Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
Governments Must Ensure That Their Major Cities Receive The Financial Support They Need In Order To Thrive - With A Free Essay Review
Claim: Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive. Reason: It is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
As Edward Glaeser, a professor of Harvard University, once said, “city-our greatest invention-makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier”, it is true that cities, especially those major cities, are the principle force when it comes to a nation’s development. As the energies of the nation’s economy, the prosperity of cities directly accelerates the progress of the nation. Moreover, cities can hardly maintain their prosperity merely by their own tax revenue. Thus, cities need fund form government to support their convenient facilities and improve dwelling environment. Form this point of view, I agree with the claim that our government should ensure major cities receive the financial support in order to thrive. However, is it necessary for our government to subsidize major cities due to preserve nation’s cultural traditions？I think it depends on how we define "major cities".
Firstly, if we consider these “major cities” as the capitals or biggest cities with long and fascinating history, like Beijing, Roma, London and so on, almost born with the nation, those cities have kept the distinct cultural traditions of their country, especially in their historical sites: such as the Forbidden City in Beijing, the leaning tower of Pisa in Roma or the Buckingham Palace in London, those major cities are biggest center of cultural traditions of the nation. Therefore, government concerned about the protection of cultural traditions should subsidize this kind of cities.
On the other hand, if we consider these “major cities” as New York, "the big apple “or Hong Kong, one of the "four Asian tigers “, we can hardly find the pure traditional culture of its nation. Not only because they are “young” compared with those historic cities but also because their mixture culture. With the advanced economy and variety of opportunities, these cities attract people all over the world, bringing different nationalities, religions, languages and culture. People celebrate Chinese New Year (spring festival) in New York, while citizens in Hong Kong enjoy Christsmas Day. Therefore, in this globalization era, the primitive cultural traditions get blurred in those cosmopolis. One may argue that modern urban culture generated and developed in these cosmopolitan cities. However, facing so similar skyscrapers, business centers, McDonalds or even the same rhythm of the citizen’s life, we may assert this modern urban culture has nothing to do with our cultural tradition. In this situation, protecting nation's distinct cultural traditions should not be the main reason for government to subsidize this kind of city.
Untouched by the wind of globalization, modernization or the assimilation of cultural group, however, we may find, the speaker unfortunately neglects, many rural areas like small cities, or countries which equally contribute to nation's cultural traditions as those cities are the places where nation traditions are better preserved. Thus, Form the point of protecting cultural traditions; these places deserve more concern form government than major cities. For one thing, only in these rural areas, due to the poor connection from the outside modernized world, can people still keep their traditional life style inherited form last generation ,such as clothing, eating habits, etc. and the unchanged life style keeps cultural tradition more integrate and intact. For another thing, unlike big cities, attracting funds or talents is usually with great difficulties for those areas. Since protecting cultural tradition is a money-consuming task, rural areas need more financial support form government.
To sum up, it is where nation’s cultural tradition truly generated and preserved in that our government should figure out before subsidizing rather than whether it is a major city.
You argue that major cities have "kept the distinct cultural traditions of their country, especially in their historical sites," which I think could be a reasonable enough argument, but it is not a very clear one because you don't explain in what sense historical sites keep cultural traditions alive. You could try to explain that in the general case, or you could try to explain how the specific examples you offer, such as Buckingham Palace, are important in safeguarding cultural traditions. (Note also that the leaning tower of Pisa is not in Rome; unsurprisingly, it is in Pisa!)
Your second argument is that some major cities do not preserve cultural traditions. You refer in this case to younger cities that are cosmopolitan and similar to each other. You suggest that because they are cosmopolitan, "primitive cultural traditions get blurred." Since your overall argument seems to imply that this blurring (you should clarify what you mean by "blurring") does not take place in older cities, it is all the more important that you explain how it is avoided in older cities (is it exclusively prevented by the presence of historical sites?). The second part of your argument is that such cities do not generate "our cultural traditions" and if they generate a "modern urban culture," it is the same from one city to another. Again, that is possibly a reasonable argument, although it does seem to be an extraordinary argument. You seem to be implying that cultural traditions can no longer be generated in major cities because of the homogenizing effect of globalization. That's an interesting argument, but I suspect that the residents of New York and Hong Kong would disagree with it. (This is not the place to go into the reasons for such disagreement, but it might be enough here to note that there tend to arise in cities groups with a shared interest in and to some extent a shared view of cultural endeavors: literature, music, theatre, and so on. So you get different styles of poetry or painting or dance developing in different areas.)
Finally, you argue that rural areas "equally contribute to [a] nation's cultural traditions" and you offer a good reason for thinking that. This argument is intended to take issue with the claim that "it is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved." It would not be a bad idea to state explicitly that you are doing that (i.e., with a sentence like "I take issue with the claim that it is primarily in cities etc."). In this case, it doesn't matter much, since it is obvious enough what you are doing, but it will not always be obvious. One reason for this is that your command of English is not perfect, and sometimes errors will impact the intelligibility of your arguments. Since these essay are also judged on your command of English, it is important to continue studying English grammar.