To some extent, yes. The point is that more Americans know about it than before.
It’s your choice to view it like that. I have $19 in my bank account right now, living in a foreign country; I’m not trying to make excuses for rich people. But, I can’t help but be moved by the fact that certain people who have the means are trying to eradicate diseases, develope better faming methods, and erase debt in impoverished countries. So, I don’t pass off what the Bonos, Oprahs, and Gates of the world do just because they are ridiculously rich.
May I ask what color the sky is where you live? I asked before and I seriously want to know how you can get out of bed each day with that kind of world (or nation) view. I’m not saying “love it or leave it” or anything, but Christ, if you have such poor regard for your fellow citizens, where else would be better?
I live here because my friends, relatives and property are here, not because I like the country. Given my cynical view of the world, I suspect I’d despise any country I live in, so there’s not much point in leaving ( unless Bush declares this to be the Holy States of America and calls for a cleansing of the heathens, that is ).
Actually, I believe that is not true. What is true is that government giving is low. But that’s part of the point of having charities. Americans donate privately twice as much as they “donate” through government. And that’s a good thing. Government charity isn’t: it’s theft. The government takes your money by force and hands off to some foreigner. Is it a good choice? A bad one? You don’t now, and you have no effective say in how it gets used, because it’s too small to make an issue of in politics.
And don’t even get me started on the futility of the U.N. NGO’s at dissemintating aid.
I’m projecting? It’s Americans in this and other threads going on about how most non-Americans are somehow incapable of grasping the sheer enormity of their country. Sure, that’s true of some people, but it’s far less prevalent than some of you seem to think. Seriously, listening to you go on about this is like listening to some self-absorbed twit of a highschool cheerleader moan about the tribulations of being so popular. I don’t mind if the point comes up now and then when it’s actually got some significance, but for chrissakes just give it a rest now and then.
That doesn’t make it much compared to the percentage of their wealth other countries give.
Or American. And it’s not “theft”, it’s forcing people to pay their fair share. The point of private charity IMHO is that it manipulates a gullible few into trying to carry the dead weight of those whose don’t give anything to anyone, and won’t without the threat of force.
Are you one of those people who think all taxes are theft ? And if so, are you prepared to give up the benefits of government, and are you prepared to watch America collapse into a Third-World style failed state ?
Though neither of these sparked particular interest in the thread I think both of them come close to answering the OP. Many citizens from the US either immigrated from other places (especially Europe) or are decended from folks who did…and we tend to have long memories of things like getting dragged into WWI and stuff like the League of Nations.
That said we DO join international organizations and I think its a mischaracterization to say we have a ‘fear’ of internationalism. We have a wary distrust of jumping in to international organizations or treaties without seeing whats in it for us. As a world superpower we also aren’t likely to jump in to something that is a major disadvantage to us (for example Kyoto which was given as an example in the OP)…why should we at this point in our history? I’m finding it hard to grasp here…did the British join international organizations or sign treaties that were disadvantageous to them when they were had their empire going full steam? France? Rome? China? Has ANY major power done this as a general practice?
If the answer is ‘no’ then isn’t the whole question rather silly? Why do American’s do this? I dunknow…perhaps because EVERYONE operates this way and its basic human nature? Naw, couldn’t be that simple. Ask Der Trihs…we do it and act that way because we are evil…
No. But maybe you’ll manage to drag us into yet another global war, ehe? Or maybe you will try and use us as your reserve or as your cats paw…or just use us to your own ends, you being smarter and more knowledgable than we are and all. We can just be the muscle behind whatever you want done (since you have none yourself)…all in the name of ‘internationalism’ (a.k.a. What Europe Wants™. And we should feel honored to be allowed to serve.
(I realize this is painting with a broad brush but I’ve SEEN this attitude in Europe when I’ve traveled there…though in honestly less in the UK than on the mainland)
We have rather long memories and fairly bitter memories of being dragged into Europes conflicts that really weren’t any of our affair…of being your ‘strategic reserve’, the cannon fodder and brute muscle to your brains. You guys managed to get us into one war that was none of our affair and were scheming to get us into another when Japan beat you to the punch and dragged us in anyway. And then there was that whole League of Nations thing, and the treaty you foisted off on Germany in round I…the one that had an impact on round II happening. We TRIED to disagree but you were smarter than us country bumpkins…
Seriously, though we have good relations with the UK and even Europe in general (hell, we are even nominally allied to France, right? ) it doesn’t mean we’ve forgotten our history completely. A couple of decades of playing nice (mostly because you guys managed to slaughter yourselves in job lots in the LAST 2 great wars…not to mention the retail slaughter of things like the Napoleonic wars, the various bloody religious wars, the odd revolution…and the wars you guys seeming did just for fun or profit) doesn’t exactly erase the centuries that came before.
Put it this way…it would be like asking the Indians here to trust the US because in the last few decades the US government has treated them better than it did in, oh, say the 19th and early 20th century. Not a LOT better (comparable to, say, how the average main land European treats the US as a whole ;))…but better all the same. Sure…the US government is playing nice NOW…and maybe you can (mostly) trust them now. But you still want to keep a wary eye on them…they may just turn mean again you know…
Actually, yes it does. It makes it pretty much even compared to Europe. I’m quite sick of being told that Americans are selfish because we don’t give from government. We give willingly, where others are forced.
[quote]
And it’s not “theft”, it’s forcing people to pay their fair share. The point of private charity IMHO is that it manipulates a gullible few into trying to carry the dead weight of those whose don’t give anything to anyone, and won’t without the threat of force.
[quote]
Except it’s not their “fair share” of anything.
Guess what? I don’t owe you, or anyone who lives in a third world nation anything. There is NO fair way to take my money and give it to them. I give it, or it is taken forcefull.y I owe nothing to no one except by my will, and the fact that you feel some sort of obligation doesn’t mean I owe them or you squat. I give what I choose when I choose.
And your characterization of charites borders on the obscene. Outside of a few unethical charities, they serve a legitimate need honestly and with due diligence.
I despise taxation. I’m willing to tolerate it when neccessary. Gioven the absolute waste of foreign aid, I don’t believe it’s worthwhile to continue any government giving. People will make up the shortfall on their own, in ways much more efficient.
Why are you singling me out ? Your argument seems to be “All of humanity is evil, therefore it’s OK that we’re evil.”
Which proved it was our affair all along; we just wanted to pretend otherwise.
You aren’t really trying to claim it would have been better to let Hitler conquer Europe and the USSR, and kill all the “inferior” people there, are you ?
Oh, garbage. If the people there were being “forced”, they’d vote the government in question out.
So you live in a bubble, and interact with no one ? Everyone benefits from the government; even if you live as a hermit in a shack in the hills, you benefit from the government preventing the formation of bands of roving marauders who’d kill you and steal whatever you have.
In other words, your goal is to be a parasite, feeding off of civilized humanity.
Yeah, suuure they will. And the aid will be distributed by pink fluffy bunnies as well.
Oh, most definetly that attitude exists, though there’s certainly those that hold it here as well as the continent (uh, what we call mainland Europe). But I don’t think there’s the attitude so much that “Europe is superior”, but instead “The UK/France/Germany/etc is superior”; we’re just honestly not that close (at least in Western Europe) unfortunetly.
But i’m afraid i’m going to disagree with you on your notion of “you forced us to abandon our isolationism”; it may be that the World Wars started here, but the U.S. definetly got something out of taking part, and it’s not exactly like you’ve kept your troops within your borders since then.
Y’know, when I stop to think about it, the comment should really be that many non-Americans (at a certain threshold of education and worldliness) do not readily come to terms with how is it that a majority of Americans never learned to deal with a greater world out there, not because of pigheadedness, but because they* did not need to, * due to the size & diversity of the country, population and economy effectively insulating them from it.
For some reason there seems to exist a desire for the Americans to be worldlier just because they should, rather than because it’s of use to them.
But more than “sheer enormity”, the comment probably is aimed at a perception that the outside world does not get the nonmonolithical nature of the nation, culturally and ideologically. Of course, this is true of virtually every other society, but folks do tend to see the mote in the other’s eye before the beam in their own.
As stated, the big concern about “internationalism” is distrust, that someone somewhere else will impose upon the Americans some rule that they had no real input in establishing – and then be unable to vote the rascal out of office and replace him with someone who’ll undo the policy. (And sure, there is resistance to the idea that the US delegate has exactly as many votes on the issue as, say, Nauru’s.)
BTW:
And fine by me, but am I glad there are people who care enough if the nation is harming others to try set it straight, rather than bewail that is its core nature.
There’s the rub. Define “fair.” I have absolutely zero moral, ethical, or legal obligation to help anybody. If I chose to do so, that is my business and no one else’s. You seem to feel that there is some over-riding mandate you seem to mis-label “civilized behavior” that we be forced to hand over the product of our labor to someone who has zero moral claim to it.
Actually, to be “fair”, there ARE legal obligations to share your wealth – they are called “tax laws”. Taxes are legal, and obligatory.
However, a key element in the legitimacy of this scheme of redistribution is that ideally the tax load is determined by the lawful authority of a society, based on its priorities and needs, and that said authority is accountable to those taxed, so that it will not simply confiscate the fruits of labor arbitrarily and will respect the private holding of wealth as a right.
) it doesn’t mean we’ve forgotten our history completely. A couple of decades of playing nice (mostly because you guys managed to slaughter yourselves in job lots in the LAST 2 great wars…not to mention the retail slaughter of things like the Napoleonic wars, the various bloody religious wars, the odd revolution…and the wars you guys seeming did just for fun or profit) doesn’t exactly erase the centuries that came before.