ESSAY PROMPT: Some people claim that you can tell whether a nation is great by looking at the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists. Others argue that the surest indicator of a great nation is, in fact, the general welfare of all its people.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
What makes a nation great? Is it the achievement of its leaders, entrepreneurs, and scientists? Or is it the overall welfare of all its people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, and social class? I would argue that it is the latter. A few people at the top have great achievements? Then good for them, but this does not mean that the nation as a whole is great, as it is possible to have wildly successful people at the top and have people in the streets begging for food and struggling to survive. A nation is comprised of much more than doctors, engineers, scientists, and businessmen. A nation includes everyone, rich or poor, that lives in it and contributes to it.
In the 1980's, Korea achieved wild economic success after the fundamental economic reforms instituted by President Park Chung-Hee. Korea had climbed out of the depths of despair after decades of colonialism, and years of war. Corporations, called chaebols, took advantage of government support (also known as taxpayer dollars) that would support them in the best of times and even prop them up in the worst of times. CEO's of these multinational corporations were raking in huge sums of money, and yet there were millions in urban and rural areas who could not afford to care for themselves, and their family. The country was ruled by an authoritarian regime, and free speech was stifled, if existent at all. Pro-democracy movements were violently shut down by the government, while the very same government would cozy up to big business and help them obtain their profits at the expense of the environment, and the public. In short, this was unregulated capitalism run amok. Although many of those lucky enough to become engineers and scientists led very successful and happy lives by becoming employees at these companies, basic social services were lacking. It took the radical thinking of Kim Yong-Moo and others like him, who led peaceful protests against the authoritarian regime, to say that society cannot continue exploiting regular people and the working class simply for the sake of endless profit and the desire for the government to claim that Korea was "one of them", meaning one of the powerful industrialized nations such as Japan, and other Western powers. These radical reformers argued that a society that privileges only a select few and leaves millions upon millions behind would only appear "great", and maybe even would genuinely be a great power, but only for a few years. If the base of the social pyramid, being the working-class and average people, crumbled, then society itself would crumble even if those at the top did everything they could to stop it. It was only through reforms after the toppling of the regime that social safety nets, along with stringent regulations on big businesses, that the Korean society became much healthier. A nation comprises of millions of its citizens, and by definition, a nation cannot be great if the majority of those living in it suffer greatly. And to this day, even though there are many structural problems in Korean society to resolve, child poverty has declined precipitously compared to the 80's, mothers are allowed generous maternity leave to care for their children, workers rights have greatly improved, and equality of opportunity is more or less available to everyone. This is what truly makes a society great.
But there will be those who argue that it is the very few at the top who make all the great advancements in society. Engineers make new gadgets, businessmen form big companies that rake in billions of dollars in profits, and scientists make all the important discoveries in medicine, and technology. If a society doesn't have these smart people who make all these ground-breaking advancements, is it truly great, they ask. And they would say no. But looking closer at this argument, we must ask, who makes all these things possible? The proponents of this argument would say it is those at the top, like brilliant scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. But without the millions of people in a society, what businessman would make a profit? Without the public, who would fund the great scientific discoveries? Without the public, who would sustain all the great things that make these brilliant innovations and discoveries possible? It is clear that only by having a healthy, thriving society can those at the top continue their own greatness. In short, it is only by having a society that is well-off, is healthy, and is prosperous, that great minds can also continually innovate, which, according to the proponents of the argument, is what makes a great society.
In conclusion, it is only by having a healthy, prosperous society that a nation can be considered great. There is no doubt that things such as important scientific discoveries, and great business minds also make up a great society. However, it is only by having a prosperous society that great innovations in science, and business can be sustained. Therefore, it is only by having solid fundamentals in the social pyramid, this being the general public, that a great society can last long into the future.
plsss provide good feedback thanks :)
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
great nation, great society
What makes a nation great? Is it the achievement of its leaders, entrepreneurs, and scientists? Or is it the overall welfare of all its people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, and social class? I would argue that it is the latter. A few people at the top have great achievements? Then good for them, but this does not mean that the nation as a whole is great, as it is possible to have wildly successful people at the top and have people in the streets begging for food and struggling to survive. A nation is comprised of much more than doctors, engineers, scientists, and businessmen. A nation includes everyone, rich or poor, that lives in it and contributes to it.
In the 1980's, Korea achieved wild economic success after the fundamental economic reforms instituted by President Park Chung-Hee. Korea had climbed out of the depths of despair after decades of colonialism, and years of war. Corporations, called chaebols, took advantage of government support (also known as taxpayer dollars) that would support them in the best of times and even prop them up in the worst of times. CEO's of these multinational corporations were raking in huge sums of money, and yet there were millions in urban and rural areas who could not afford to care for themselves, and their family. The country was ruled by an authoritarian regime, and free speech was stifled, if existent at all. Pro-democracy movements were violently shut down by the government, while the very same government would cozy up to big business and help them obtain their profits at the expense of the environment, and the public. In short, this was unregulated capitalism run amok. Although many of those lucky enough to become engineers and scientists led very successful and happy lives by becoming employees at these companies, basic social services were lacking. It took the radical thinking of Kim Yong-Moo and others like him, who led peaceful protests against the authoritarian regime, to say that society cannot continue exploiting regular people and the working class simply for the sake of endless profit and the desire for the government to claim that Korea was "one of them", meaning one of the powerful industrialized nations such as Japan, and other Western powers. These radical reformers argued that a society that privileges only a select few and leaves millions upon millions behind would only appear "great", and maybe even would genuinely be a great power, but only for a few years. If the base of the social pyramid, being the working-class and average people, crumbled, then society itself would crumble even if those at the top did everything they could to stop it. It was only through reforms after the toppling of the regime that social safety nets, along with stringent regulations on big businesses, that the Korean society became much healthier. A nation comprises of millions of its citizens, and by definition, a nation cannot be great if the majority of those living in it suffer greatly. And to this day, even though there are many structural problems in Korean society to resolve, child poverty has declined precipitously compared to the 80's, mothers are allowed generous maternity leave to care for their children, workers rights have greatly improved, and equality of opportunity is more or less available to everyone. This is what truly makes a society great.
But there will be those who argue that it is the very few at the top who make all the great advancements in society. Engineers make new gadgets, businessmen form big companies that rake in billions of dollars in profits, and scientists make all the important discoveries in medicine, and technology. If a society doesn't have these smart people who make all these ground-breaking advancements, is it truly great, they ask. And they would say no. But looking closer at this argument, we must ask, who makes all these things possible? The proponents of this argument would say it is those at the top, like brilliant scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. But without the millions of people in a society, what businessman would make a profit? Without the public, who would fund the great scientific discoveries? Without the public, who would sustain all the great things that make these brilliant innovations and discoveries possible? It is clear that only by having a healthy, thriving society can those at the top continue their own greatness. In short, it is only by having a society that is well-off, is healthy, and is prosperous, that great minds can also continually innovate, which, according to the proponents of the argument, is what makes a great society.
In conclusion, it is only by having a healthy, prosperous society that a nation can be considered great. There is no doubt that things such as important scientific discoveries, and great business minds also make up a great society. However, it is only by having a prosperous society that great innovations in science, and business can be sustained. Therefore, it is only by having solid fundamentals in the social pyramid, this being the general public, that a great society can last long into the future.
plsss provide good feedback thanks :)
