea and Cuba. This user didn't get the memo that communism died in the early 1990's. By that, I mean, history has played out to show that many of these criticisms are not valid, or at the very least, not problematic overall. If they were, the USSR or another command economy would have established itself as an economic superpower. -NATESOR

You mean like communist China?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.126.207 (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

effort to take the POV tag off

The criticism section needs a major overhaul. First of all it's trying to cover 2 things at once. One is a criticism of the actual dream and what it hopes to achieve, the other is showing that not all Americans live this way. I think they should be split accordingly around the 6th point which begins to talk about Higher Education. Here are a few points I want to change to make the whole thing less POV after the split is made. These edits will be made in a week or two if no one objects.

1. The title. "The American Dream Downfall" Isn't the title of the section enough? 2."Consumerism and Economic materialism: Its emphasis on material possessions as a way of finding happiness is seen by critics as being somewhat superficial or meaningless. Many literary works level exactly that criticism at the American Dream, such as Arthur Miller's play Death of a Salesman. The play, a classic American work of literature, finds the main character Willy Loman struggling to come to grips with the fact that his American Dream is unattainable."

The last sentence is unnecessary, just put an internal link to Death of a Salesman and the reader can find it's synopsis there. I think there should also be a "literary" section to the whole article added, which I'll do when I make these edits to include criticisms such as Death of a Salesman, A Raisin in the Sun and the Great Gatsby as well as things like Horatio Alger's books which lay the foundation for the "rags to riches" aspect.

3."The concept of the American Dream also ignores other factors of success such as luck, family, language, and wealth one is born into.[citation needed] Proponents of the dream argue that starting wealth is irrelevant because of the belief that there is no level of poverty from which one cannot rise with hard work and determination.[citation needed]"

I don't think the concept of the American Dream ignores the "wealth one is born into" at all, in fact that's what a lot of it is based on, as mentioned in the introduction. The American Dream, ideally, works despite socio-economic background -- rags to riches. Therefore I would simply put here: "The concept of the American Dream also ignores other factors of success such as luck, family and language.[citation needed]"

4. "Some consider the American dream to be having two children and living in a house with financial security. Currently this iconic middle class lifestyle is however not lived by the majority of the population but rather only by a sizable minority."

I'm not sure why this is a criticism of the Dream. No where in the article or in any research I've read on the dream has there been a claim that a majority of Americans ever achieve it, I think the point is that ideally anyone who works hard enough should be able to achieve it. To me it would be better here to challenge the ideal of the nuclear family which is intrinsically biased against things like a traditional Chinese family where 3 generations live in the household.

The points which I'm going to assume aim to show how not everyone is living the American Dream are also POV. I guess these are meant as a sort of reality check.

5. "Higher Education ... college degree."

There just needs to be a sentence in the beginning such as "The high paying jobs in the United States increasingly require some sort of college or university degree." and then jump into why this is hard to come by for lower income families. But really this whole section has to keep in mind that I'm not sure anyone ever said achieving the dream would be easy.

6."Economies of scale – It can be difficult to successfully start a business. One reason is because of the economies of scale necessary to survive in a commoditized market, although many markets today are not commoditized."

Why is this relevant?

7."Ethical differences – As in other countries, actions considered ethical vary between Americans. For example, a CEO who sees certain stock options as excessive monetary gain would find it harder to attain great wealth than one with a different viewpoint."

I would replace the comment in it's entirety with something closer to "The original American Dream

8."The American dream may have an overtone and influence in promoting materialism philosophy with herd instinct effects."

This needs to be cited to something and separated into different points and put in the first section. The materialism is already mentioned, I can't back up the herd mentality because I've never heard that criticism before but if someone can back it up that's fine.

Let me know what you think!Omishark 03:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not knowing how to post my own two bits, I've added them here: In Iowa, during high school, I was taught that the American Dream (in general terms) was to leave future generations in a better world. Dan

It was tagged as not neutral and now I see why.

Why this? This is definately a push toward the American side of the story: "This allowed unprecedented freedom, especially the possibility of dramatic upward social mobility." That ain't right. that sentence ain't even necessary. -RadSkat3 14:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actual income in the US section

This image is a bit odd. It looks like something you'd see on CNN or the nightly news, but not an encylopedia article. I've never seen anything like it on the wiki, and the information would better presented in a table or a paragraph. Cell phone users, screen reader users, Lynx users, etc, can't see it. --Transfinite 17:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Request to have page locked

Due to vandalism, I think this page should be locked, preventing editing by unregistered or new members. I'd take out the vandalism myself, but I don't have the time, and/or desire to right now. Davepetr 20:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. There is way too much vandalism on this page. I say lock it up--FivePointCalvinist (My Friends Call me 'Cal') 01:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Meritocracy?

The opening paragraphs of this article twice mention "meritocracy" as an American (or capitalist) characteristic; this is debatable at best, "opportunity" might be a more accurate word here, but the playing field is too far from level to call our current economic system anything like truly merit-based. How many people actually make it to the top using only their own skills and hard work? Just a tiny fraction of those who struggle to make ends meet. Noclevername 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

While this can sometimes be true, the fact is that the American Dream is inextricably linked with meritocracy. The American dream is that if you work hard, you will be rewarded by merit. Whether this truly happens in our current economic system is irrelevant. Besides, a lot of positions today are truly merit-based. Sure, there is corruption, but hey, people still view it as meritocracy, or else people would stop trying to gain promotions...--FivePointCalvinist (My Friends Call me 'Cal') 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed POV tag

I cleaned up much of the poorly sourced or WP:OR material from criticisms, which seemed like the only truly contentious section. I also removed POV tag. Ronnotel 04:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Semi-protection

Self-explanatory. People keep vandalizing this article. AllStarZ 18:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I had an old hippie tell me the last place you can find the American Dream is in Oslo, Norway. Anyone have any idea why?

Wow...

The vandals got the page bad, could we have semi-protect? --Whstchy 23:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Expression" section

The Expression section seems arbitrary and unsourced. Simply listing any song that includes the phrase "American Dream" is of little encyclopedic value, and the films & books listed are without any annotation or citation. I propose removing the entire section as original research. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no opposition has been expressed, I'm going to start trimming this section. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone was bold and simply got rid of the entire section. Since this section was always a bit difficult, I decided to let the edit stand for now. --Ben James Ben 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Add a section on people who have been left out of the American Dream?

I think it would be valuable to add something like "The American Dream of property ownership and equal participation in economic life did not initially apply to all immigrants, or even all residents of the country. By the 20th century, with Socialism giving the voiceless the courage to speak out, the disempowered began to agitate in large numbers. The 20th century civil rights movements of women, blacks and other ethnic minorities have largely been directed at giving them the same access to the American Dream as white males." Comments?Sofia Roberts 04:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be valuable...if you can provide citations to back up the assertions. Otherwise, this appears to be your own analysis of the situation. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This link[5] talks about a study which has shown that children growing up in poverty in Europe are more likely to get out of that poverty than children born into poverty in the US. This is surely worth a mention, but I'm not sure the exact phrasing. Damburger 16:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That's more apprpriate at an article about poverty or class mobility in the US. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought the American Dream is about a lad from the streets getting rich through personal effort and ingenuity? At least that's one interpretation of it. If so, you've a better chance with the Danish Dream or the Canadian Dream - something that probably ought to be mentioned somewhere. I will see if there is anywhere in the article that is appropriate for this information without it disrupting the flow. Damburger 09:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of "Historical background"

I've noticed a pattern of vandalism of this article specifically where the "Historical background" section keeps getting blanked: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] These edits were made from different IP addresses. However, because of the specific nature of the edits, I suspect that one person might be behind them. It would be a great coincidence to have multiple vandals vandalising the same specific section in the same specific way. (I note that a similar pattern of vandalism was previously performed on the "Expression" section. But, eventually the removal of that section was left alone since the article was better off without it. See the discussion above.) I'm not sure what could or should be done about this type of vandalism, but I wanted people to be aware of the issue. --Ben James Ben 05:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the historical section because I think it's important to show how the concept of "American Dream" has changed over the years. A little research even on electronic databases shows that the pre-Industrial Era concept of the AD was much more concerned with the destiny of the country and the challenge of adapting European people to this new land (physically and mentally) than today. (The materialism was there too, but less prominently.) What I've added is definitely a work in progress, and I want to see references added to the variety of shades of meaning the AD has had. I would eventually like to have the three components of the AD receive separate subsections, and have a distinction made between the social science concept of the AD and the various literary concepts of the AD that have been published over the past 4 centuries.Sofia Roberts 05:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

Why are all the quotations referring to the American Dream critical of it? Can we not find more revelent ones? I suggest to put all criticism into one section and leave the rest of the article open for the actual concept of the American Dream, which, by the way, brought here tens of millions of people. Please discuss, thank you, (209.7.171.66 19:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

I agree that quotations should be both positive and negative. However, it seems to me it will take a while for people to discuss whether the three ideas "America as the land of plenty, America as the land of opportunity, and America as the land of destiny" as well as the American Dream as homeownership are adequate to encompass the concept. Once we settle on what the American dream can mean, getting appropriate quotations that won't get deleted will be easier. Sofia Roberts 19:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Re: New Problems (23/11/07)

I also noticed that somebody found it cute to put "THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE etc. etc." In big, bold letters along the Introductory statement.

I'm not American (Canadian, actually), but I still think it's stupid to put something like that up here.

Keep your "Political Statements" on your own activist websites. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral zone, just because it's in vogue to hate the States doesn't mean you should soil the reputation of Wikipedia with your e-protests.

Could anyone with proper clearance rectify this? Sorry, it just annoys me when people exploit anonymity to "Stick it to the man" or whatever romantacized hallucination they think their actions are. Like whenever anyone edits the George Bush page.

-DuckmanDrake (Wish I new all of those fancy HTML codings, sadly I'm just doing this in-between other computer programming work.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckmanDrake (talk • contribs) 18:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


New Problems (21/11/07)

in the intro the words "friggin retard" are used. Because it is in the intro, i cant edit it. How can that be describing "The American Dream"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoOkLeFt (talk • contribs) 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


12/6/07: Additional Content & Some Revision

Sociological consideration of the concept the American Dream was incorporated into the previously existing entry. Further revision is warranted. I particularly appreciate an aforementioned comment on evaluation of the AD from a literary perspective (distinct from a social science perspective).

Jkenty (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Page Corruption

I was wondering if anyone knows what happened to this page, as somewhere along the line it lost all of its Wikipedia formatting, and became a corrupted, jumbled mess resembling a paper rather than a page. I tried to reestablish some semblance of Wikipedia style, but one of the more arduous processes is going to be unbreaking the footnotes, so that there is an actual reference list, rather than a copy/pasted version of the old one. If anyone else has an interest in this page, a little restructuring according to Wikipedia style is greatly needed here. -Nik-renshaw (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean, should we just revert to the December 2nd version of the page, and then re-add the material that is properly sourced? The whole thing is just kind of a mess at this point. -Nik-renshaw (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Just having stumbled across this as an 'uncategorised page', I'd agree with Nik-renshaw - revert to the December 2nd (Wetman) version. The version created by Johnielle927 seems to be verging on the edge of violating WP:NPOV, and probably WP:NOR (IMHO) CultureDrone (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Attention Johnielle927: Regarding Class Project

Johnielle927,

It's great that you guys are doing a class project to improve this page, but the goals of Wikipedia must always supersede any other concerns, like your project. If you are going to improve the page, do it within the guidelines of Wikipedia, and do it collaboratively to create the best possible encyclopedic page on the given topic. That means you should get on the talk page here, and work with the people who are already interested in this page to improve it, rather than just displacing the work that has already been done with yours. We can all be of benefit to each other, as long as we don't get into a reversion war. -Nik-renshaw (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration, anyone?

Hi folks. So there are tons of people currently editing this article, clearly with different visions of how it should be organized, and what precisely it should say. Anyone want to actually talk this out, rather than just changing what other people do? For example, we now have a whole list of qualifiers for the American Dream that fall erroneously under the section heading "Race and the American Dream," because someone didn't like the section heading "Components." I don't want to just change it to something I personally happen to like without talking to some of you, and figuring out what the best route is here. Please, let's get a dialogue going, because this page is messy right now. -Nik-renshaw (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism / I Enjoy Talking to Myself

Hey, I was wondering if there was a good way to trace those edits back to the particular school they obviously came from, report it to said school, and get some annoying children suspended. mean, they were leaving their names, for goodness' sake. Anyone? Nik-renshaw (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes there probably is a way (look at the template on two of the IP's pages), I am just too tired from reverting those scamps to care.—Cronholm144 02:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you can get them suspended, but the vandalism might be heavy enough for WP:RPP. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It has already been semi-protected for two weeks. You are right, not suspended per se, but abuse reports to the school administrators are fair game.—Cronholm144 15:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I mean, I'm not saying that we will suspend them. I'm just saying that if I were a school administrator who saw my students using their time in the library (presumably) to swear on Wikipedia, then I would probably suspend them. So, anyone volunteer to take care of it? Nik-renshaw (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It is actually too soon to file a report; They must have been blocked at least 5 times. I guess we have to bite the bullet on this one, unless you want to contact the school on a personal level, which is certainly possible. If you do contact them, you can use this to help. —Cronholm144 16:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

How about renaming this "in popular culture"? i know that we are trying to get rid of trivia sections but i don't see how could i add American Dreamz or The Engineers song in Miss Saigon: "My American Dream", in a section named "Quotations". No one else wants a complete section about the American Dream in pop culture? -Yamanbaiia (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good section to have, as long as it was more than just a list of people or bands that reference it. If anyone could find research on pop-culture references to it, and changes over time, then combine that with the aforementioned list, then I think it would be worthwhile. Nik-renshaw (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Terrible Article, Proposed Changes

Reading through the talk sections, I don't think that what I'll say will be any different from what has already been said. This is a very sub-par wikipedia article. Much of the article is focused on a critique of the American Dream, except that the critique has been integrated into the article itself instead of having its own separate section. Thus, the conventional definition of the American Dream has not been clearly given. Instead of acknowledging the flaws of the American Dream in the main article, all the diverging views of the AD should be put in a separate article or at least be appended to the end of the definition and be clearly labeled as such.

My first problem begins with: "The definition of the American Dream is now under constant discussion and debate.[1] Also "The package of beliefs, assumptions, and action patterns that social scientists have labeled the American Dream has always been a fragile agglomeration of (1) individual freedom of choice in life styles, (2) equal access to economic abundance, and (3) the pursuit of shared objectives mutually advantageous to the individual and society." [2]"

Sure there is a debate about the concept, but does it really belong at near the beginning of the article in such length? At most there should be a note that directs a reader to further exploration of the issue in a criticism section.

Furthermore, this article reads too much like a poorly written high school research paper. Though it seems like the entire article contains a diverse range of authors cited, within each sub-section only one author's ideas are explicated. This seems highly suspicious as it may indicate a possible non-consensus on the issue and thus should not be worthy of mention in wikipedia.

For example, in the wealth, working class, and home ownership sub-sections, only one author is cited. Furthermore, Jennifer Hochschild is used almost exclusively for the entire half of the article. She and maybe 3 others take up a large portion of the citations. This is extremely poor form and I suspect someone just copied and pasted part of a school research paper onto this article.

To fix this, I will suggest that we decide on a format for this article. I am partial to:

-Intro
-Definition
-History
-Criticism (w/ alternate spins on definition included herin)
-Misc

Much of the article can be cut down to make it leaner and more focused.

Finally, here is my take on the American Dream: It is the hope that your future life and posterity will be better off than you are now.

Its that simple. The Dream's down to earth simplicity is what made it appealing to immigrant masses in the first place. Of course this is not uniquely American or even a uniquely modern idea, but it doesn't have to be since the Dream was something that has a historical context that all nations recognize as being uniquely American. America was once and still is regarded as a place of opportunity for those that work for it. It was also the first place that allowed for mass social mobility since it was a country that had no true aristocratic history. It is also a meritocratic ideal, despite whether the ideal reflects reality, though I believe that it does. MasonicLamb (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:American Dream/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

would anyone be interested in discussing, what i beleive to be a rather big question,.. is the "american dream" in fact at all possible? I originally found this article because I was skeptical whether the Dream metaphor is even permissible; that is, does it make sense, is it coherent (my own opinion is that the Dream metaphor is incoherent)? So what I was searching for here was some appraisal of just how Adams' phrase percolated so deeply through American discourse. How was Adams' text used, and where, and how popular a book was this "Epic of America?" Seem like a good starting point? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by J N Beach (talk • contribs) 23:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 19:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Combatting Liberal Bias

I think it is a really good thing that the opening mentions the part of the Constitution that liberals hate: "endowed by their Creator..." This would seem to combat the liberal bias of wikipedia that is so pervasive, and that wikipedia is so infamous for. Even though Barack Obama frequently uses censorship to exclude this part of the Constitution, I think it is important to unflinchingly look at the truth, and admit that this more concervative, religious part of the Constitution exists. Wikipedia is so liberl in fact, that I half expect my vomments here to soon be censored out. I think it is important to be openminded and tolerant of other points of view, however, and look at all parts of history and the Constitution, even though liberals may be intolerant towards them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.45.54 (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


The "endowed by their Creator" bit was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. NOWHERE does a reference or allusion to God exist in the Constitution, only a brief command that Congress shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion. This is an important distinction, given that the Constitution is the law of the land, and the Declaration is not.

Not that any of this has anything to do with the article at hand.

This article is hopeless. Would protection help?

I've been following this admittedly difficult article for several months after trying to fix it, and it's been repeatedly vandalized and changed by people who seem to have not read the article and simply want to post parts of their term papers without integrating any new information into the existing article. Unfortunately, the topic of "American Dream" is a natural for high school and college study, and this site gets more than its share of vandalism, and uninformed and overly enthusiastic edits. What we need is a link to a page called "Term Papers about the American Dream" to drain off this traffic, or some kind of protection for the page so that only established users can edit it. I don't think "indefinite semi-protection" would be enough, though. I'm giving up on trying to stabilize it.Sofia Roberts (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the term paper crowd is finished. It was a class project for them, and they kind of unbalanced the whole article. However, for about the last two months, nothing has really changed except for minor grammatical corrections. At this point, if someone actually took the time to go through and improve the article, I don't think there would be anyone to mess it up again. And then, the next time a different class or student comes around to insert their material, we just have to take a firmer stance on rejecting their additions, unless they are encyclopedic. So, whoever is up for the task, go ahead and fix it up. :-) Nik-renshaw (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the last sentence of the section "From American Dream to American Reality". First, its grammar and spelling are atrocious. Second, it makes a very similar point to the previous sentence. Third, the cited study actually says that "the United States displays a relatively high mobility in education and occupations and a rather low mobility in income" (p. 67). So this section of the article is making the assumption that the American dream is only about making more money than your parents, which is not how the article defines the American dream in the opening paragraph. Marsoult (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
First, sorry for my english. I mean it's not a good idea to delete the reference to the OECD's study, which is a complete review of the topic (mobility), and therefore a very interesting document for the readers. It should be better to use it to improve this section.--ELeng (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalized version

Today's version of the article is very different from, say, last February's version. Is there a reason why so much has been lost/removed, or is it simply stale vandalism that was never fixed? -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The current version is completely unencylopedic, and I have no idea when there was last a decent version. This page needs rewriting from scratch. Fences and windows (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that posters keep posting their own interpretation of "the American Dream", ignoring the requirement that articles are about what NOTABLE people have said or written on the subject. As I wrote a year ago, this article needs protection - at minimum, to allow only established users with a history of responsible editing to edit it. I did some research and revised the page - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Dream&oldid=167303457. However, that version is LONG gone. Sofia Roberts (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've put in a request for protection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-protection#American_Dream_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Fences and windows (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes on The American Dream

Would that be a good section to add? I know one good George Carlin quote... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.119.200 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing unsourced paragraphs

I'm removing a couple of newly-added unsourced paragraphs as original research. The article will do just fine without them for a little while during which time we can tweak them and make them answer the requirements of good scholarship. Here are the paragraphs:

These aspects, along with various other important dimensions, converge in both philosophy and in effect, in such concepts as economic freedom —the ability to earn a living based on not just on the communal value of one's labours, but the current worth of one's intelligence, discipline, and creativity —and religious liberty, namely the ability to practice faith in the manner that an individual has chosen.
The result of these factors, along with the human energy that these attract, is that the United States is now a highly synergistic and efficient society —such that contributes to its continued innovation in all areas of academic study, government, and law. Ultimately, though not without certain caveats, the prosperity of the United States is understood to serve not just the American people, but rather serves the purpose of bringing increased freedom and prosperity to all human society.

My first observation is that the lede does not need five paragraphs. Removing these two brings the total down to three. Only in unusual cases of very complex and lengthy subjects will more than three be required, and I don't think we are beyond that limit here in an article that is perhaps 8kb in size.

Second observation is that the sentence structure is obfuscatory. It spews words and clauses without leaving the reader with a lit light bulb. Let's not detour the reader into a garbled tangle of wordy bracken.

Points to ponder:

  1. "These aspects [...] converge in both philosophy and in effect..." What aspects specifically? The prior paragraph talked about two pillars. Make 'these' specific or don't. 'Converge' in what way? "Converge in both philosophy and effect" is just opaque, bad writing.
  2. "...along with various other important dimensions..." What other dimensions? Opaque and bad. -
  3. "...[space]mdash..." The proper punctuation is just one mdash, no spaces on either side. Down below the "Show preview" button, there are some dashes you can click on to avoid spelling out the HTML version of mdash.
  4. "...based on not just on..." Simple mistake, easy to fix.
  5. "...labour..." I believe we have a subject that calls for American spelling.
  6. Easter egg pipe links like "[[workforce|human energy]], [[religion|practice faith]], [[American Empire|certain caveats]]". Make these links clear or get rid of them.
  7. "...The result of these factors [...] is that the United States is now a highly synergistic and efficient society..." This highly unlikely statement must have a source.
  8. "...Ultimately, [...] the prosperity of the United States is understood to serve not just the American people, but rather serves the purpose of bringing increased freedom and prosperity to all human society..." This requires a reference.

I hope that serves to clarify my position on the two paragraphs. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

While I understand that Binksternet's/your interest in this and another particular article is not coincidental and no doubt/obviously comes from his/your taking a studious interest in my own contribution history, I do appreciate that at first glance he/you appear(s) to be doing it right, and is/are explaining himself/yourself in such serious detail that makes it worthy of my attention(s).
With those formalities out of the way, I have not yet actually read anything of his/your above comments. I will soon. Regards, -Stevertigo 05:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have identified you as a writer who adds original research, so I have investigated your edit history. In some places I saw no problem with your work, but here I saw one. Looking forward to helping this article gain some sense of where its sources are... Binksternet (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have "identified" me, you should consider reporting me. Otherwise its harassment. -SV

american dream

"My first observation is that the lede does not need five paragraphs. Removing these two brings the total down to three." - I agree that it was a bit too long. But removing two paragraphs is a bit much - particularly considering the concepts covered in the first removed paragraph. The second can go elsewhere - secondary maybe. -SV
"Second observation is that the sentence structure is obfuscatory." - Can you be specific? I don't see anything particularly ambiguous other than the "dimensions" note (below). -SV
  1. "What aspects specifically? The prior paragraph talked about two pillars." -The writing was changed by someone from its original "aspects" to "pillars." A subtle, yet typically monumental error. -SV
  2. "Make 'these' specific or don't. 'Converge' in what way? "Converge in both philosophy and effect" is just opaque, bad writing." -Agreed. - SV
  3. "What other dimensions? Opaque and bad." - Agree, in part. When we write "and also other x..." we are making an important admission that 1) the previous listed entities are not all there are, and 2) that its not efficient to try to fit the others in, at the current place. A parenthetical link to a subsection might be satisfactory. -SV
  4. "...[space]mdash..." The proper punctuation is just one mdash, no spaces on either side." "Simple mistake, easy to fix." - Fixables. -SV
  5. "...labour..." "I believe we have a subject that calls for American spelling." LOL. But is the "American Dream" just for Americans, or something that only Americans regard? -SV
  6. "Easter egg pipe links like "[[workforce|human energy]], [[religion|practice faith]], [[American Empire|certain caveats]]". Make these links clear or get rid of them." - I don't see them as Easter eggs, and in fact the terms are derive directly from their definitions. The last one is arguable, and I would not object to making the link a parenthetical (after "caveats"). -SV
  7. "This highly unlikely statement must have a source." - There is no point in stating how synergistic and efficient the US is, relative to say India or Afghanistan, as such things are obvious and need not be said. Though singling the US out as such instead of Europe or Asia is of course defeating the need for such statement. -SV
  8. "Ultimately.. world prosperity.." "This requires a reference." - Agreed. -Stevertigo 00:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel the need to report you because you are not flouting the usual guidelines for conduct. Following you around to see whether your additions have merit is not harassment, it's good shepherding. Nor is harassment the selection of one not-very-meritorious addition of yours for discussion and correction. There are plenty of actions you take that I judge to be fine as they are, or handled capably by others. I don't intend to hound you off Wikipedia or make your editing experience a living hell; I just intend that Wikipedia not become an accretion of original research, and I believe you can be educated to become one of those people who add material which is backed by reliable sources. Toward that end, we've picked apart the two paragraphs quoted above, but we haven't yet made an attempt to rewrite them. What do you think are the essentials? What do reliable sources say about those essentials? Let's build this thing back up while following established experts:
Read some of these sources, find the ones that say the things you want to say, and quote them or paraphrase them, citing them as reference. Have fun! Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
One stylistic point that bears mention is that this article is the sort that students and non-English speakers might turn to. Let's make our writing style a model of clarity, elegance and simplicity, while remaining true to the material. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I just reverted Stevertigo's simple reversion of my thoughtful copyediting job. His edit summary was "no reason given, will take to Mediation if necessary" but I don't think mediation is necessary for correcting "a ethos" to "an ethos" and "liberty liberty" to just 'liberty', as well as clarifying 'residents' (versus citizens) to "other residents". I adjusted the triple occurrence of 'prosperity' to match the double occurrence of 'liberty' so that the two concepts remain matched in prominence. Having only one of them in the first sentence wasn't balanced, so I replaced the initial 'prosperity' with idealism. This last change is subjective, and ought to reflect expert analysis of what the American Dream means, so I'm open to a discussion of what best represents the main subject of this article. All I did with 'idealism' was strive to retain the balance between liberty and prosperity. FYI, my edit summary of "ce" means "copyedit". Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not often doubt your thoughtfulness. But your representation of events is inaccurate: I inserted the term 1) "ethos of prosperity" in the lede and you changed it 2) "ethos of idealism."
The last term is an oxymoron —an ethos is an ideal with ethical dimensions, or an ethical ideal, and in any case the AD is not an "ethical ideal about idealism." Your version makes little or no sense. You could have instead changed it to "ideal of prosperity" and that would have been in the ballpark, but even that misses the point that theres an ethic (hence ethos) involved.
The first term is accurate and conceptual (see WP:CONCEPT) and does two important things that a lede needs to do: 1) it covers the concept in conceptually general terms, and 2) links to a general concept such that other similar concepts are discussed. When we talk about "The American Dream," we are linking freedom → prosperity → U.S.A.. Put aside the national element and we have freedom → prosperity, an ideal, true, but again with an ethical dimension (freedom).
Now, the only issue at the moment is that there is as of yet no "ethos of prosperity" article —just a redirect to prosperity. Is the American Dream a unique concept, such that no abstraction is required? I'm certain it isn't, and I'm looking back as far as Hammurabi to validate me, or else confirm that the U.S.A. invented —along with fresh air and sunshine —the very concept that freedom and prosperity are linked somehow. -Stevertigo 21:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any references to back up your assertions? It's high time we brought this article down to earth. It seems reasonable to me that the next version of the lede, whatever it is, should reflect the best writing on the subject. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Not my problem, as I'm not getting into specifics. All I did was add a term to the lede sentence that categoristically conceptualizes (WP:CONCEPT) what "The American Dream" means — nothing particularly interpretive, opinionistic, or difficult to deal with, and yes, the "best writing on the subject" will substantiate the 'ethos of prosperity' conceptualization, just as that same conceptualization will point quite directly toward the "best writing on the subject." -Stevertigo 23:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have text you want to add to this article, I will want to see refs. You don't have to go look for them if you don't want to be involved here. Your choice. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't accept your choice, as your concepts of "required sources" are misconceived, self-contradicted, and even inaccurate: You just yesterday claimed (at talk:loudspeaker) that only new unsourced writing needs to be removed, while existing unsourced material need not. Just an obvious example of where your conceptual rubber does not yet meet the road. -Stevertigo 23:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you talking about the article that you and I just fact-tagged like crazy? Rubber and road have met. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Ha! I fact tagged it and then you at first sought to remove most of them, actually. But now that we've got your wheels on the ground, we can start to get some traction: I'm now looking at your own recent contribution history in the audio tech department. Take notes —we're going to take your sourcing and stalking concepts to their illogical conclusion. -Stevertigo 01:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
You're mistaken that I tried to remove them all; my edits at Loudspeaker first restored every one of the tags from an IP editor deletion, followed by a series of consolidations for whole paragraphs that contained nary a reference.
You know, I find it ironic that at no time from the beginning of June 2009 to now did you add a reference to any English Wikipedia mainspace article, yet you heavily tagged an article because it has major gaps in its references. You're clearly a shoot-from-the-hip prose kind of guy—a nice skill to have—but it makes it very difficult for other editors to work with you to determine content, context and flow.
The presence of a reference or two is what anchors a string of words to something that can be verified. This is what will help the articles that you and I are tussling over. Why would somebody argue about one unreferenced version over another unreferenced version? It's all phantasm and cloud. No, we need solid words that can stand up under barrage. This is where I would like to see the articles go. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

BN: "You're clearly a shoot-from-the-hip prose kind of guy—a nice skill to have—but it makes it very difficult for other editors to work with you to determine content, context and flow." - I appreciate this on all counts. Indeed, people are different, and contribute different things to WP. Some are gnomes, some are brilliant prosaists, some are topic specialists, and some are cite-fascists.

The concept that statements *should be sourced has always been valid and will always continue to be. However, the concept that all statements *must be sourced is inaccurate, and I believe you now understand that asserting absolutist concepts, within an environment of collaboration, consensus, and open intelligence, presents only a destructive paradox.

In summary, just to get back to actually dealing with this particular article itself, my issue at present is that you accept that the expression "ethos of prosperity" is accurate, or if that is too much to ask, that you accept that the above expression is at least plausible, while yours —"ethos of idealism" —is not even English.

We can then move on to the issue of general editing concepts, patterns, and behaviour —both yours and mine. I am more than willing to accept your thesis that you have superiour concepts of sourcing, , but in doing so I require that you submit to my demonstrable capacity and near-omniscient exactness in matters of conceptualization.

Indeed, if Wikipedia truly wanted to, in the name of "reliable" sourcing, reject intelligent thought process in article conceptualization, I would have been toast a long time ago. :-\ This is not to stop people from being sourcerors if they want to be, but that is quite different from being a DBAD violator with a certain notion of protocol or correctness about "reliability." I can tell that you aren't really the latter, but in light of your interaction with me, I need you to clarify your concepts a bit first. And yes, I am not short on irony. :-) -Stevertigo 18:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to like a good mental joust; I don't. You believe in your "near-omniscient exactness in matters of conceptualization"; I don't. Talking about whether the ethos of this or the ethos of that is the right wording is wa-a-ay off base from the get-go. I like to build articles and thus the encyclopedia, and building means taking bricks and mortar from expert sources and fashioning them into structure as necessary for reading flow and comprehension. What expert source supplies you with "ethos of prosperity?" I can tell you the answer: none. A Google search for the two phrases "ethos of prosperity" + "American Dream" returned just two results, both mirrors of Wikipedia content from this article, reflecting words that you wrote. You've been making shit up! Let's agree to stick with established experts, okay? Experts who use the word ethos in this context most often equate "American Dream" and "American ethos". Other observers have decried a "consumer ethos", warned against a "Chinaskian ethos", and praised a "Puritan ethos".
So, how many times does it take to refer to WP:DBAD in talk page entries before somebody can safely assume that he is being called a dick? Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

BN cont'd.

  • BN: "You seem to like a good mental joust; I don't." - We tend to take enjoyment from the things in which we have capability.
  • BN: "You believe in your "near-omniscient exactness in matters of conceptualization"; I don't." - I joke. Still your taking issue with my omniscience doesn't change the fact that your wording, "ethos of idealism," will never, can never, mean anything at all. It just doesn't actually make sense.
  • BN: "Talking about whether the ethos of this or the ethos of that is the right wording is wa-a-ay off base from the get-go." - Well, then why did you change it to an expression that qualifies as both meaningless and senseless?
  • BN: "I like to build articles and thus the encyclopedia, and building means taking bricks and mortar from expert sources and fashioning them into structure as necessary for reading flow and comprehension." - Your a builder, that's great. The wiki needs builders, and for the most part you are right in that articles (the body, rather) are built, not just written. I understand that well enough, but I'm more of an architect who likes to get his hands dirty.
  • BN: "What expert source supplies you with "ethos of prosperity?" - I can tell you the answer: none. [Google says..]. You've been making shit up!" Indeed, how is it then that this 'made up shit,' which I gave a certain degree of thought to (ethos of prosperity), is accurate and categorical to the concept, while yours ("ethos of idealism") is not even sensible? Consider that, before you claim sourced authority. In reality, the phrase I put together is Wikipedia's and not mine, and I did not write it, rather I assembled it from a basic concept cloud of what AD deals with: Freedom + prosperity is something that even you should be able to understand. And because the concept of linking freedom to prosperity is *probably not original to the United States, I made it a link, such as to deal with it at the prosperity article. For the record, I've been "making shit up" for years —some of it actually endures, and all of it gets the job done.
  • BN: "Let's agree to stick with established experts, okay? Experts who use the word ethos in this context most often equate "American Dream" and "American ethos". Other observers have decried a "consumer ethos", warned against a "Chinaskian ethos", and praised a "Puritan ethos." - Keep in mind that a lot of people who write about America and Americana know only that by espousing a particularly sokalistic concept of how wonderful the U.S. is, they can sell a lot of coffee-table books. Keep in mind also that the subject gets quickly into very qualitative and subjective territory, such that its more the "writers" —not the social scientists —that tend to get involved in dealing with it. So this is not rocket science, and there are no "established experts" in some imaginary academic field called "American-Dreamicology" —just a lot of waxadazical commentary that I tend to find unnecessary and therefore do not read. All I did was conceptualize it (accurately) for the lede (which is all I rede anyway), and you are taking issue with conceptualization itself. And not just mine, is it? If you really have an issue with the conceptual approach, try destroying the WP:CONCEPT thesis.
  • BN: "So, how many times does it take to refer to WP:DBAD in talk page entries before somebody can safely assume that he is being called a dick?" - That's a question only you can answer. -Stevertigo 04:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is from one of the essays/books you listed — emphasis and parenthetical comments mine:

  • "Crime and the American Dream," by Steven F. Messner and Richard Rosenfeld, page 104 (anthology: Criminological theories:Bridging the Past to the Future, by Suzette Cote):
"In our use of the term "the American Dream," we refer to a broad cultural ethos (read "ethos") that entails a commitment to the goal of material success (read "prosperity [economic]"), to be pursued by everyone in society, under conditions of open, individual competition (read "freedom [economic]", with of course, by some great leap, an implied link to "freedom [social]," and competition ~ 'freedom to either succeed or fail').

They go on into interesting territory:

"The American Dream has both an evaluative and a cognitive dimension associated with it (again "ethos"). People are socialized to accept the desirability of pursuing the goal (read "indoctrination," "social identity (the very concept of which 'Tjafel and Turner' originated apparently)" →→ "nationalism") of material success ("prosperity" again), and they are encouraged to believe that the chances of realizing [cont'd..] the Dream ("the Dream" = read "mythos," that accompanies the "ethos") are sufficiently high (read "opportunity") to justify a continued commitment to this cultural goal (read "ethos" again). These beliefs and commitments (read "ethos" again) in many respects define what it means to be an enculturated member of our society (read "citizen"). The ethos (freebie) refers quite literally to the American dream...."

Not bad, actually. Nice find, even if its main topic is off-topic. Probably ideal actually. "Google" you say? Wanderful, wanderful, wanderful. -Stevertigo 05:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

More —emphasis and parenthetical comments mine:

  • Illusions of Opportunity: The American Dream in Question, by John E. Schwartz (anthology: America needs human rights, by Anuradha Mittal, Peter Rosset):
"The nation's creed asserts the moral equality of all. [..] A central component of this creed is called the American Ethos, or the American Dream (read "ethos ~ 'dream'"). Every American today (read "citizen") instinctively knows the ethos (read "indoctrination"): that every individual (read "democracy," "ubuntu") should be able to (read "ideal") get ahead and gain some measure of success (read "prosperity") through actions and means that are under his or her own control[1] (read "freedom"). The ethos (read "ethos", no more freebies for you) is that everyone who steadfastly practices certain practical values (read "work ethic," "education," "common sense," "goodwill") will find a place at the table (read "promise of opportunity")."
Ref: [1] Hochschild, Jennifer. "The Political Contingency of Public Opinion, or What Shall We Make of the Declining Faith of the Middle Class African Americans?," PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 27, no. 1 (March 1994): pg. 36."
  • Against the American Dream: Essays on Charles Bukowski, by Russell Harrison, deals largely with Bukowski's social criticism:
"The aims of this introduction are to introduce the salient factors of Bukowski's writing [..] the issue of social class, the critique of the American Dream and the critical analysis of work, as well as to note some important aspects of his career."

Harrison also appears to briefly put down (without much explanation) various socio-economic "ethos"-es (his misnomer for 'theories about socio-economic life and philosophy') both within the greater "American Dream" and distinct from it.

  • Ideology in America: Challenges to Faith, by Alan F. Geyer:

This book deals with certain ideologies in the context of belief. His usage of "ideology" appears to be broad, and encompasses territory for which "ethos" might better suffice, and in fact "ethos" doesn't seem to be in his vocabulary, except for the reference to "Puritan Ethos", which certainly qualifies, but apparently he does not consider any others. He appears to consider "ethos" to be historical (or rare/precious) concept, and instead uses "ideology" to refer to things current and relevant. Either he lacks an understanding of mythos or social personhood, or else he just doesn't want to go there because that gets into non-socio-political territory. Or (more likely), in his concepts, belief is the mythos and faith is the ethos (and therefore he deals with no other). -Stevertigo 06:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Building with references

Here's to the building up of the lead section, and of the article, with expert references that are aligned with general scholarship on the topic. Gathering the sources together so far:

I hope that gives a greater depth and breadth to the article while remaining accurate and appropriately balanced. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is "Johnson, 2004" and do we care?

I take issue with this part of the introduction:

Text:
The presence of the American Dream has not historically helped the majority of minority race and lower class American citizens to gain a greater degree of social equality and influence. Instead, the American wealth structure has often been observed to sustain class differences in which well-positioned groups continue to be advantaged.
Reference:
Johnson, 2004, pp. 6–10. "The crucial point is not that inequalities exist, but that they are being perpetuated in recurrent patterns—they are not always the result of individual success or failure, nor are they randomly distributed throughout the population. In the contemporary United States, the structure of wealth systematically transmits race and class inequalities through generations despite deep-rooted belief otherwise."

This makes up almost half of the introduction, but who is this person exactly? This is not much of a citation - there is no article name or publication name given, and this "Johnson" fellow's credentials are unknown. Unless someone can augment the citation with more information to confirm it is reliable and noteworthy or find a different source entirely, I will remove this text from the article. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Johnson is Heather Beth Johnson, visible above this thread in the list of sources, and visible on the article at the Bibliography. The pages six to ten in her book cover more territory than just the quoted portion, and she is really saying what is represented in the introduction. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I would not have made this connection reading the references, as Johnson is a common name, and the years cited in Notes and Bibliography do not match - this tends to suggest two different publications, unless a nonstandard citation format is being used here which I may be unfamiliar with. All that's visible in the Notes citation is a last name, a year, and page numbers in an unspecified publication.
That issue aside, what makes this particular author (a Ph.D assistant professor of sociology at Lehigh University) significant enough that half of this article's introduction consists of her views? What makes this book notable? It only scores about 800 hits on Google and does not appear to have been on any bestseller lists. Not to be exclusive, but I'm trying to keep undue weight in mind. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 23:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the 2006 year mistake—fixed. You're right that Johnson isn't the gray-haired sage, but she's succinct. I like Wikipedia sources where you don't have to read the whole book to piece it all together; I like the ones where a few sentences sum up an argument coherently. At any rate, other sources can be found saying the same basic things, so if I trolled the stacks for more reference books, the lead text would generally stay in place. If I swapped in some weightier authors for Johnson, most readers wouldn't know anything had happened. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That's cool. I agree that it's best to use sources which don't require an in-depth investigation on the part of the reader to link them to the supported text. Thanks for fixing the citation. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

specifics

No mention of a white picket fence? No mention of a wife and 2 kids and a family dog? .froth. (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the reference to Cullen for the quote from James Truslow Adams should be p. 4, not p. 6, in the first footnote.Debell (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixing the Quote

Despite what the Library of Congress citation says, the quote from the 1931 edition of the book is actually "a land in which life should be better richer and fuller for every man" -- not "everyone." I have the book in front of me, and it disappointed me to see the difference because I thought he was actually being progressive when I the LOC version. The Google Books snippet should confirm it. But I don't know how to change the citation, as Google Books doesn't provide a snippet large enough for the whole quote. Just the part of the every man/one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.110.69 (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama's quote does not support the American Dream

It sounds great, but there are serious problems with parts of this statement in terms of the American Dream. Let's briefly look at the key points. This isn't the actual article, just discussion about it, so I think it's okay to express my own opinions on this page. Reprimand me if I err.

"each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will"

Yes! This is central to the American Dream.

"we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect"

Absolutely.

"The market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth"

It certainly should!

"businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs"

Wrong! Not only is this incorrect, this is a devious and destructive idea. A business does not exist to create jobs. It exists to earn money. It does this by being as efficient as possible, and this often means hiring as few people as it can, at the lowest skill-levels that it can, while still being productive.

You're right--that's why some sort of government intervention in the economy is needed because, due to the business cycle, there will always be ppl who want/need to work but can't because nobody is hiring.99.103.228.4 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

With the best of intentions, people lose sight of this central principle. A business has the responsibility to take care of its business, compete in the market, meet its obligations, fulfil its contracts, and be successful so that its investors can reap the rewards. In the course of this process, jobs are created and people learn and grow, earning their pay along the way.

If a company existed primarily to create jobs, it would eventually fail. At the very worst, it would ask for a government loan, or even a bailout, thereby taking money from those who actually earned it.

"businesses should live up to their responsibilities to [...] look out for American workers"

Wrong again. If a business is not meeting the needs of its employees, those employees will eventually leave the company and find someplace that has better working conditions. There is no special responsibility here, that companies need to be nice to their employees. This is a result of the natural process; people will work where they enjoy working. If the company wants to save money on air conditioning, and passes the savings to the employees in their pay, then the people who work there are the ones who don't mind the heat, but enjoy the extra pay.

Have you ever actually had a job before? It isn't that easy just to quit and find a new line of work (especially for ppl working in lower income activities)--employers know this and capitalize on it all the time, treating workers in many industries like desperate serfs. In any case, you're just proving why it's necessary for the government to step in apply regulations in the workplace and why the reforms of the Progressive Era were so important (reforms that spoiled ppl like you into thinking the workplace was fine just the way it is).99.103.228.4 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"businesses should live up to their responsibilities to [...] play by the rules of the road"

Yes, actually, if one defines the rules properly. For example, contracts must be kept, in order for trust to exist. This is one case where government is empowered to step in and take action; breach of contract. Also, every company tends to want to become a monopoly, because that is where the most money can be made, but a monopoly is not healthy for the system. The government must protect the consumers from anti-competitive monopolistic practices.

"we are responsible for ourselves"

Yes, please! The government must stop giving hand-outs. If the government wants to give something away, provide free skill training, not free money. People who put their very survival into the government's hands are not being responsible for themselves, and this is terribly injurious to them. Giving a poor person money to support their lifestyle just keeps them poor.

Again you're showing just what a spoiled little person you are (and I used to be like you when I was younger). The vast majority of poor ppl are NOT lazy or criminals and do NOT choose to be poor (and not all ppl have had the benefit of being able to go to good schools, grow up in nice, crimefree neighborhoods, or had enlightened, well-meaning parents. Besides, how does only giving out money for "skill training" help someone who's too old to get a new job, or a kid who only has a poor single-mother to rely on (and has nobody to look after him if the mom goes to work)? Should the kid pay the price for having a mom in a desperate situation? What about all those ppl who would like to work, but can't due to some medical difficulty that, thanks to our great health care system, can't get treatment either because such treatment is too damned expensive or its a "precondition" and, thus, isn't covered? What about ppl who want to work, but can't because they've been out of work for a long time due to some sort of illness, and, due to this, no employer wants to give them a chance (thinking that they might get sick on them)? Should they be forced into permanent homelessness because of this? What about ppl who live in an area without any jobs and who don't have a car to seek jobs far from home? Not all ppl on public aid are bums--in fact, most aren't. Get off of your computer and get a volunteer job at a charity, shelter, or homeless kitchen. There are plenty of poor ppl out there who want a chance to work but can't get one. What's better in this case, giving them money (and, yes, hopefully skills) to keep them afloat, or just letting them fall through the cracks? (BTW: the cost of incarcerating a person in prison for one year is a lot more--in both direct and indirect costs--than paying that person welfare for an entire year)99.103.228.4 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"we also rise or fall as one nation"

Not at all! We rise and fall individually, and the rewards of our labors are not divided equally among the residents of the country. This statement contradicts the American Dream. You want to help out the nation? Have a good idea, start a business around it, employ people, earn some money, invest wisely, keep a healthy savings account, and spend your earnings on whatever you want. It's possible for people to actually generate wealth. Look at those who have been successful with respect, and work towards that goal.

Short-sighted. The most important resource this country has is human capital. For decades Europe and Japan have invested in their ppl's education and health, while our country has done little of this and, as a result, has some of the most poorly performing students in the industrialized world--students who grow up to become stupid adults who spend all day making idiotic comments on You Tube, news articles, partisan blogs, or become doctrine-spouting far right or far left Ignoranti. Thanks to you short-sighted conservatives who think it makes sense to play with just half a team, the future is going to belong to the EU and China, not the US--but, hey, at least you'll be able to spin the evidence like a good little dittohead and blog about how the decline of the US was really the fault of liberals and shiftless minorities.99.103.228.4 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The American Dream means that each individual has the opportunity to benefit from his own labors. Not that each individual works for the benefit of those who don't contribute. Obama seems to favor the latter, and his quote demonstrates this. Wadsworth (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Again the spoiled outlook of the spoiled white person. You really think that all successful ppl are personally responsible for their success (and that the poor have asked to be poor)? If so, you know very little of life. Again, get a volunteer job at a charity and learn more about the poor ppl you have so much undeserved contempt for, and you'll see just how much the deck is stacked against the majority of such ppl.99.103.228.4 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Simply because Obama did not use the two words "American Dream" in the speech, any proposition that the speech is about the American Dream must be supported by a reliable source. There was none given. The reference was not for critical analysis of his speech, comparing it to the American Dream, it was a link to the bare text of the speech. If somebody really wished to bring any of Obama's points back into the article, there should be a reliable source backing up the connection to this topic. Thanks, Wadsworth, for deleting the speech; as it appeared it was in violation of WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Happy to do so. Wadsworth (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Later 20th and 21st centuries

In this section there is not a legitimate source to base the theory that there is a ″lost of faith″ in the American dream. I have found an actual study conducted by Metlife [11]. In this section the focus should be on a new emerging definition of the American dream rather than the so called ″lost of faith in″ in it. Idugall (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

MetLife study

Idugall has twice removed a Vanity Fair conclusion "that during the 1990s to the 2000s, an increasing number of people confess to having lost faith in the American Dream". Instead, the editor has been adding this rah-rah replacement:

Emersion of a New American Dream
In the past couple of decades, the American people have gradually made a conscious ideological shift of their perception of the American Dream. When the American Dream was first thought up by James Truslow Adams, in his 1931 book Epic of America, the vision was: “A land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.” Although, the constant fluctuation of the economy has given Americans reason to cherish things other than financial stability. Metlife’s study shows that in today’s world there is a change in the definition of the American Dream. (Metlife Study of the American Dream. [12])

I have several problems with this replacement. One, it snuffs out the Vanity Fair bit which I think is deserving of mention. Any changes to the article should take the Vanity Fair conclusion in stride, not erase it. Two, the reference is hosted by MetLife, a non-neutral observer—they are not a magazine or newspaper. Three, the MetLife study analyzed only 2200 questionnaires. Four, the MetLife study can be used to show specific statistic conclusions such as the number of people who are less confident about the Medicare and Social Security systems, but in the text we are treated to, there is only the very optimistic conclusion. Any thorough perusal of that study will show that it gives ammunition to both sides of the argument—that an optimistic outlook is not indicated by its results. "Emersion"? How archaic. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I see where you are coming from I respectfully disagree. It was not my intention to completely dismiss the Vanity Fair article, but(Please Correct Me If I AM Wrong)I just did not see any hardcore facts and statistics to support your claim of "having lost faith" in the American Dream. Furthermore, if I took your idea about the American Dream "in stride" it would be a distinct contradiction to my contribution. Although, I do understand that the Metlife study has a small pool of participants, but my view: "is some is better than none." Right? Without the Metlife study my contribution would be an empty claim like yours appears to be. In conclusion, the way a study in perceived is purely personal, an eternal optimist would take the study with great joy and a cynic would take it with a grain of sand. To disregard my contribution for its utter fallacy and lack of evidence would be fine, but do not deny the readers a great view and source because of a personal vendetta of cynical nature. --Idugall (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Sources under discussion
Idugall, I have no personal vendetta. At Wikipedia, secondary sources such as newspapers and magazines are preferred, per the policy guideline at WP:SECONDARY. Between the commentary from David Kamp, the Vanity Fair writer, and conclusions made by MetLife based on their annual study, the Kamp opinion is preferred. The MetLife study, a primary source, can be used to bolster facts, not opinions.
What we do when faced with two conflicting sources is supply the reader with both. "Source 'A' says it is white; however, source 'B' says it is black." That general formulation is what I meant when I wrote "take the Vanity Fair conclusion in stride, not erase it."
Frankly, I am not impressed by the MetLife study. It states that 2,243 online surveys were completed, but then says only 1443 were in the United States. The numbers are too small to make sweeping conclusions, and the sample population is already skewed by the respondents being online, and by them having gone to MetLife's website. The study itself reveals some dark financial facts, and then uses those facts to assert that Americans will rely more on insurance in the future, including, I imagine, MetLife insurance. Following this pessimistic conclusion, the study jumps into unsupported optimism in its call to action, to get the government policymakers to make it easier for Americans to have insurance. The whole study appears to have a goal, an agenda, that cannot be ignored. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
we need to report the MetLife study, whether we agree or not. It is directly on topic, is recent, and was conducted by a leading polling firm and the methodology is solid (It was not conducted by the insurance company. they commissioned Penn, Schoen & Berland who designed the survey and conducted 2,243 online surveys among the U.S. general population in 2009. Online research is becoming standard these days because it allows more in-depth analysis than quickie phone interviews.Rjensen (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
We can refer to specific numbers obtained from the report, but using its leap-of-faith conclusions is not adhering to a neutral point of view. The hard numbers are useful. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
ok Rjensen (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Immigration and Industrial Revolution

Honestly, this article has undergone significant revisions and lacks any historical context as to the formation of the idea itself and its propogation in American culture.

The supposed 'American Dream' spurred massive emmigration from Europe in the 1800's which lead to massive population growth in urban areas such as New York, Chicago and Detroit. Coupled with the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs during the Industrial Revolution and construction of massive infrastructure projects such as the transcontinental railroad (jobs which were not readily available in Europe and abroad), the American Dream as an idea was already largely in place (even if the phrase wasn't coined until 1931). The perception was that America was the land of opportunity. Since the American Dream is not tangible and is rather a perception or an idea, this seems like a logical tie-in.

Immigration and the American dream are inseparable as immigration spurred the American dream and the American dream further spurred immigration. Does no one else see this obvious link? And the references to Ellis Island from years ago have been completely removed FivePointCalvinist (My Friends Call me 'Cal') (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

well maybe and maybe not. There has been LOTS of migration to other countries (Canada, for example, and Argentina and Brazil). Better find some RS. Rjensen (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Should Of Mice and Men be included as an example in this article, per this edit? If so, how should it be sourced? Some discussion has taken place at User talk:2over0#American Dream. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It should certainly not be included in the lede like that. If it bears discussion later in the article (which is quite possible) it should be sourced to a reliable secondary source discussing it.--Cúchullain t/c 05:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggested to the editor wishing to add this bit that it would help the article if some of these or these sources were used to establish the scholarly position on Steinbeck's portrayal of the American Dream in his book. The idea is sound enough to bear further investigation. Binksternet (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Third Opinion

Having read the book myself, the American Dream is the central theme of it. However, whatever could be included about Of Mice and Men would only be a personal interpretation, which would constitute as WP:Original research. The detail as per the edit should not be included, but a brief mention (one or two sentences) of the book could be appropriate. Welshleprechaun (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this is a year out of date, but I was taught at School that the whole point of the book is about the American dream so in theory there should be lots of decent sources on this interpretation.(Morcus (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC))

Steinbeck is covered (see fn 11) with cite. Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Social mobility

Social mobility in the US is significantly lower than in a number of EU countries. American men born into the lowest income quintile are much more likely to stay there compared to similar men in the UK or Scandinavia.[1]

  1. ^ De Grauwe, Paul (2 July 2007). "Structural rigidities in the US and Europe". Retrieved 1 January 2010.

Quote: "Death of the American Dream

The strength and pride of America has traditionally been that it provides for a high level of social mobility. It is part of the “American Dream” in which the poorest of the poor can climb to the top of the social ladder in one generation. This dream has attracted millions of outsiders to the land of promise, away from old Europe, which was incapable of providing a future for the poor. The high social mobility has also worked as a “safety valve” that allows political acceptance of the high income inequality in the US. Finally, it has provided the basis for the extraordinary dynamics of the US economy. Developments of the last decades have shattered this American Dream. It now appears that many EU countries have created an environment in which it is significantly easier for the poor to climb the social ladder than it is in the US. Structural reforms will be necessary in the US if it wants to emulate the success of European countries in organising social mobility."

Maybe this aspect is worth further study.--Nemissimo (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this article is on the "American Dream", which is a concept, not social mobility in the United States versus some other countries. The concept hasn't been all that tied to the reality of the situation, but it certainly has a life of its own. I don't think that specific article is all that useful here, as its comparison is too limited (the "several EU countries" are actually "the 4 EU countries in Scandanavia plus the UK").--Cúchullain t/c 16:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed sentence about social mobility because it does not belong in the lead paragraph --DavisJune (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion social mobility is a core part of the American Dream and should stay in the lede. Rjensen (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm not opposed to talk of social mobility in the article, but it stands out like a sore thumb in the lead. The american dream at its core it just that, a dream or a concept. Discussion of whether it is obtainable is fine, but it shouldn't be in the introduction of the concept. --DavisJune (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Social mobility is the key component to the American Dream. Try this article in The Economist: "The American dream is simple: work hard and move up." The New York Times published an article, "Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs", including a quote from John Bridgeland about today's issues, "...a lack of mobility—a lack of access to the American Dream."
There are many more sources, but these are quite enough to establish the critical, central importance of social mobility to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read my comments again. I'm not against the social mobility information, it just doesn't have a place in the lead. Any criticisms of the American Dream should go in the base of the article not the lead. Social mobility is just one part of a concept. The American Dream should be defined and then viewpoints should go afterwards-- below the split. --DavisJune (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If your point is that the material should go in the article body rather than in the lead section, why did you delete it rather than move it to the article body? Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If I recall, I asked you to do that multiple times. It was your piece. --DavisJune (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Mine? It was added by TheTruthiness in this edit. Your act of deleting it rather than moving it lost you the moral high ground. The article should, of course, conform to the guideline at WP:LEAD asking us to put new material in the article body, saving the lead section for a summary of what is described below. Moving the bit from TheTruthiness would have helped your case considerably. Now that this stiff little discussion has taken place it is clear that the bit from TheTruthiness should not only be put into the article body but also expanded with the book sources in the bulleted list above. Binksternet (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, clearly I got you confused with the other user. Moral ground? I'm sure you have that covered. Why anyone would look for moral ground on wikipedia I do not know, but please-- let's stay on topic. You're confused in that you seem to believe I was looking to build a case, however I am not. Please read my comments before you respond to them. Everything that you've said, I've already stated. I have no issue with the information presented. The problem was the placement. There was already a section for criticism. I pointed this out and directed the user to it. It is simply not that difficult and there is no reason that it should be. By all means, feel free to acknowledge and expand on those points. I would suggest nothing less. --DavisJune (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No mention of hyprocrisy???

The "American dream" phrase was made in 1931, when many more democratic nations than America had Universal suffrage with the right to vote in everyone being treated equal, which America did not until 1977.... so the "dream" was only open to those with rights. The lead does touch on minorities not having equality, but the overview refering to the 19th century bogus claims of liberty makes no mention of the hypocrisy of this, with the existence of black slavery, no womens vote...etc etc. Its very unbalanced and onesided.Jeffarmstrong01 (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think if you were to do some research on these "more democratic nations" that you refer to, you would find that this is much more theory than practice as well (and that many of those nations had "established churches" that ppl had to pay taxes to, even if they weren't believers, and that speech in those countries was more restricted than in the US, which is still the case comparing the US to Europe today--i.e., what can only be said in a part of Hyde Park in the UK can be said ANYWHERE in the US). Besides, sorry to say it, but it's quite easy not to be racist when you live in a country where everyone is one race. If nations of Europe (or anywhere in the world) back in 1931 had the same fractions of blacks that the US did back then, I bet you would see far less democracy on their part then they offered when everything was all white (just look at some of the racist policies European nations today show towards Turks or North Africans--or just Eastern Europeans). Of course, I'm not saying that the presence of black ppl justifies racism, I'm just pointing out that there are many racists out there (especially in 1931) whose racial enlightenment or lack of enlightenment has never really been put to the test.99.103.228.4 (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Besides, the American Dream (back in the 1930's at least) wasn't just about living in a democratic country. It was also about being able to live in a country where you didn't need to have rich and/or aristocratic parents to "make it". Of course, most immigrants had the deck stacked against them in many areas, but, still, the chances for upward mobility in the US for such immigrants was far superior to anything that existed for them back in the old country (and in most cases still is).99.103.228.4 (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"what can only be said in a part of Hyde Park in the UK can be said ANYWHERE in the US". Haha, what? Why do idiots talk about things they have no idea about? What can be said in a part of Hyde Park, can also be said all over the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.22.177 (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Irishfrisian

Irishfrisian has repeatedly vandalized this article page by erasing information he does not want to read about social mobility. It is a major topic in sociology and economics and has numerous cites to the RS. He claims with no sources whatever that the sourced scholarly studies are wrong. He has a long record of reckless editing on other articles with repeated warnings. Rjensen (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

This article is, as noted before, highly unbalanced. A good chunk of it needs to be scrapped, as it reads less like "Encylopedia entry on the American Dream" and more like "Attempted Dissection of Misrepresented American Dream". As the peer review notes, the dream is a concept, not a reality. It also seems to be an idea nobody really grasps. I suggest the following definition for the Dream. The American Dream is: a belief that a person can be whoever or whatever they want, so long as they are willing to put forth the work and take on the risks associated with their ideal. The Dream doesn't involve economic prosperity, and to suggest that it does ignores the individualist themes of the Dream. It isn't one set goal, it's a method of achieving a personal goal. Saying that you have to have wealth to "live the Dream" creates a universal societal goal in direct opposition to the concept of personal freedom, which goes hand in hand with the Dream. —El Pez Dispenser (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC) comment added by El Pez Dispenser (talk • contribs) 18:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)





So I've never really added any suggestions before so im not sure if this is the right way to do it, but I think that maybe someone should add a paragraph in the article about the thought that the American Dream is merely a social construction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.27.83 (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Biased?

is it biased 2 anyone else, dcollins52 is my username, just not signed in reply there if it is/isn't to u thanks!24.110.2.116 (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with dcollins52. This article, to me, reads as biased due to the fact that it is presenting a philosophical viewpoint without presenting any criticisms or counterpoints whatsoever. In this article the American Dream is made out to be an optimal social configuration, and many quotes are given that indicate that other countries have less optimal social configurations. The article possesses a solid positive bias by selectively illustrating facets and opinions that paint the idea of the American Dream in a favourable light. I believe that in order to move towards an unbiased representation of the American Dream, there need to be inclusion of counterpoints and criticisms and a more objective representation of the core concepts associated with the American Dream. --Stiverton (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Dream/Archive_1&oldid=1235529100"