|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Many european countries have little tradition of private giving, as they trust the State to do the best thing ...... |
Cobblers, absolute bloody cobblers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Many european countries have little tradition of private giving, as they trust the State to do the best thing ...... |
Cobblers, absolute bloody cobblers. |
Indeed.
Joe, have you ever actually been you Europe? Most of the generalisations I've seen you make about the place have been far from any kind of recognisable truth.
(I'm still a little hurt that Gopher jumped on me about being anti-American, too, when we were in fact in agreement... but it's tomorrow now so not worth worrying about really 
This thread has brought out the worst in nearly everybody, it seems. Myself included. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hypnotist wrote: |
| I'm still a little hurt that Gopher jumped on me about being anti-American, too, when we were in fact in agreement...but it's tomorrow now so not worth worrying about really... |
If you felt I jumped on you, sorry. Sincerely. I truly enjoy exchanging views with only a few people here, and you're one of them. And I feel that we are usually in agreement, too.
Especially so if you want to agree with me that Dofu's generalizations about Europe are just as distasteful as the generalizations about the U.S. that appear on this board...
I react strongly to those who cast aspersions on the U.S. from an assumed position of moral superiority, and there is also a clear tendency here, an annoying tendency, for some people to squirm and do all they can to avoid recognizing a single positive thing about the United States. (see Mith's above resistance to recognizing actual contributions, and insistence on focusing on per capita contributions, because in the latter scheme of things, the U.S. appears mediocre...)
Further, I dislike hearing any statement that seems to imply that the things people point their self-righteous fingers at the United States for haven't been done a thousand times by others in the past, in a thousand different contexts.
Consider Chile: Come down on the U.S. for its disproportionate role in Allende's overthrow 1970-1973? What about Britain and its disproportionate role in Balmaceda's overthrow 1886-1896? It was the same goddamn thing, Balmaceda even shot himself like Allende did when it was all over...what right did Britain have to divide Chile into two factions and sponsor a civil war just to protect its position in the nitrates market and deal harshly with a defiant president?
So it's not the anti-Americanism so much as the convenient loss of memory (I don't accuse you of this, but others, for sure) that irks me, just like those who are clearly taking advantage of an apolitical natural disaster to score political points...still, maybe I could react less strongly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's why: because Norway looks incredibly stingy when you look at total contributions when really it's because they have a small population which is no-one's fault. If anyone sees any anti-americanism in my posts they're wrong, and if someone can't see that my numerous threads related to space are largely thanks to NASA then they're just dense. 99% of the time you can take something Wangja wrote and I will have the same opinion.
Last thing to note is that when the growth of the Chinese economy is brought up suddenly per capita is everybody's best friend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh yeah, Wikipedia too. I'm an administrator on one of them now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Especially so if you want to agree with me that Dofu's generalizations about Europe are just as distasteful as the generalizations about the U.S. that appear on this board... |
I must admit to not understanding where Dofu gets some of his generalisations, but yes - both are distateful, and perhaps more seriously - often wrong.
| Quote: |
| I react strongly to those who cast aspersions on the U.S. from an assumed position of moral superiority, and there is also a clear tendency here, an annoying tendency, for some people to squirm and do all they can to avoid recognizing a single positive thing about the United States. (see Mith's above resistance to recognizing actual contributions, and insistence on focusing on per capita contributions, because in the latter scheme of things, the U.S. appears mediocre...) |
I'd been mulling this. I don't often see the need to actively give the US credit, because there are supporters enough on here to do it for me, but I wouldn't try to deny the US that credit either. Absolute vs relative discussions are another topic - both are important. Probably it could be best summed up as "The US is overwhelmingly the leader in aid but could nevertheless afford to do a great deal more". It's natural for smaller countries to look at most things per capita, I think. Nevertheless, the US can make a very big impact with a much smaller proportion of GDP than most other countries.
| Quote: |
Further, I dislike hearing any statement that seems to imply that the things people point their self-righteous fingers at the United States for haven't been done a thousand times by others in the past, in a thousand different contexts.
[...]
So it's not the anti-Americanism so much as the convenient loss of memory (I don't accuse you of this, but others, for sure) that irks me, just like those who are clearly taking advantage of an apolitical natural disaster to score political points...still, maybe I could react less strongly. |
There are three points I have to make:
1. Others have indeed made these mistakes in the past. I know the old saying "Those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it", but I think it's valid (if optimistic!) to expect Governments to learn from history.
2. The US has in the past been deeply anti-Imperialism. It's arguable (at least) that FDR was more concerned by British Imperialism than Russian Communism... which makes it all the more odd that America should, since the war, have engaged in behaviour quite easily categorised as Imperialist.
3. Some Americans (probably only a very few, but an especially vocal few) seem to believe that, faced with any kind of foreign criticism, it's merely a sign that those stupid countries don't know what's good for the world and should either change their minds or shut up. A few of them actually seem to believe America really can do no wrong. In pointing out that in general America really isn't much better - and in some cases is indeed worse - than other countries isn't that controversial anywhere outside America. The Pax Americana has benefits and drawbacks. The rhetoric around it really does sound much like that from Imperial Britain though - and the latter stems from a time where non-whites were considered savages, where foreign types were viewed with suspicion and the arrogance of the place led to headlines like "Fog in Channel - Continent cut off". Hearing the same kind of arrogance from the Land of the Free, the place that was supposed to offer an alternative from that kind of narrow-minded arrogance, is sad and frustrating indeed. The current adminstration's attitude to multlateralism is a good case in point. Of course there have always been isolationist tendencies in US politics, but these kind of unilateral and bilateral tendencies seem rather newer (and for the rest of us, rather scary. Are Americans surprised just how shit scared much of the RoW is at the current American adminstration?)
I enjoy debating here precisely because it gives insight far beyond the one- or two-dimensional international coverage in the British press (which nevertheless honestly does seem better than the zero-dimensional coverage in US TV news, although I'm generally impressed with the print media). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
Here's why: because Norway looks incredibly stingy when you look at total contributions when really it's because they have a small population which is no-one's fault. If anyone sees any anti-americanism in my posts they're wrong, and if someone can't see that my numerous threads related to space are largely thanks to NASA then they're just dense. 99% of the time you can take something Wangja wrote and I will have the same opinion.
Last thing to note is that when the growth of the Chinese economy is brought up suddenly per capita is everybody's best friend. |
There are many models/expressions for economic data. I don't know anyone in the scholarly community (my circle back home) who would look at only one and exclude the others, or feel it necessary to attack, defend, or praise any country (including the U.S., although in the U.S., there is certainly a lot of joking and ridicule about U.S. contributions, particularly on campuses).
The best way to get the full picture is to show as many different ways of graphing the issue as you can...here's what it looks like in a per capita expression, here's an actual contributions expression, here's a chart of contributions over time, etc....
People on this board politicize nearly everything, even a terrible natural disaster. It's disappointing.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hypnotist wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Especially so if you want to agree with me that Dofu's generalizations about Europe are just as distasteful as the generalizations about the U.S. that appear on this board... |
I must admit to not understanding where Dofu gets some of his generalisations, but yes - both are distateful, and perhaps more seriously - often wrong.
| Quote: |
| I react strongly to those who cast aspersions on the U.S. from an assumed position of moral superiority, and there is also a clear tendency here, an annoying tendency, for some people to squirm and do all they can to avoid recognizing a single positive thing about the United States. (see Mith's above resistance to recognizing actual contributions, and insistence on focusing on per capita contributions, because in the latter scheme of things, the U.S. appears mediocre...) |
I'd been mulling this. I don't often see the need to actively give the US credit, because there are supporters enough on here to do it for me, but I wouldn't try to deny the US that credit either. Absolute vs relative discussions are another topic - both are important. Probably it could be best summed up as "The US is overwhelmingly the leader in aid but could nevertheless afford to do a great deal more". It's natural for smaller countries to look at most things per capita, I think. Nevertheless, the US can make a very big impact with a much smaller proportion of GDP than most other countries.
| Quote: |
Further, I dislike hearing any statement that seems to imply that the things people point their self-righteous fingers at the United States for haven't been done a thousand times by others in the past, in a thousand different contexts.
[...]
So it's not the anti-Americanism so much as the convenient loss of memory (I don't accuse you of this, but others, for sure) that irks me, just like those who are clearly taking advantage of an apolitical natural disaster to score political points...still, maybe I could react less strongly. |
There are three points I have to make:
1. Others have indeed made these mistakes in the past. I know the old saying "Those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it", but I think it's valid (if optimistic!) to expect Governments to learn from history.
2. The US has in the past been deeply anti-Imperialism. It's arguable (at least) that FDR was more concerned by British Imperialism than Russian Communism... which makes it all the more odd that America should, since the war, have engaged in behaviour quite easily categorised as Imperialist.
3. Some Americans (probably only a very few, but an especially vocal few) seem to believe that, faced with any kind of foreign criticism, it's merely a sign that those stupid countries don't know what's good for the world and should either change their minds or shut up. A few of them actually seem to believe America really can do no wrong. In pointing out that in general America really isn't much better - and in some cases is indeed worse - than other countries isn't that controversial anywhere outside America. The Pax Americana has benefits and drawbacks. The rhetoric around it really does sound much like that from Imperial Britain though - and the latter stems from a time where non-whites were considered savages, where foreign types were viewed with suspicion and the arrogance of the place led to headlines like "Fog in Channel - Continent cut off". Hearing the same kind of arrogance from the Land of the Free, the place that was supposed to offer an alternative from that kind of narrow-minded arrogance, is sad and frustrating indeed. The current adminstration's attitude to multlateralism is a good case in point. Of course there have always been isolationist tendencies in US politics, but these kind of unilateral and bilateral tendencies seem rather newer (and for the rest of us, rather scary. Are Americans surprised just how *beep* scared much of the RoW is at the current American adminstration?)
I enjoy debating here precisely because it gives insight far beyond the one- or two-dimensional international coverage in the British press (which nevertheless honestly does seem better than the zero-dimensional coverage in US TV news, although I'm generally impressed with the print media). |
There is very little here that I would take issue with. I might refer you to LeFeber or McCormick's work. They're U.S. foreign policy historians. They, and others, argue that the United States was a revolutionary, antiImperialist state for only a very brief few years. Then it preferred stability for its markets, by, say, the 1790s. It quickly transitioned to a standard liberal state. ("Liberal" in the laizze-faire academic/economic sense, not "liberal" in the moronic CNN vs. Fox News debate team club sense.)
When the former Latin American colonies declared independence, for example, Monroe and others were suspicious about them. (And rightly so, as they were conservative reactions rather than modernistic revolutions, but that's another story.)
By the time of the Vietnam War, for those who had not been paying attn to U.S. behavior in its sphere of influence, the U.S. had somehow ended up on the side of suppressing an anticolonial independence movement in the name of anticommunism, and everything became rather complicated.
Some argue that the country will never get over the contradictions of being involved in Vietnam.
In any case, one of the tragedies appears to be that the U.S. came into its full imperialistic mode only recently, in a unipolar world. If there had been another great power around, perhaps a fully unified Europe, or a much better organized China, to act as a counterweight, then things might have proceeded differently.
As it is...history still isn't over yet, so we'll just have to wait and see how things develop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think there's a good reason behind it for people that are actually concerned and aren't just anti-american. For me I would love to see someone competent and respectable in office and if pointing the finger at Bush enough results in him being seen for what he truly is and perhaps wisens up the voting public then I'm all for it. One day before Bush's first joking speech on the flood John Kerry had already sent out a call for donations to the Red Cross. Whether he was lacking in charisma or not he still has enough sense to know that you treat a situation like this with as much gravity as possible. John McCain would have done so as well. That's why I don't mind people politicizing this.
Per capita: if China were to give 1/4 what the US does per person then they would technically be the largest donor country. At the same time Iceland would have to give $54180 per person to equal the US. Overall donations are only useful to see where money is coming from as a whole and never as a measure of generosity.
OTOH I know that Americans are very generous with private donations that are very rarely reported. Same with the part of Canada I come from though you'd never know it to hear the central government talk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mith: there are additional complexities, particularly when comparing the behavior of other states to the United States.
Take human rights, for example.
See Donnelly's International Human Rights, particularly where he gets into differences between U.S. approaches and other Western European states, particularly countries like Denmark. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
See Donnelly's International Human Rights, particularly where he gets into differences between U.S. approaches and other Western European states, particularly countries like Denmark. |
Thanks for pointing that out - he looks like a very interesting author (and he's clearly a fan of Locke, which whilst a tad cliched for an American thinker means the shoulders he stands on are undoubtedly sufficiently sturdy). As usual, a specialist in the field can briefly sum up my muddled thoughts:
| Jack Donnelly wrote: |
This leadership role has its problematic elements. Traditionally, the United States has been reticent to open itself to the sort of human rights scrutiny it applies to others. It was only in 1992 that the United States ratified the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, more than 25 years after the measure received General Assembly approval. In addition, across the mainstream of the American political spectrum, there has been an unusual reluctance to accept the equal status of civil and political and economic, social, and cultural rights, a central normative principle of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenants. The United States is not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and most Americans do not regard social problems involving education, health care, and employment as human rights issues.
American leadership has also been challenged. At home, the isolationist tradition is deeply rooted. Today, many Americans are reluctant to spend money or risk American lives to support human rights abroad. Abroad, American self-righteousness and a preference for unilateral action have often provoked resentment even among those who have shared the values underlying American policies.
Nonetheless, the United States today, as two centuries ago, is a world leader in the ongoing struggle for human rights. And the struggle continues, globally, to realize the revolutionary idea that all people, simply because they are human, are entitled to the basic protections, goods, services, and opportunities of internationally recognized human rights. |
Mind you, I'm tempted to get the book entirely on the back of the following review on Amazon:
| Quote: |
not very interesting, February 25, 2000
Reviewer: A reader
i had this book to read for a class at james madison university and if your living and breathing...don't read this book. it was dry and didn't grab my attention at all.if you want facts, then this is the book for you.if you want good reading,pick another book. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbee
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Location: korea
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
chavez offered a million bucks through one of venezuala's oil companies ...
... I wonder how much cash EXXON are ponying up
... oh ya, that's right, in the US the government lines the pockets of the oil companies, not the the other way around
... btw chavez rocks, bush is a w**ker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peppermint
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
You've been angsting about why China isn't contributing so much.
Perhaps you ( and most other people missed this)
| Quote: |
SHANGHAI, China (AP) -- Torrential rains and flooding from Typhoon Talim have killed at least 13 people and left 15 missing in eastern China, the government says.
At least two other people were killed when the typhoon passed over the island of Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday. About 30 people were injured there.
Almost 600,000 people were evacuated as the typhoon struck southern China, forcing authorities to shut down schools, highways and airports, officials said.
The mainland deaths occurred in Fujian and Zhejiang provinces on China's southeastern coast, the official Xinhua News Agency said Saturday.
It said Talim caused $450 million in damage. |
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/09/02/china.typhoon.ap/
Hmm- 600,000 people were evacuated and there was a low death toll. What was the population of New Orleans again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
