In the aftermath of the Holocaust, the United States was devastated.
It was also a period of tremendous literary activity.
It had many literary magazines.
It published more than 100 literary magazines and journals.
But as we know, the American literary scene is not nearly as vibrant today as it was then.
We also know that the number of publications has declined significantly over the years.
This lack of literary activity has caused some to question whether America has really lost its literary character.
Is America truly at its best when it has been at its worst?
That is the question that the American poet and essayist Thomas Mann raised in his landmark 1966 essay, The Closing of the American Mind.
In the book, Mann argues that, as the literary and artistic environment became increasingly polarized in the 1950s, the literary spirit became more polarized.
He contends that this polarization of America’s cultural life was the result of two factors: First, the establishment of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in 1966, and second, the emergence of a new kind of magazine that was not only popular, but also intellectually challenging and critical.
The New York Times called it the “greatest magazine revolution in American history.”
The NEA was a government-funded organization created by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 to provide financial support to artistic and creative institutions.
It also provided grants to the arts and culture.
The NE, however, was not without its detractors.
In 1966, the NEA launched a program that was to make it easier for artists and critics to gain funding for their work through the NEAs “Art Fund.”
It was a program called “The New Art Fund.”
Critics and critics of the NE were unhappy with the program.
Some were not only critical of the program but also opposed it.
The American Institute of Architects protested that the NE was creating an “anti-artist” atmosphere that would not allow “free, vigorous, and open debate.”
The critics also claimed that the fund would destroy artistic integrity and that its creation would threaten the status of American architecture.
The critics were correct.
A number of the critics of “The Art Fund” went on to create the Center for Art and Ideas (CIA) and the National Center for the Study of Civic Learning (NCSL), which aimed to create a more robust cultural environment.
It is worth noting that many of the most famous critics of this program, including Richard Wright and Edward Said, were also against the New Arts Fund.
In fact, Wright famously wrote that, in a democracy, we should be proud of our institutions, and not of the institutions we have created for ourselves.
The cultural polarization in America’s literary and creative communities had profound consequences.
They also created a new way of thinking about the nation.
Today, we are deeply divided on the issue of the value of literature.
Is literature a public good or a private good?
What is the role of literature in the public square?
What should be its scope?
Is literature an intellectual or an aesthetic good?
Is it a work of art, a form of literature, or a literary form?
Are we a nation of writers or a nation where literature is used as a vehicle for cultural debate and artistic expression?
These questions are central to the debates that the nation is having about literature.
There is, of course, a great deal of debate about the value and relevance of the arts, literature, and art to our daily lives.
The debate is, in many ways, an internal one.
The most influential voices are those who would seek to preserve and enrich the arts in the United, and those who seek to eliminate them.
It seems clear that many American intellectuals are united in opposing the destruction of the humanities.
But there is also growing recognition of the important role of the public sphere as a place where public discussion and debate can take place.
For this reason, I believe that the humanities should be part of the nation’s culture.
That means that there should be a broad and deep public debate about literature and the arts.
What is literature?
What are the literary virtues?
Is there a way to preserve the value that literature has as a cultural and intellectual heritage?
Is the public good of the United the public interest or the public’s interest the public?
The public interest, in this sense, is not only to preserve art, but it is also to promote a culture that fosters and nurtures a culture of literary and critical inquiry.
It can be a good thing to preserve, preserve, and enhance the arts for the benefit of the citizens of the country.
In this sense the public should be more involved in public debate and in its own culture.
But we need to do so without sacrificing the public.
The public should not be allowed to have a say in the arts’ management and use.
It should be allowed only to have access to the institutions that it can use for the purpose of