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 ext

Scholars, administrators, and policymakers have diverging approaches in terms of the government’s distribution of financial support. Amongst them, the one dominant approach is to provide such aid to the nation’s major cities. The argument being that these cities are where the country’s cultural traditions have been fostered and thus need preserving. While there is some merit to this argument, this essay argues that such an approach is not an entirely sagacious one for three reasons.

To begin, given that major cities are not the only nor always primary source of a nation’s cultural traditions, they do not always deserve to gain unconditional governmental aid. Indeed, towns, villages, and other non-major cities have been cultural hubs for myriad nations. For instance, Chandigarh is full of rich architectural history, beautiful and antiquated campuses, and other artistic landmarks (e.g. Nek Chand’s rock garden). Considering all these culturally rich aspects to this city, the government should ensure they are protected and preserved. Otherwise, our progeny will lose out on all the beauty such a city has to offer. Similarly, there are other non-major cities who hold incontrovertible cultural significance, and thus warrant governmental support. Should governments focus solely on major cities at the expense of these locations, a spate of nations’ history and culture will be lost forever.

Furthermore, the prompt’s reasoning is flawed as it assumes governments should base their apportionment of financial aid solely on the cultural significance a place holds. Yet, there are can be more imperative aspects that ought to be used as the criteria for financial aid. For instance, if a country is plagued by terrorism, hate crimes, and gratuitous violence, then should not combating these issues take precedence over preservation of cultural traditions? Indeed, there are several moments in history which illustrate this. Inter alia, Indira Gandhi’s decision to attack Sikh terrorists in Amritsar’s holy Golden Temple stands out as a noteworthy case in point. At that moment, the government rightly placed national security over cultural and religious preservation. It is likely innocent lives would have been lost had they chosen otherwise. Hence, governments should not sclerotic by solely focusing on a cultural preservation and generation as their key criterion for key decisions, including financial aid.

Thirdly, it should also be noted that major cities often are economic and technological centres. Hence, it is likely that they already have the means to address their various needs, including the care of their cultural traditions. For instance, tourists across the globe travel to see Tokyo’s infamous cherry blossoms in the spring. Similarly, Agra’s Taj Mahal and Delhi’s Lotus Temple attract similar numbers. Given the lucrative earnings from the tourism sector such cities earn, any additional financial support may be extraneous. Yet, such support would not go unappreciated in other culturally rich yet neglected cities. Indeed, these smaller cities may use this aid to not only protect and promote their traditions, but also to further develop them.

Lastly, it would be fair to concede that there is some strength in the author’s claim and reasoning. That is, major cities are often the source of a country’s cultural traditions, and thus need to be preserved through several means (including financial aid). Indeed, several cities have provided mankind’s most notable cultural achievements, such as the Taj Mahal in Agra, Big Ben in London, and Venice’s rococo architecture. Nevertheless, governments cannot turn a blind eye on the cultural significance of smaller cities and towns, nor neglect other more pressing needs.

In summary, the issue of apportioning financial aid is a convoluted one. While this essay acknowledged the cultural value of these larger cultural hubs and the importance of preserving them, governments should not do so at the expense of other smaller cultural hubs and other pressing needs. As with most of life’s aspects, our governments should be lissome and provident when making such decisions.