Why I’m not proud to be an American

I was born here, so I am not proud to be an American, but I am proud of many others who chose to become Americans and did the work to do so.

When, as a schoolchild, I first learned of the population of the United States and the world as a whole, I wondered how it was that I was so lucky to have been born here. In 1960, the United States (181 million) had about 6 percent of the world population (over 3 billion). I tried to envision myself in other less fortunate circumstances, but this was the only life I knew.

In 1984, Lee Greenwood wrote and sang the song “God Bless the U.S.A.,” which included the line “And I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free.” Even though I love the song, whenever I hear it I think, “No, I am not proud to be an American. I am happy to be an American; I am fortunate to be an American.” But it is not something I earned or accomplished. It was just the luck of the draw. People who came here and worked for and earned their citizenship could rightly be proud of their accomplishment, and also happy to reap the benefits of citizenship.

Over the years, I have met, worked with, and become friends with many immigrants, most of whom became citizens. Some came here as refugees who had escaped Eastern Europe communist dictatorship. Some were from families that had escaped China in 1949 when Mao’s army took over the country. One escaped as a child at the fall of Saigon. Some came as students, or because there was an opportunity for work here. Some came from Europe, some from Africa, some from Southeast Asia some from Canada, and some came from Mexico, Central America or South America.

Some were Christian, some Jews, some Muslim, some Baha’i, some Hindu, some agnostic or atheist. All were happy to be here. For those who came from oppression, I sometimes ask whether, if circumstances were different, would they prefer to be back “home.” I ask this, because I always have the feeling that people have an inborn desire for their homeland. I can’t recall any wanting to leave, although some express a desire to visit relatives or see their place of origin.

The stories are all unique, sometimes sad or bittersweet. A close grad-school friend whose family had escaped China to Taiwan when he was four, went back to visit thirty-some years later after gaining citizenship here. He found out that he had an older sister his parents had left behind with relatives. They had never mentioned her. A couple that escaped Poland about 1980, had to get out separately, one at a time, and left behind a year-old daughter. Fortunately they were able to get her out after about a year.

An Armenian couple from Iran was fortunate to be working here before the Ayatollah took over. Another friend from Iran was a student in the U.S. at the time. He happened to be visiting there at the time of the takeover. An older brother of his was a police chief and was able to get him on a plane back to the U.S. He says other students were not so lucky. They were told they were welcome to come back. Those that did were never heard from again.

There were two co-workers and friends from work who were from Egypt. One I have come to know closely. He got his doctorate degree in Moscow before coming here. He knows more about American History than probably 99 percent of people born here. And if you ever think that all Muslims are evil, you should meet him. He is one of the gentlest and most reasonable people I know (and yes, we do talk about God, religion, and politics).

These and many more have reason to be proud to be Americans. And I am proud of them – ­­and proud to be their friend.

The inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty says it:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

 

Featured image from wallpaperfolder.com

The President and His Cabinet

Donald Trump’s cabinet selection process has repeatedly brought up mention of Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet picks, often termed the “Team of Rivals.”

We need the strongest men of the party in the Cabinet. We needed to hold our own people together. I had looked the party over and concluded that these were the very strongest men. Then I had no right to deprive the country of their services.

— Abraham Lincoln

 

Donald Trump’s cabinet selection process has repeatedly brought up mention of Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet picks, often termed the “Team of Rivals.” Three of his cabinet members had run against him in the 1860 Presidential election: Secretary of State William H. Seward (famous for “Seward’s Folly,” the not so foolish after all purchase of Alaska from Russia); Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase (on the $10,000 bill, and namesake of Chase Manhattan Bank); and Attorney General Edward Bates.

I had begun to read America in Person: 96 first-person accounts of America’s past (by George D. Youstra) and came across an account by Charles A. Dana (assistant Secretary of War for Lincoln). It is interesting reading, and thought-provoking on the subject of cabinet selections and the personal interplay among the President and cabinet members. Trump seems to be pragmatic and willing to work with people that he disagrees with and maybe even people he doesn’t like. I am hopeful that he will include a variety of independent thinkers to advise him. And, I am hopeful that they will consider their job as a service to “We the People” rather than a chance to advance themselves.

LINCOLN AS PRESIDENT: The President and His Cabinet (1861-65) by Charles A. Dana

Mr. Dana was Lincoln’s Assistant Secretary of War under Edwin Stanton.

During the first winter I spent in Washington in the War Department I had constant opportunities of seeing Mr. Lincoln, and of conversing with him in the cordial and unofficial manner which he always preferred. Not that there was ever any lack of dignity in the man. Even in his freest moments one always felt the presence of a will and of an intellectual power which maintained the ascendancy of his position. He never posed, or put on airs, or attempted to make any particular impression; but he was always conscious of his ideas and purposes, even in his most unreserved moments.

I knew, too, and saw frequently, all the members of his Cabinet. When Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated as President, his first act was to name his Cabinet; and it was a common remark at the time that he had put into it every man who had competed with him for the nomination. The first in importance was William H. Seward, of New York, Mr. Lincoln’s most prominent competitor. Mr. Seward was made Secretary of State. The second man in importance and ability to be put into the Cabinet was Mr. [Salmon P.] Chase, of Ohio. His administration in the Treasury Department was satisfactory to the public. Mr. Chase authored the national banking law. Mr. [Edwin M.] Stanton was the energetic Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the Navy throughout the war was Gideon Welles, of Connecticut.

The relations between Mr. Lincoln and the members of his Cabinet were always friendly and sincere on his part. He treated every one of them with unvarying candor, respect, and kindness; but, though several of them were men of extraordinary force and self-assertion-this was true especially of Mr. Seward, Mr. Chase, and Mr. Stanton-and though there was nothing of self-hood or domination in his manner toward them, it was always plain that he was the master and they the subordinates. They constantly had to yield to his will in questions where responsibility fell upon him. If he ever yielded to theirs, it was because they convinced him that the course they advised was judicious and appropriate. I fancied during the whole time of my intimate intercourse with him and with them, that he was always prepared to receive the resignation of any one of them. At the same time I do not recollect a single occasion when any member of the Cabinet had got his mind ready to quit his post from any feeling of dissatisfaction with the policy of conduct of the President. Not that they were always satisfied with his actions; the members of the Cabinet, like human beings in general, were not pleased with everything. In their judgment much was imperfect in the administration; much, they felt, would have been done better if their views had been adopted and they individually had had charge of it. Not so with the President.

He was calm, equable, uncomplaining. In the discussion of important questions, whatever he said showed the profoundest thought, even when he was joking. He seemed to see every side of every question. He never was impatient, he never was in a hurry, and he never tried to hurry anybody else. To every one he was pleasant and cordial. Yet they all felt it was his word that went at last; that every case was open until he gave his decision.

The above excerpt is from: Charles A. Dana, “Lincoln as President: The President and his Cabinet,” in George D. Youstra, editor (1975), America in Person: 96 first-person accounts of America’s past, Bob Jones University Press, p194-196. ISBN-10: 978-0-8908-4026-9. ISBN-13: 978-0-8908-4026-9.

Header quote by Lincoln from Wikipedia article on:  Goodwin, Doris Kearns (2005), Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. Simon & Schuster. ISBN: 978-0-7432-7075-5.

Header image by DSM (full name unknown) a line-drawing distributed in the 1960’s by Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, Los Angeles, California (now defunct) apparently drawn from a well-known photograph of Lincoln (see below). (I obtained the drawing from a local branch and have displayed it in my room, my college dorm room, my office, and my home office since that time.)

abraham-lincoln