■

 It is very easy to reacquire the art of seeing the world around you. It takes practice and breaking a few bad habits, but reacquiring the art of seeing the world around you is easy. And "reacquire" is also the right word. Many of us were probably much more observant as children than we were as adults. A child's day is full of unknowns and surprises. Because of our desire to explore and have adventures, all of us naturally had an innate ability to be aware of the world around us. As adults, however, we are less stimulated by new ideas and new situations. We are less aware of the wonders of the things around us.
The first step in awakening our senses is to regain our childhood powers of observation. To do this, we must stop anticipating in advance what we will see and feel. Such expectations interfere with our ability to feel.
For example, one chilly evening I was hiking in the mountains with a group of students. I told them that we were going to have to cross a mountain stream. The students began to complain about the cold. When we reached the creek, they reluctantly but vigorously stepped into the stream. When they were knee-deep in water, they realized that I had put them in a hot spring. I later heard that the water felt cold at first.
We also need to notice signs to see more. Once, on a hiking trip, I walked about 6 meters behind an Indian friend of mine named Stalking Wolf. As I passed under a large pine tree, Stalking Wolf walked by and told me to get out of his way. I looked around in surprise. Was it a deer, a fox, or another animal? I looked into the branches of the tree and saw a beautiful owl not three meters away.
I was astonished because I knew the owl was there without the stalking wolf looking up. I asked him, "Ask a house mouse. If you look at your feet, you will see the footprints of a mouse fleeing from its fearsome enemy, the owl.
Next time you go for a walk, wherever you are, keep your eyes open. Be aware of all sights, sounds, and sensations. You will be amazed at the many beautiful and interesting things you have never noticed before.

The night before David Hartman left home for college, the family was sitting around the dinner table. David, who is blind, enthusiastically reiterated his previous story. Dad, I want you to be honest with me. I think I could be a doctor," he said.
Fred Hartman, being a practical man, thought for a moment before answering. Now was the time to avoid disappointing David greatly. But how could he say "no" to a boy like David? How could he give up on his son's dream? So Fred Hartman finally said, "I'm a doctor. He's a doctor. Well, you never know unless you try.
They both smiled. They both smiled, for this was the father's usual answer to David's question, "Can you do it? David had been blind since birth and became totally blind at the age of eight. When he was 10 years old, David once asked his father, "Dad, will I ever be able to play baseball?
His father said (or suggested), "Well, let's try. And together they found a way to do it. Mr. Hartman helped David roll the ball, and David was able to hit and pick up the ball by the sound of it rolling across the grass. Since then, the family has worked hard to help David become as independent as possible. David grew up thinking that being blind was not a tragedy, just a frustrating nuisance, and that he could do anything if he wanted to. at age 13, he declared he would become a doctor and began preparing for it. at age 13, he declared he would become a doctor and began preparing for it. at age 13, he declared he would become a doctor and began preparing for it. at age 13, he declared he would become a doctor and began preparing for it. at age 13, he declared he would become a doctor and began preparing for it. Although he did well in high school, his parents felt that he should have been more outspoken. College would be more difficult and he might not even get into medical school.
His college guidance teachers tried to change his mind. His biology teacher suggested he major in history or psychology, but David countered as strongly as he could. Look at me," he said. I'm not a bit different from anyone else. I may be blind, but everyone has some limitations. I think the people who are most handicapped are those who don't try to do anything special or worthwhile with their lives. I want to be a psychiatrist because I believe I happen to be a good psychiatrist---especially in terms of helping people with the same problems I have. So I want to go to medical school and I want the College to help me prepare for that. Since that time, the biology teacher has been a strong ally of David's.

The reason why a language becomes a universal language has little to do with the number of speakers of that language. Rather, it has much more to do with who the speakers of that language are. Latin became the lingua franca throughout the Roman Empire not because the Romans were superior in terms of the number of people they conquered. The Romans were simply stronger. Later, when Rome's military power declined, Latin remained the international language of instruction for a thousand years, thanks to another force: the religious power of Roman Catholicism.
There is a very close relationship between language dominance and economic, technological, and cultural power. No language can develop as an international communication medium without a strong power base. Language is not an independent entity living in some mystical space, detached from the people who speak it. Language exists only in the brains, mouths, ears, hands, and eyes of those who use it. A language succeeds when the people who use it succeed on the international stage. If the people who use it do not succeed, the language will not succeed.
This may seem obvious, but it needs to be made clear. This may seem obvious, but it needs to be made clear. This is because over the years many misleading assumptions have developed about the reasons for a language's international success. What is an international language . It is not uncommon for some to claim that an international language is an ideal exemplar because of its literary qualities and clarity of expression. Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Arabic, and French have been praised in this way on various occasions, and English is no exception. For example, it is often pointed out that the reason English is so widely used today is that there must be some beauty or logic inherent in its structure. Others argue that English has less grammar than other languages. This is the argument that English is less grammatically complex than other languages and therefore should be easier to learn.
However, this is a mistake. Latin was once a major international language, even though it was considered grammatically more complex. A language becomes an international language not because of its inherent structural characteristics, not because of its rich vocabulary, not because it is the language in which great literature was written in the past, not because it was once associated with a great culture or religion. It is because of its unique structural characteristics. A language has traditionally been a lingua franca for one major reason. That reason is the power, especially political and military power, of the people who speak the language.

When Napoleon invaded Russia, his troops were fighting in the center of another small town in that always cold land. It was then that Napoleon accidentally became separated from his men. A group of Russian soldiers spotted him and began chasing him down a winding road. Napoleon fled frantically and hid in a small fur trader's store on a side street. When he entered the store, out of breath, he found the fur trader and cried out in a pitiful voice, "Help me, help me. Where should I hide? The fur trader said, "Quick, get under this pile of furs in the corner," and he covered Napoleon with many furs.
As soon as he finished putting the furs on Napoleon, a Russian soldier rushed to the entrance and asked, "Where is he? We saw him coming in. Despite the fur traders' protests, the Russian soldiers ransacked the store in search of Napoleon. They thrust their swords into the piles of furs, but could not find Napoleon. Eventually they gave up and left.
A short time later, Napoleon crawled out from under the furs unharmed, and just then his guards rushed through the entrance. The fur trader looked at Napoleon, smiled, and said. 'A big man like you. It may be rude to ask such a question of a great man like you, but how did you feel when you were under the furs and you knew that the next moment would surely be your last?
Napoleon straightened his back and said angrily to the fur trader. How dare you? How dare you ask such a question of the Emperor Napoleon? Guards, take this arrogant man outside, blindfold him, and execute him. I order him to be shot myself!"
The guards dragged the fur trader outside, stood him against the wall, and blindfolded him. The fur trader could see nothing, but he could hear the sound of the guards slowly shifting their positions, lining up in a row, rifles at the ready, and the soft sound of his clothes flapping in the cold wind. I felt the wind gently tugging at my clothes, brushing coldly against my cheeks, and I could feel my legs shaking with a shudder. Then Napoleon coughed and said, "Ready .... Aim for ......!" I said. I heard Napoleon's cough and said, "Ready.... .Aim..." and slowly and loudly. At that moment, knowing that even this slight sensation was about to be taken away from me forever, an unspeakable [inexpressible] feeling overcame me, and tears welled up on my cheeks.
After a long silence, footsteps approached and the blindfold was removed from the fur trader's eyes. Suddenly, I saw Napoleon's eyes, deep and silent, looking into my own, illuminated by the light of day. Then Napoleon said calmly, "You have seen it. Now you see. Now you understand.

One of the dividing lines in today's society is between those who think that age-appropriate clothing is acceptable and those who see clothing as a means of overcoming age. At the American university where I work, there are professors who intentionally attend classes in loose-fitting athletic shoes. We also have a principal who does not wear a tie. They believe it keeps them young.
Clothing plays a major role in the transition from adult culture to youth culture. Even in the U.S.A.---clothing has changed as modern life has become increasingly informal through all generations and social strata. When I was a child, I don't recall my father or any of his friends dressing casually. They wore suits everywhere, even when just sitting around on a Sunday afternoon. Nor did they ever leave home without a hat. Nowadays, most men dress like boys, with jeans, sports shirts, athletic shoes, and baseball caps. Young girls, on the other hand, wear shorts, bikinis, and thick-soled shoes like grown women. As a result, the line between youth and maturity has disappeared. Rather, a chaotic atmosphere has emerged in a society that has embraced such a trend.
Why should we care about such things? What does it matter to me if someone wants to look younger than his or her actual age? If they are happy to be seen as young, I hope they will try their best, no matter how unreasonable the effort. I must have a more open mind. But alas, I am unable to do so. The United States of America, if not the entire Western world, has been flaunting its youth for at least the last 30-40 years. My guess is that the celebration of youth as an American phenomenon began with the election of Kennedy as president. Suddenly, being young became the happiest thing in the world: at 42, Kennedy was the youngest president ever elected. He was the first president not to wear a hat. With his athletic physique, beautiful wife, and receding hairline, Kennedy brought youth worship to the world. An implicit and well-understood part of the youth worship that Kennedy brought was a loss of respect for the older generation, no matter who the opponent was. As one poet wrote, "We must be careful not to feel less respected as we grow older."
This worship of youth is probably the main legacy of the 1960s. And in this cult ----, rather than a national pandemic ----, a very wide age group is considered young. Today, no one would say that anyone over the age of 30 cannot be trusted. That sentiment has been replaced by the notion that anyone under 40 does not yet need to think seriously about life and work. What is strange about the latest generation is that they are not in as much of a hurry to enter the workforce as quickly as my generation.

One of the first riddles humans tried to solve was the meaning of the incessant beating of their own hearts. However, it soon became clear that humans were not stupid. By 2,000 A.D., we knew that the beating of the heart was a pump that circulated blood throughout the body. But it was only in China that this was understood. The Chinese had a sufficiently sophisticated medical treatise, the Yellow Emperor's Internal Medicine, which distinguished 28 different types of pulses. Unfortunately, these ideas were known only to those who practiced traditional Chinese medicine and did not arouse curiosity in the wider society outside China.
People are not stupid, but in most cases they tend to stubbornly cling to long held ideas. Not just out of fear of the unknown, but because old ideas have become part of their thought system, which is like a spider's web. Such a thought system is like a spider's web, every part supporting every other part. Every part supports every other part, and once caught in this web, there is no way out. China's findings were ignored by the rest of the world. Other parts of the world were caught in a different net and could not help but believe a different story about the workings of the mind. For example, both Christians and Muslims remained caught in the spider web of Galen's spun ideas. Galen taught that the heart is not a pump, but a kind of fireplace, generating body heat. Galen's textbook was memorized by nearly every physician in the West and the Middle East for nearly a thousand years. What they saw in their patients did not arouse their curiosity about any other explanation than Galen's teachings. The reason for this was the coherence of Galen's thought as a whole. Even though Galen forbade blind faith in the old books, his errors survived. Had his disciples listened more carefully to Galen, they would not have been paralyzed by his ideas.

It may be an old saying that nothing is as fresh as yesterday's news, but it contains much truth.
Even newspaper reporters usually admit that what they write is ephemeral in nature.
Except for the occasional award-winning article, newspaper articles are read for the facts of the day.
The next day the facts change, and the first article loses its relevance to the facts.
So the primary concern of reporters and editors is to provide the facts in the clearest, most concise, and most readable form possible, and they are less concerned with literary excellence.
The Associated Press, for example, used to adhere to the rule that articles should average no more than 19 words per sentence, that a paragraph should be no more than three sentences, and that polysyllabic words should usually be avoided if a monosyllabic word can express the same meaning.
As a matter of fact, with one or two exceptions, almost all newspapers were written with a sixth-grade reading level in mind. This is not an insult to the intelligence of readers, but merely a means for newspapers to meet the demands of reality. Newspapers are meant to be read in a hurry in the first place, and they are written to suit such a reading style.
Since newspapers try to adapt to their readers, they should take advantage of their unique writing style. Look through the headlines and choose the articles that interest you the most. Then, as you read the article, vary your reading speed, keeping in mind the inverted pyramid style. An inverted pyramid means that all the important facts are presented in the first two sentences of the article. An inverted pyramid merely means that all the important facts are presented in the first one or two paragraphs, and subsequent paragraphs become less and less necessary. The inverted pyramid is a way of writing that is unique to newspapers, and it comes from the fact that reporters who write articles for news agencies do not know where the editors of the various newspapers will cut off their articles.
Therefore, they write their articles in such a way that no matter how much they cut off the back of the column where their article will appear, it will still have facts and make sense.

When two strangers meet, they often have to decide where to sit or stand in relation to each other.
This is not something that needs to be discussed or consciously considered.
For example, we do not have to ask ourselves whether we should stand close to the other person in order to show our closeness, or whether we should stand apart so as not to become too familiar with him or her.
We simply take the distance that "feels right" in the situation.
The distance [that feels right to people] depends significantly on the culture to which a person belongs.
When two people are members of the same culture, they are seldom troubled by the question of how close they should stand to the other.
But when they come from cultures that have different ideas about the space they need between them and others, problems can arise.
European societies can be roughly divided into three regions, depending on how close people position themselves to others.
One is what Desmond Morris calls the "elbow zone," where people are close enough to touch each other's bodies with their elbows. This region includes countries such as Spain, France, Italy, Greece, and Turkey. The second region covers most of Eastern Europe and includes countries such as Poland, Hungary, and Romania. In this region, called the "wrist zone," people position themselves so that they can touch the other person's body with their wrists if they wish to do so.
Finally, there is what Morris calls the "fingertip zone. This region includes the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, and Scandinavia. In this region, people do not like to bring others closer than arm's length, and they do not complain at all when they do not have the opportunity to touch each other's bodies.
What is most striking about these different spaces of proximity to others is their geographic location. The Elbow Zone is located in the warmest part of Europe, the Fingertip Zone in the coolest. The "Wrist Zone" is located almost in the middle. There are several reasons for this. The first and most obvious reason is climate. It is well known that the ambient temperature influences people's comfort level and sense of well-being. Another reason for the warm climate is that it can influence people's social habits, as it creates opportunities for people to be in contact with each other in the open air. The Mediterranean coasts all have warm and dry summers, and even the winter days are quite pleasant. Therefore, people spend much more time chatting outdoors than in other parts of the world. It is quite possible that this frequent contact brings people closer together than in other regions, and that this in turn encourages them to stand and sit much closer to each other.

The most famous example of an animal that is said to be capable of calculation is the German horse named Clever Hans. This happened at the beginning of this century. The horse's owner believed that animals could think and reason just like humans, and that this ability could be brought out through training. He trained clever Hans to solve arithmetic problems. Hans would tap the correct number of times with his paw to give the correct answer. He was taught to tap with one paw for single-digit numbers and the other paw for tens. He gave the correct answer not only in addition, but also in other calculations. He also answered correctly when shown the problem on a card instead of being asked verbally.
This caused such a fuss in the newspapers that a committee of scientists was formed to investigate the horse's abilities. After careful investigation, the committee found that Clever Hans' owner and trainer was an honest person, that is, he had not deliberately trained him to stop hitting by making small suggestions, as circus animals do in their tricks, to get the correct answers. That there was no such deception was proven by the fact that the committee members themselves elicited the correct answer from Hans, even when the owner was not present.
It was as if the horse was thinking and counting. Shortly thereafter, however, another scientist got to the bottom of the matter. That scientist discovered that when asked a question to which no one knew the answer, the horse was completely incapable of giving the correct answer. The horse could not answer even the simplest of questions. The question was asked by showing the horse a card that the questioner had not yet seen. The biologist soon discovered that this actually happens when Hans gives the correct answer. Hans responded to slight movements of his head and body made by the questioner who knew the answer. These movements were completely unconscious; the questioner was unaware that he was moving his head or body. However, Hans was of course aware of the number of times he should tap with his front foot. He counted the number of taps in his mind, and when the horse tapped to the correct number, he relaxed and moved his head and body very slightly and unconsciously. In response to this movement, Hans stopped tapping his foot. Hans was confused because the questioner, who did not know the answer, did not show this kind of movement. In fact, Hans had learned in training to react to this very slight movement. Hans is always trained to do his best with a corn or sugar reward.

I naturally assume that when I open my eyes in the morning, I see the same world that others see when they open their eyes. In general, taken as a whole, this would be a reasonable assumption. However, this may blind me to certain unwanted differences between myself and my peers.
When Charles Darwin arrived in the FEGO Islands aboard the Beagle in December 1832, he was surprised to find that the natives were very good imitators. They could recite whole sentences with English pronunciation, even though they knew no English at all. Moreover, while sitting around the campfire with the crew of the Beagle, they were able to join the English sailors in singing the boat song with the simple expedient of reciting each word immediately after they had sung it themselves. Darwin was puzzled. How could he explain this ability? Was this ability, common to all humans in their uncivilized state, the result of the more trained perceptual habits and keen senses of civilized man as compared to those of long civilized man?
He was right in his thinking. But his essentially English habits of thought prevented him from getting to the heart of the matter. Later zoologist Lyall Watson, however, got to the heart of the matter.
The pygmy was taken for the first time from the deep forest, where he could not see far, to the plains, where he was startled by a small antelope in the distance. In the forest land, dark all year round, sound is less necessary than sight, and the pygmy's experience is colored by a different kind of sensory life than the sensory life of the plains. The reality of the pygmy is a different reality than the reality of the plains dweller.
In other words, pygmy culture is not a visual culture, but an auditory culture. In our culture, sight is more unnecessary than sound. City dwellers pay little attention to the constant flood of sound reaching their ears, but they do pay attention to buses and cars because they might get run over. They must pay attention to buses and cars because they might run them over. Primitives must pay similar attention to sound. Primitive man must pay similar attention to sound, because sound can be a dangerous beast or a car that might run over him. Because sounds may indicate the presence of dangerous beasts or enemies.
If Darwin had been able to get inside the heads of the inhabitants of the Fuego Islands, he would probably have been just as confused as if he were seeing things through Martian eyes.
We tend not to notice things that don't interest us. We tend not to notice things that don't interest us, things that aren't there at all. And because each of us is interested in different things, each of us sees the world differently. People on buses and trains think that they are surrounded by people just like them, their own kind. But in reality, they are surrounded by Martians, natives of the Fuego Islands, and various other strange species.

One of the dividing lines in modern society is between those who believe that age-appropriate clothing is acceptable and those who see clothing as a means of overcoming age. At the American university where I work, there are professors who deliberately wear loose-fitting athletic shoes to class. We also have a principal who does not wear a tie. They believe it keeps them young.
Dress has played a major role in the transition from an adult culture to a youth culture. Dress has changed in the United States as well, as modern life has become increasingly informal through all generations and social classes. I don't remember my father or any of his friends dressing casually when I was a kid. They wore suits everywhere, even when just sitting around on a Sunday afternoon. Nor did they ever leave the house without a hat. Nowadays, most men dress like boys, with jeans, sports shirts, athletic shoes, and baseball caps. Young girls, on the other hand, wear shorts, bikinis, and thick-soled shoes like grown women. As a result, the line between youth and maturity has disappeared. Rather, a chaotic atmosphere has emerged in a society that has embraced such a trend.
Why should we care about such things? What does it matter to me if someone wants to look younger than his or her actual age? If they are happy to be seen as young, I hope they will try their best, no matter how unreasonable the effort. I must have a more open mind. But alas, I am unable to do so. The United States of America, if not the entire Western world, has been flaunting its youthful enthusiasm for at least the last 30-40 years. My guess is that the celebration of youth as an American phenomenon began with the election of Kennedy, who at 42 was the youngest ever elected president. He was the first president not to wear a hat. He was built like an athlete, had a beautiful wife, and a receding hairline. There was a loss of respect for older people, no matter who they were, as an implicit part of the youth worship that Kennedy brought. One poet wrote that we must be careful not to feel less respected as we grow older.
This cult of youth may be a major legacy of the 1960s. And in this cult, rather than being a national fad, a very wide age range is considered youth. Today, no one would say that anyone over the age of 30 cannot be trusted. That sentiment has been replaced by the notion that anyone under 40 does not yet need to think seriously about life and work. What is strange about the latest generation is that they are not in as much of a hurry to enter the workforce as quickly as my generation.

What is science? The word is usually used to mean one of three things or a mixture of the three. Sometimes science refers to a particular way of discovering things. Sometimes it refers to the set of many pieces of knowledge that result from a discovery. Finally, the word science is used to describe all the new capabilities and methods that arise from such discoveries. This last field is usually called technology. A glance at the scientific columns of newspapers and magazines, however, reveals that advances in theoretical research and their practical applications receive just as much attention.
This is not surprising. This is not surprising, since the most obvious characteristic of science is its utility, that is, the power it gives us to do things. A remarkable example is the Industrial Revolution, which would not have been possible if it had not been for the development of science. Man's ability to prevent the spread of disease, to produce large enough quantities of food to feed a significantly increased world population, and to achieve sufficient production without resorting to the means of slave labor reflects the development of scientific and technological expertise.
This ability to get things done, by the way, has no instructions or instructions for how to use it, for good or for evil. These things depend solely on how the invented thing is used, and what our own priorities are. It is not surprising, then, that most people have contradictory feelings.
On the one hand, we rejoice in improvements in production, but on the other hand, we worry about the effects of automation. On the other hand, we worry about the birth rate and the fact that not a single person dies from the diseases we have eradicated, even though we are happy with the progress of medicine. We rejoice that the microscope has revealed the world of bacteria and viruses, yet we are haunted by the fear that bad scientists will use this knowledge to create incurable diseases. They rejoice at the tremendous advances in transportation and communication, but on the other hand, they express concern about the loss of cultural diversity. We are obsessed with the Internet, but at the same time we fear the ability of supercomputers to snoop on us. We look forward to relying on nuclear power as a permanent source of energy, yet we dread the inherent dangers inherent in its use.
I was once taken to see a Buddhist temple where it was said, "To everyone is given the key to the door to heaven. I was once taken to see a Buddhist temple where I was told that "everyone is given the key to the door to heaven, and that same key opens the door to hell. The same is true of science. Some may be tempted to throw away the key, since there is no indication as to which door is which. But others may choose to try to make the best possible judgment. The value of science lies in the hope that it will indeed open the door to a better world.

English humor is similar to that of the Loch Ness Monster, both of which are well known, but there is a strong suspicion that they do not actually exist.
English humor is similar to witch humor.
In fact, witches do not exist. Yet for centuries, people have acted as if witches were real. There has been witch worship, witch persecution, and witch trials by institutions such as the Inquisition. The deviousness of witches, witchcraft, and their relationship with the devil are endlessly fascinating mysteries. The fact that witches do not exist has not stopped people from writing countless books about them. The same can be said of English humor. English humor may not exist, but this simple fact did not stop many writers from writing book after book about English humor.
Let us now consider the definition. The problem with definitions is that while they can be enlightening, witty, funny, original, and even revolutionary, there is one thing they cannot do. That is to define things, to clarify the meaning of things, to reveal the essence of things. This is truer in the case of humor than in any other. Yet we will still have to try to answer questions such as. What is English? What is English, what is humor, what is English humor, etc.?
If by English humor we mean the totality of humorous writing written in English, then in that case, in a sense, English humor does indeed exist. Likewise, there is Finnish, Bulgarian, and Vietnamese humor. However, defenders of English humor insist that English humor is a peculiarly English humor that cannot be understood or imitated by people from other countries, and that it is superior to the humor of any other country, let alone the humor of the English.
In other countries, it can be both funny and serious. Some people like jokes, others do not. You might think clowns and clowns are the pinnacle of humanity, or you might find them terribly boring. Of course, you might think the same in England. But Britain is the only country in the world that prides itself on its excessive sense of humor. After-dinner speeches must always end with a so-called funny story. In the UK, you may meet people who are disgustingly boring, very impassive, or supremely boring, but all of them should take great pride in their sense of humor, both as individuals and as British people. So if you want to succeed or survive among the British, you need to be able to handle this strange and dangerous phenomenon: the British sense of humor.

The most striking difference between Americans and Europeans is their different attitudes toward money. As a matter of historical fact, every European knows that the only way to gain wealth in Europe was to conquer other people at the expense of others or to exploit labor in factories. Moreover, even after the Industrial Revolution began, few people were able to escape poverty and become wealthy. Most people thought that they would never become significantly richer or poorer than their fathers. Thus [consequently], not a single European associated wealth with personal achievement and poverty with personal failure [neglect].
For Europeans, money meant power, the freedom to do as they pleased, which also meant, consciously or unconsciously, that Europeans would say. 'I myself have as much money as I can.' I want to have as much money as possible myself, but I don't want others to have as much money as possible."
In America, too, wealth was acquired by stealing, but the real victims of exploitation were not people, but poor Mother Earth and the creatures that lived there, which were plundered without mercy. Yes, the Indians were evicted and killed, but (a) unlike in Europe (as was always the case in Europe), this was not a case of the conqueror plundering the wealth of the conquered. This was not a case of the conqueror plundering the wealth of the conquered. This was not a case of a conqueror plundering the wealth of the conquered, because the Indians had no knowledge of the potential wealth of their own country. The people of the southern states depended on the labor of slaves for their livelihood, but slave labor did not bring them wealth. What made slavery in the South more inexcusable, in addition to being morally wrong, was that it was not profitable enough.
In an America rich in natural resources, it was naturally expected that everyone would earn more than his father, so if he earned less than his father, the blame would inevitably be attributed to him. In other words, he is either lazy or incompetent. (B) Therefore, it is not merely having money that Americans value highly, but the ability to earn money as proof of manhood. Once you have earned money to prove your manhood, the money has done its job, and it does not matter whether you lose it or give it to someone else. In no society in history have rich people given more of their wealth to others than in the United States. Poor Americans feel guilty about being poor, but not as guilty as wealthy Americans who inherited wealth (from their parents) and have done nothing to increase it. What can the latter do but indulge in alcohol?