“…Over the next two years Mr. Nadeau produced, sometimes with Ms. Barlow’s help, 23 reports, each 5,000 to 7,000 words long. He wrote about hiking in the Alps and visiting a mosque; about why the French give almost nothing to charity and how the country still lives in the shadow of World War II. The articles became a launching pad for their book, which is published by Sourcebooks, in Naperville, Ill…”
(requires registration)
So then, why DON’T the French give nearly anything to charity? 
I’m sure this question raised in the NY Times had nothing to do with the cheese eating surrender monkeys’ lack of support for the second Gulf War.
Then again… I’m English - we’re a thousand years ahead of you when it comes to hating the French.
C’est la vie.
Innit.
Um, you mean the same New York Times that was against the war?
Well, my first guess is that it’s because France has among the highest taxation rates in the industrialized world (cite). There are two effects to this. One, it reduces discretionary income available for charitable giving. Two, the proceeds of these taxes are used to provide a cradle-to-grave welfare state, extend extensive subsidies to the arts and otherwise fund with state dollars things which might be provided by voluntary charity in other countries, reducing the need for voluntary contributions.
OK, three effects. It may also increase resentment of having income forcibly given to what in other places are charitable endeavors, reducing the desire further to fund them.
I forgot to mention: I have no idea whatsoever if that’s Nadeau’s explanation – it’s simply my WAG at it.
Being against the war and against the French is not mutually exclusive.
I’m sure some people who were against the war opposed it for moral reasons (obviously turning a blind eye to the torture and murder of Saddam’s regime).
The French were a major supplier of arms to Saddam’s Iraq (along with Russia and Germany - ring any bells?).
I don’t make a habit of reading the NYT, but was the whole paper against the war?
Sounds like Pravda in the sixties.
… and don’t get me started on ‘almost nothing’ and ‘nearly anything’…
mascaroni, the evidence is clear and incontrovertible – you did not read the article and therefore possess far too much ignorance to argue the point you are trying to make, much less to hijack another thread to it.
My first reply was flippant and with a degree of irony…
as I’m sure your ‘possess far too much ignorance’ was…
No, it was not. It was factually correct. You have not read the article and are ignorant of its contents.
I’m presuming you’re responding to my second line…
‘possess far too much ignorance’.
Own too much lack of knowledge?
Will the repo man come for my brain?
[Better avoid GQ for a while…]
Beat me.
Having had fairly extensive contact with the French, I can say that in my opinion French attachment to the concept of social solidarity fairly outweighs anti-tax feeling. Third item is a minor factor. I have seen the first two items cited in other discussions as major factors.
In general, W European charitable giving is lower than the US, I believe across the board. Differently structured institutions.
Well, I’m both, so yeah, I’m aware. But your initial comment implied that the Times would insult the French for being against the war – which is totally ridiculous if the Times itself was against the war!
Maybe you should. It’ll probably be a lot better now that that schmuck Raines is gone.
Um, you are aware of the concept of an editorial board, no? The Times as a paper can take a position on an issue, and it identifies that position through unsigned editorials. It does not mean that everybody who works at the paper believes that, but an institution can be said to have an official perspective on something even if not every member of that institution agrees. Every paper does this, not just the Times. You do read some newspapers, right?
Now, I’m sure if we really tried we could all manage to find a thread somewhere if we want to talk about the war, no?
What about the fact that the US, as a percentage of GDP, gives far less to charities than most developed countries and a huge proportion of such “aid” is given to Isreal for primarily military expenditure.
We’re off on an adventure. We started in a thread about French charity, then we zoomed off to the Iraq war, now we’re suddenly in the midst of aid to Israel. Where will we be hijacked next? The 2000 Election? Roe v Wade? Clay v Rueben?
Do you have a cite? I think you are confusing private charities with foreign aid.
We would have to define “give less to charity” because it seems to me Europeans have given themselves astronomically high taxes to pay for social services much more comprehensive than the US has. If that is not “giving to charity” I don’t know what is. It would be like saying the man who buys a few magazines at the stand reads more than the man who buys fewer magazines at the stand but subscribes to many more which he gets at home. I would say the man who makes the commitment to contribute through his taxes is more committed than the man who leaves it to his own discretion.
Well, you’re right, that was poorly phrased. Private charitable giving versus institutionalized giving via public taxation is what I was thinking of contrasting.
Different institutions, each with its own advantages and disadvantages, and perhaps relative integration with cultural attitudes.
Only in the sense that the pig is more committed to your eggs and bacon than the chicken is. I would say that the person who voluntarially donates is more likely to be committed to the cause he or she donates to than someone who pays for government initiatives.