Question

In minimum 200 word.John Winthrop gave a speech to the colonists on board the ship “Arbella” as they were about to land to establish the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He exhorted them to be like a “City on a Hill” - in other words to be a model community for all the people of the world. Many presidents and others have said the the United States is and should continue to strive to be a “City on a Hill” for all the world. Is the United States a “City on a Hill”? Why or why not?

Answer 1

At the point when Ronald Reagan called the United States a "city on a hill," in 1974, it encapsulated an expansive, hopeful vision of America.

The phrase originates from a Puritan sermon by John Winthrop called "A Model of Christian Charity." But nobody knew Winthrop's sermon existed until 1838, when it was found in the New-York Historical Society and printed by the Massachusetts Historical Society. The New-York Historical Society had nearly shut in 1825, however New York Gov. Dewitt Clinton asked the state to save it.

The value of the New-York Historical Society became a matter of open debate, and eventually all however three state legislators agreed to pay its obligation and keep its accumulations intact. With US$10,000 – no small entirety in those days – residents wound up preserving and discovering the sermon that Reagan would later make central to his career. State funding for the New-York Historical Society was one instance among many in early America of funding for the humanities that went before the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Today, be that as it may, President Donald Trump's new spending proposal threatens to eliminate the NEH along with other cultural institutions. Late opinion piece have reminded us about the vital work that the National Endowment for the Arts and the NEH do in America, including the preservation and dissemination of important historical archives. But on the other hand it's important to realize that the NEH continues what was started long ago. As I have found in my research on American exceptionalism, taxpayer bolster for the humanities backpedals to the beginning of the nation.

Saving history

The main ever federal grant for historical research was prescribed by the Continental Congress in 1778. The United States had declared its freedom two years previously, yet it was all the while battling a war to make it stand. Amidst the American Revolution, with bounty on their psyches, Sam Adams, William Duer and Richard Henry Lee – leading figures from both the North and the South in the Continental Congress – approved a US$1,000 grant to a man named Ebenezer Hazard to gather, alter, present and distribute manuscripts, letters and state papers of American history. All Americans had to know American history, they reasoned. So they suggested that he be granted taxpayer money.

Establishing Fathers arranged to help Hazard. Thomas Jefferson adulated his venture as "an endeavor of incredible utility to the mainland all in all." When Hazard at last completed his task, he sent a proposition around for his accumulation in 1791, asking who would get it. The membership was marked by the most remarkable figures of the day, starting with President George Washington and including the VP, Cabinet individuals, congresspersons, delegates and others.

In prescribing the give, the Continental Congress confirmed that Hazard's "embraced is praiseworthy, and merits the general population support and consolation, as being beneficial of open utility." That was a typical view back then. A decent information of history – both American and something else – gave individuals viewpoint and empowered them to utilize their liberty well and to propel the benefit of the republic. The Founding Fathers and the early republic thought about history as a "useful" subject basic for citizenship.

An 'open utility'

It doesn't take much looking in the works of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and numerous others to discover them applauding the benefit of history.

Jefferson, for instance, trusted that learning of history would empower natives to oppose the infringements of oppression. In lighting up "the psyches of the general population everywhere," particularly with "a learning of those certainties, which history exhibiteth," Americans would "be empowered to know desire under every one of its shapes, and incite to apply their regular forces to crush its motivations." Historical investigations were the most ideal approach to see how social orders rose and fell, giving genuine good and political lessons. For Jefferson and numerous others, an investigation of history was fundamental for the protection of liberty.

The sciences, for him, incorporated the humanities. He longed for building a system of instructive social orders and establishments, and imagined "a Congress of Philosophers and in addition of Statesmen." The country soon took after by establishing the Library of Congress in 1800.

Be that as it may, the view spread past them. Citizen support of the humanities was never an East Coast, advantaged, first class action. By the mid twentieth century, the chronicled social orders of Iowa and Kansas equaled East Coast social orders. The size and solidness of the Wisconsin Historical Society surpassed the Massachusetts Historical Society since state lawmaking bodies upheld history.

The most compelling history specialist of the late nineteenth and mid twentieth century, Frederick Jackson Turner, rose up out of the Midwest. On account of citizen support and wide authoritative sponsorship, Wisconsin held influence for quite a few years over the molding of American history.

In 1965, the NEH was made to some degree on the grounds that any "propelled progress" should bolster the humanities. From the establishing of the country, into the nineteenth century and to today, this present country's most developmental pioneers have concurred wholeheartedly in this: History is on a very basic level imperative. Today it discovers its most grounded help in the NEH