Of course, Sasquatchewan, home of Bigfoot! 
It’s like the question, “What fair-sized city do you come to first if you travel due south from downtown Detroit?” (Hint: it’s not the home of Uncle Beer.)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Alien *
**
Indeed. It’s very clear that a large part of the people who voted for Le Pen used to be communist voters. Typically (but of course that is a gross simplification) low-wage workers, people living from paycheck to paycheck, or plain unemployed, living in poor neighborhood (which are also not coincidentally the neighboroods where the immigrants live). That might appear contradictory, but there are some reasons for that, the most obvious ones being :
-Both parties (the communist party use to be a major french party, getting usually at least 15% of the vote, but is now close to dissapear, with some percents of the voters) were (communists) or are (the extreme-right) very populist in their rhetorics
-Both provide a convenient scapegoat for every issue (the greedy capitalists/the unwashed immigrants)
-Both adressed issues these people feel very concerned about in their day-to-day life, rather than talking about things these people aren’t very interested in because they’re only remotely related to their individual problems. For instance, low wages for the communists, crime and safety for the right-wing, and unemployment for both (that’s the fault of the immigrants for the Front National, of the capitalists for the communists, of the EU for both).
-These people are disgruntled, feel marginalized, don’t trust the establishment, thinks that the politicians are all the same, despise the people, etc…so voting for the communist party or for the “Front National” are also protest votes (with some hope that perhaps the radical policies proposed will actually change something)
-Sorry to say that, but these people aren’t highly educated. So, simplistic ideas could fly well.
I would add however that the core of the extreme-right is made of a very different kind of people, though still a weird mix : it would include catholic traditionnalists defending the “family values”, racist ideologues, defenders of the “national identity”, some young neo-nazis, small bussiness owners who have an issue with government regulations and taxes, outmoded bourgeoisie, etc…
You can tell after a cursory glance that people who take part in the Front National meetings and protests are very different from the mass of their voters and clearly tend not to belong at all to the same socio-economical category. Le Pen has been extremely successful by attracting popular votes, which allowed him to extend his audience way beyond the traditionnal borders of the extreme-right.
I don’t do these rah-rah posts very often, and I usually find them moronic - but good post, Zenster.
probably less globally aware. why should america be equally or any more globally aware than the main? who cares about the rest of the world? the rest of the world doesn’t care about america or americans unless it is in their own self interest…why should america do anything as heroic as exceeding what upwards of 4 billion people don’t do?
Well you should ask, handsomeharry. Why should we?
My answer is; Because we can.
If there is a single nation on earth that can or should have a heightened global awareness, it is America. We bloody well invented the Internet, landed men on the moon and have developed technologies that leave most other attempts in the dust. It is incumbent for us to temper such incredible puissance with a strong world view. Any inability to do so will neutralize large portions of our contributions to humanity as a whole.
I refuse to be an apologist for the enormous resource consumption that goes on at our behest. So far, we have delivered the goods rather well to the rest of the world community. Our openhanded distribution of aid and disaster relief are ringing endorsements of our overall fairness. In many respects, America has dragged the rest of the world kicking and screaming into an era of democracy that might have been stillborn in an earlier time.
All of this is changing as we enter a new age of globalization. If we prove incapable of expanding our consciousness sufficiently to embrace other cultures and their potential contributions to progress, we stand in danger of becoming just another breed of hulking dinosaur lumbering towards extinction. A sterling example of this is the immense difficulty most Americans, be they politicians, soldiers or just average people, have bridging the gap into Asian culture. If we are ever to develop some sort of coherent strategy for dealing with communist China, this is mandatory.
I have studied Asian culture for decades. I have a deep and abiding appreciation for the completely different mindset that accompanies a densely populated and ancient culture. The resourcefulness and resilience of Eastern mentality is almost incomprehensible to most Americans. Yet, if we are to succeed as the super power we are today, we must gain some insight into other ways of thinking. Otherwise, we shall be nothing more than the proverbial elephant in the hen house. That is a shabby and ill suited way for our legacy to be squandered after being so hard won with the blood spilt by our forefathers.
Again, we have no choice in the matter. Failure is not an option, it is a death sentence for our preeminence. Democracy is one of the finest gifts America has to offer the world at large. It we so taint it with parochialism and ingrown self satisfaction we may soon find ourselves surpassed by those capable of more diverse ways of thinking. Should that happen, we will have only ourselves to blame. We have spent decades degrading our schools to the point of being ornamental. This despite our having some of the finest universities in the world. Who shall attend these fantastic schools if our own crop of public school graduates do not even have the skills required to enter them? Devoting ourselves to educating the remaining world’s population is a hideous end for us to meet.
Broadcast television, Hollywood, our government and public education have all dumbed themselves down to the point where mediocrity is the norm. If we continue to accept such sub par performance in education and media we may as well abdicate our status as world leader right now and get it over with. I, for one, will fight this with my dying breath as it represents an abandonment of all that has gone before us. I am not sure of how to reverse this pathetic trend towards blind consumerism back into the light of achievement but I know there is no other possible or acceptable route. We owe it to future generations to re-ignite this country’s potential. Knowledge must once more be a prized commodity and not the exclusive domain of geeks and nerds. Until then, we are all in danger of losing everything this country has stood for these past two hundred years.
PS: Thank you very much, Neurotik.
Just a factoid apropos of nothing: Caucasians are in the minority in California.
The Latino population accounts for 32% of the population (expected to be 50% by 2040), Asians 12%, and African-American 7.5%.
Cite please.
My family and friends in Europe care about what America is doing not for their own self interest.
I believe Americans are less globally aware. I think it stems from two contributing factors
-
Knowledge isn’t cool. Going through the education system in the U.S., kids get harrassed if they are smart, wear foreign clothes or happen to speak another language. Which leads to
-
Xenophobia. Humans in general are afraid of anything different or strange. But in America, we have ways to keep the different or strange away from us. Gated communities, ghettos, Little Italy’s, and school tracking. One can go through your life surrounded by people who look the same, think the same, and speak the same language. It’s comfortable. And lazy.
I will share a conversation I had with an acquaintance a couple months ago.
Acquaintance: Do you read the paper?
AmericanMaid: Which paper?
Acquaintance: The paper.
AmericanMaid: New York Times? Boston Globe? The Herald? Which paper?
Acquaintance: The paper.
Seriously, it went back and forth like that for a while. Which paper, the paper, do you know the name, the paper. Once this concluded, my acquaintance said that they read the paper every Sunday because it’s too much work to keep up on other days. That’s when I stopped bothering talking about current events.
Cite, please?
According to all information I’ve ever heard on the subject,
Cite
Also another observation re: Canada, which shares a lot of things which y’all have been suggesting make America insular. We are also between two oceans, we are also a ‘nation of immigrants’, and physically distant from everyone else. We don’t even have Mexico nearby.
Yet, Canadians tend to be far more knowledgable about America than vice versa. How many Americans can name the Canadian PM? How many know that it’s a PM and not a president? How many can name the capital? (To be fair, it seems many, many non-Canadians of every nationality have trouble with that one.) How many provinces can you name? Provincial capitals?
I have no cite for this. I base my opinion on things like Rick Mercer’s Talking to Americans (biased and pretty unfair, in places, but you would have a hard time finding a Canadian who didn’t know the American president), facing American tourists while working in downtown Toronto, and conversations with Americans I have met in Canada and while travelling.
I would very much appreciate your opinions on this as I am keenly aware of the Canadian prediliction for making fun of the ignorance of Americans, and the biased nature of any information I may hear on the subject.
Of course they are. It’s a lot easier for a Canadian to be more aware of the US than it is for an American to be aware of Canada. Honestly, Canada just doesn’t have much of an effect on most Americans, while the opposite is the case for Canadians. How often is the US president in the news in any given country as opposed to Chretien? A lot more often. How often does Washington come up as opposed to Ottawa? You can learn a lot more facts about the US just through osmosis than you can about Canada.
However, I’m willing to bet that more southern Californians, Texans, etc. can name the Mexican president than can name the Canadian PM. They are in the news quite frequently down there, and there is an interest.
This isn’t to excuse ignorance, as you should put some effort into alleviating yourself of it, but Canada just isn’t paid attention to much outside of sports or trade fights down here - border states being the exception, of course. Even then, we’re more likely to know that Canada is having a hissy fit (probably justifiably) over softwood lumber than knowing the head of the government throwing the fit.
cowgirl, your questions are appropriate. I’ll not insult you with the usual, “Canada is just America’s Northern Territory” sort of crap. I will say that Canada has substantially less impact on US politics that the other way around. It is why I believe so strongly that America has a moral obligation to develop a more accurate world view. If the United States is going to delegate itself the role of World Cop, we had best know everyone on the beat. This responsibility devolves right down to the people that elect the politicians who determine what priorities that World Cop will have.
The American people are (aided by poor schooling, media’s treacle and sloughs of flag-shrouded politicians) introverting themselves to such a degree that we are becoming poorly suited to the task. I find this to be both repugnant and an unsuitable abdication of our ability to incur positive change. Without wishing to bang the drum too loudly, I’ll cite the gigantic investment America made both financially and (especially) in terms of human life to terminate two different World Wars. Combine this with the Marshall Plan and overall spending by other countries since then begins to pale a bit.
This is not to deride Canada’s (or any other country’s) wartime deaths from that era. In an extremely pessimistic sense, America could have sat on the sidelines during both of those conflicts. To some extent we did at the beginning of each (much to my disgust in terms of the Holocaust). Whatever world that might have resulted from our non-participation in both World Wars would have been utterly inimicable to democracy, so it was in America’s best interest to support the Allies each time.
Here are some other excerpts from the site you cited:
[sup]BOLDING ADDED[/sup]
I also feel that you are overlooking another critical feature of American overseas assistance. The United States is not a socialistic country. We permit a much larger amount of individual income to be disposed of by our citizens as they see fit. It is not without some pride that I refer you to the following cites.
Some excerpts from the USAID site.
[sup]BOLDING ADDED[/sup]
[sup]BOLDING ADDED[/sup]
[sup]BOLDING ADDED[/sup]
So long as America continues to maintain this sort of profile in the international community, I really don’t have a problem with our level of official aid contributions. Please rest assured that I am intensely disgusted by the current administration’s diversion of funding away from worldwide women’s health services because of partisan opposition to abortion. The loss of some thirty-five million dollars in aid will basically guarantee the deaths of many infants and children (not to mention women) these moral hypocrites proclaim they are trying to save.
Try for a moment to factor in the vast spending by our nation on services and placement of immigrants within our borders. Then correlate this with how; “Remittances from U.S. immigrants to their homelands exceeded ODA from Japan-the largest provider (in dollar amounts) of government aid to developing countries.” Here alone is a huge hidden form of assistance. I would not be surprised if the United States spends one dollar for every dollar sent abroad by these same immigrants. As noted earlier in other posts of mine, I firmly believe that immigrants bring glory to America. For the moment, I’ll try to dismiss the spectacular abuses of our social welfare system by a small portion of these same people. I’d like to think that for the most part, people arriving on our shores have come here to better their lives in an honest and legitimate fashion. Many members of my own family did just that.
A couple examples to add on what Zenster has already reported. The World Food Programme reports that in 2000, the US was its top donor with $796 million. The second-ranking donor, Japan, chipped in $260 million, and the European Commission contributed $118 million. Cite.
More on food aid: USAID reports that its food assistance amounts to 54.7 percent of the 650,949 tons of food sent to Ethiopia and Eritrea. The US is the largest food donor to relieve the famine in Southern Africa. The US has pledged 42 percent of all donations to Uganda. Cite.
Further, the US is the largest contributor to the UN Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria: $1.6 billion as of Friday, a figure which the Administration and Congress proposes to increase to $3 billion a year. The next largest contributor is France, at $467 million. Cite.
Could the US do more to help other countries? Sure. Does the US currently do more than any other country? Unquestionably yes.
If you’re not alleging that American Global awareness is less than that of other "I’m not claiming insularity is uniquely American (or Chinese, or Hong Kong Chinese) - just that this phenomenon seems to be way more prevalent in the US (and "hina) than other countries, in my experience. " Why did you bring it up in this thread if you believe it has no relevance to American’s global awareness?
If I’m so wrong, then please tell me why, exactly, you offered forth the tidbit “I’m not claiming insularity is uniquely American (or Chinese, or Hong Kong Chinese) - just that this phenomenon seems to be way more prevalent in the US (and China) than other countries, in my experience.” in this thread. It certainly seems to me that you were offering it as support for what is mentioned in the title of the thread.
And if I’m so wrong, do me a little favor - instead of just accusing me of casting ‘straw men’ and ‘false motivations’ at you, explicitly state that you do not believe the things I’ve “wrongly” accused you of. Say explicitly that you do not believe that Americans are less globally aware, and that you don’t consider your experiences with individual idiots in America as evidence of Americans being less globally aware. It’s quite easy to accuse me of making stuff up, but if I was so incorrect why don’t you answer the questions I quoted the first time: Are you saying that you believe that Americans are less globally aware, and are offering as evidence the fact that you use encounters with ignorant and/or stupid Americans to reinforce your prejudice?
Start a pit thread if you want to complain about an insult I directed at you weeks (months?) ago in another thread on another forum, bringing it up multiple times in GD is, well, whiny.
Since the weakness of that cite was gone over ad nauseum in the other thread, there’s not much point in going over it here. Also, I’m not sure why you’re offering a cite for a position you don’t hold - are you saying that you do in fact believe that Americans are less globally aware despite your ‘straw man’ comments?
I’ll gladly stop positing the ‘straw man’ about your beliefs when you outright state that you do not believe that Americans are globally aware, and you do not believe that your experiences consitute evidence that Americans are not globally aware.
Two examples, from current Great Debates threads:
To which I say, :rolleyes:
Riboflavin you really don’t get what I’m talking about, do you? 1. I believe this phenomenon to be true. 2. I do not feel myself superior to anything or anybody whatsoever due to this phenomenon.
On review of the thread, the following US dopers agree to varying degrees with the premise in Zenster’s OP: John Mace, Johnny L.A., Sofa King, dal_timgar, MLS, bump, Fretful Porpentine, genie, Wumpus, Polycarp, rjung, I Love Me, Vol. I, Alien, handsomeharry, and AmericanMaid. So how come you choose to accuse me alone of being a
This is total and utter bollocks, and rather rude, I might add.
Yes, on the whole I believe there is a trend towards insularity greater than in many other national populations.
I am offering a few random examples out of the many hundreds of encounters I have had. I’ve lived several years in the US, and visited dozens more times (I love the place). I spent part of my childhood in Texas, my family lives there, I’ve lived and worked in Connecticut, I have travelled to all 48 contiguous states. During all this time and travel, I’ve seen nothing to make me think that the premise is false. It’s just an observation of a trend, Ribo, and doesn’t reflect on individuals. It is certainly not a prejudice.
Or to put it another way: if you tell me that, in your observation, British people tend to have worse teeth than Americans, I will agree with you. Do I feel that this is motivated by some kind of superiority complex on your part? No, I believe it is an observation you have made following a large amount of experience, and there are circumstances in Britain that cause this to be so.
Observation != superiority complex. Do you see?
If you disagree with the premise (I’m assuming you do - otherwise you’d just be throwing out silly insults), how about you come up with some evidence to support the premise “On the whole, Americans are as globally aware as citizens of other Western democracies”?
Er… I don’t agree about the teeth thing… at least, not since the 70s.
However, I do agree that the general American is pretty darn unaware of things happening in Europe, compared to your average European.
Counting the US against individual other countries is about as misleading as it can be. Counting dollars when comparing US spending to, say, that of Denmark does not yield a meaningful result. There is a reason foreign aid targets are not set in dollars, but in percentage of the GDP. Denmark is exceeding the 0.7% target by far. It is highly doubtful if the US, even counting private aid, comes anywhere near it. Comparing the US to France in actual Dollars distorts the fact that France has much less inhabitants, and a smaller national budget.
In order for your cites to be meaningful, they’d have to compare similar size economies, such as the US vs. the EU. And no, the European Commission is not the EU. It is one organ of the EU, as is each member nation’s government. Not the least, you would have to account for currency exchange rate fluctuations, since a billion Euros in 1999 is quite different from a billion Euros in 2003.
As for food aid to Ethiopia and Eritrea, the reason for the US leadership is very simple: The US gives food aid to these countries by giving them subsidized crops from US farmers. EU aid also comes as food, but is largely centered around enabling them to build an infrastructure which enables them to improve their own production. Of course, the tonnage of food that way is much higher for the US, but the tonnage of food does not express the level of aid -especially when it is a byproduct of farm subsidies.
You cite the latest numbers about US contributions to the UN fund to fight AIDS but fail to report the latest numbers from other regions. You point at the scheduled increase in funding by the US, but say nothing about the scheduled increase of other institutions. As such, your cites are merely misleading and do nothing to support your argument.
You are mistaken. Luxembourg can extensively influence EU policy, especially since due to the current system, they hold by default at least one commissioner post.
Yawn. Is all you have in line of arguments putting things in other people’s posts? I never said Americans don’t do such things. But the percentage, especially of people doing so on their own, rather than being shipped out by a US company or authority is, to my knowledge, a lot lower.
You obviously completely missed the point. No one is talking about Japanese-Americans in Duesseldorf. But thanks for showing that you rather waste other people’s time and bandwidth and server space than for a single second actually considering a point. I take it then, that you are incapable of grasping the difference between people who actually come from a foreign country and people whose families have lived in a given country for a couple of generations and who have, to some extent or the other, been culturally assimiliated.
As such, I regret that you have thoroughly disqualified yourself for this discussion.
The Marshall Plan was not an investment in the sense of foreign aid, it gave an immediate and huge revenue to the US by establishing US market leadership in a vast array of sectors. Not to mention that, given that Germany paid back what it received under the Marshall Plan, it is somewhat hard to see how the spending of other countries pales.
The cites would help your argumentation if no such investments were done by other countries.
As for the scholarships cited in one cite, it is entirely unsuitable for the discussion at hand. To count it in, you would have to count the education funding of other countries which provide public university-level education basically for free, funded almost exclusively by taxes. The US giving out scholarships to people in such countries is only necessary because the US charges money for the education in the first place.
It is a form of assistance that is in no way unique to the US, and exists in practically all European countries as well, whether we’re talking about Algerians in France or turkish people in Germany.
As such, citing these arguments does not really change anything as long as these arguments are not put into the context of comparable efforts elsewhere. The fact that remittances from US immigrants to their homelands exceed any country’s ODA is meaningless, since we’re not comparing like and like.
To laugh or to cry? You do realise that ‘taxes’ are money, don’t you? Socialism isn’t ‘free’, they just blur your view of the bill. Your socialized healthcare isn’t ‘free’. Your subsidized tuitions are not ‘free’. No service that a gov’t provides is ‘free’. :rolleyes: Absolutely hopeless.
You obviously didn’t grasp my point at all, but thanks for showing that you jump at every occasion to froth senseless rants at ‘those blasted commies’
No one said they are free. Your tuition fees, quite obviously, were paid in vain.