OK…
I Probably misconstrued the OP. It took just one line from an article, with no context.
I assumed it was a ‘let’s have a go at the French’ post (which I believe has been popular over the pond recently…)
It seems like it was an honest query…
In which case I apologise.
FYI… I read loads of newspapers…
One day I might try reading a proper book.
So then, why DON’T the French give nearly anything to charity?
Ever wonder why the french love Jerry Lewis?
Ever wonder why that oddball friend of yours persists in his oddball behavior even to the detriment of the well being of his self or of the betterment his family?
Well sometimes a person or a culture will assume an exaggerated sense of self-importance when they realize that the world at large has regulated their tired worn attitudes of life to a minor role within the ever evolving march of human events.
The ineptness and social errors of Jerry Lewis is but the subconscious realization of this unhappy state of the french condition today.
And within this story lies the sad sad truth as to why the wasted poor french people give very very little to a larger world that is everyday passing them by.
Well, that was a steaming load of horseshit. But a nicely-phrased one.
Can anyone provide some actual numbers in re actual charity figures for the French? Preferably in relation to other Euro nations and N. America?
Second-hand cite:this page from a German site on fundraisin says: under the heading Spendenanteil am individuellen Einkommen im internationalen Vergleich
[donations as percentage of individual’s income]: USA: 0.57 %, Germany: 0.18 %, France: 0.13%
Source given: Lester Salamon and Helmut K. Anheier: The Emerging Sector. An overview. Baltimore, 1994.
In the context of the site this seems to refer to fundraising in general rather than for charitable purposes. Fundraising in the US seems to be somewhat broader in scope than in Europe, e.g. universities hardly get any donations in Germany - this is thought to be the state’s job.
Someone from Alabama is speaking to the state of France?
The logic escapes me, never mind the utter lack of facticity.
If “Le Jerry Lewis” arguement is the best you can come up with to knock France, Milum, I suggest you get yourself down to a library.
Start in the childrens section and work up.
How many more times must this link be posted?
What does the popularity of the ghastly Benny Hill in the US represent, then?
They like slapping the bald fellow 
DYSWIDT
I have spoken on this before, but now I must introduce The FG Law.
The FG Law states:
As a thread about the French in the SDMB approaches the end of the first page, the probability of a mention of Jerry Lewis approaches one.
The reasons for this law are not fully understood, but it appears to be something to do with Americans finding the French’s interest in the performer even more fascinating than the aforesaid interest. Thus:
Jerry Lewis = X.
French interest in X = Y.
American Interest in Y = Z.
FG Law suggests that: Z > Y.
Current investigations revolve around the even crazier possibility that Z > A (where A = American Interest in Jerry Lewis). More research is required.
Can anyone provide some actual numbers in re actual charity figures for the French? Preferably in relation to other Euro nations and N. America? ~ asked andros from Dejagore, Tennessee.
Well I guess andros, one can at least try, but the chance is taken that you will find it but yet another “steaming load of bullshit.” Oh well.
**Question #1 (from *Canada / Ca *magazine)
I was surprised when I looked at the research. I was expecting to see the U.S. because of all that’s been written about that country’s predisposition to sharing. The total dollars given may make the US seem like the most generous country, but when it comes to the percentage of the population willing to share it’s good fortune, Spain wins hands down with 71 percent.
Next comes Britain with 65 percent, followed closely by Canada with 62 percent, the USA with 55 percent and France with 27 percent.
________________________________________ **
Someone from Alabama is speaking to the state of France? said Collounsbury who is on the front line.
Now now Collounbury, do I detect a hint of nuance? Go ahead, be a man, spit it out, why are you denigrating the the people of great state of Alabama?
The logic escapes me, never mind the utter lack of facticity. Collounsbury again.
Ha ha ha, * collounsbury*, you said “facticity” when you shoulda said “facts”. “Facticity” is not a word, and even if it is, it shouldn’t be.
Now as for “logic excaping you” it might help if you realize that when responding to a generalized question about a staticially determined characteristic of a large population of people like the French there are no “facts” as such to document an answer. Most cultures don’t keep a close tally on their shortcomings. Instead you count on the people that you are communication with to have a modicum of general knowledge of the subject, like for example…
** France is no longer grand and the French people are no longer glorious. They are a effete group of language snobs and shopkeepers that look inwards for their social security and look backwards at a time when their countrymen were among the greatest on Earth.**
I don’t do this very often, but :rolleyes:.
I fail to see how this fights ignorance. Sure, the statistics are very interesting, but the ahem “spin” with which you coloured your interpretation thereof does nothing more than inflame.
France didn’t support the war. Big deal. Get over it, already.
We’ve already rather covered this cultural difference, so the point is what?
The word great and Alabama do not ordinarily go together when one reflects on economics, education or culture. Having had the deep misfortune of visiting the backwards place, it is easy to see why.
No, factuality would have been the more standard word. Facticity, however, amused me at the time.
I’m afraid your long paragraph here hasn’t much sene to it. I believe you may have meant ‘statistically’ determined, although that’s not really sensible. The last sentence is a non-sequitur.
This coming from someone in Alabama.
Well, when Alabama turns into a major tourist destination like Paris or indeed all of France, then we can start talking.
So speaks the empty posturing of immature jingoism.
Lessee . . .
Firstly, of course, I said “horseshit,” not “bullshit.” A subtle and perhaps unimportant distinction, but it pays to keep our facts straight.
Secondly, in response to the general question I asked regarding charity figures (and my thanks to tschild, by the way–that was very helpful), you responded:
I don’t know what “Canada / Ca magazine” means, nor who wrote the article (?), nor what his methods were. That’s not to mention that the phrase “willing to share it’s (sic) good fortune” is essentially meaningless. Do these figures represent the percentage of the population who give any discretionary income to any recipient, or only to registered charities? Does it include churches? Panhandlers? Museums?
I trust you follow me. If you could perhaps provide a full citation of the magazine article in question, we might have a more solid footing upon which to start.
Thirdly, if you can’t keep your hatred of another nation under control, maybe you should lie down for a nice nap or something. Spewing blinkered, emotion-driven, irrational ignorance doesn’t help your argument any. You want to argue that the French eat babies and molest llamas, fine. But at least make the effort to do so in a rational manner, huh?
Fourthly . . . “Tennesee?” Where in great gibbering fuck did that come from?