´óÏó´«Ã½

Absolutely, one-hundred percent, YES, YES, YES.

To the quote, also, yes (maybe I'm very eager to accept that great minds discuss ideas because that's what interests me!). But I'd say this in response to this 'idea':

The same 'thing' that gave rise to saints now gives rise to celebrities.

Call the 'thing' whatever you like - religion, maybe - but it's completely true.

Well, yes - it's all part of the same thing; the Warm Fuzzies that are evident in many theistic Christians' unshakeable belief that God is their special friend are precisely the same as the unshakeable beliefs that many Michael Jackson fans have that he "touched their lives" or "gave them meaning" etc etc. It is not that it is a *replacement* for religion - it is the same core phenomenon, but with modified scaffolding.

The Bible teaches that man is 'made in the image of God', which is why all people feel a need to worship. If they do not worship God, people turn to something, or someone, else.

Pascal talked about 'a God-shaped void in the heart of every man'. Augustine said: "Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in Thee."

We are foolish indeed if we ignore the Bible's accurate exposition of human nature.

Oh, Phil, I would suggest we are foolish if we take such nonsense at face value. It is as I mentioned previously: if, like Pascal, we start out with a god-shaped hole, we fill it with a hole-shaped god.

It is not something that exists, but something that we invent. The bible was written by humans just like us, with all our feelings, foibles, fantasies and fixations. When you're hungry, that is not a sign that food exists - simply a sign of your desire for such. And when you're hungry, you don't simply hope for food to magically appear; you put on a couple of slices of toast. You make it so. You could fill your (cake)hole with junk food (like religion or celebrity) or with something nutritious and constructuve (like freethought).

So perhaps people do feel something lacking in their life; some people fill it with inane fantasies about gods and redeemers; some people fill it with decerebrate celebrity worship; some people fill it with hedonistic self-indulgence; some people fill it with a hope for the future and a drive for responsible and ethical treatment of people and our world, and a desire to find out more about how our universe works.

Personally, I find that latter to be the best approach, and sticking gods or celebrities in there is just the psychological equivalent of eating any old rubbish. It reveals a deeper problem - one of discernment.

There are certainly similiarities between religion and celebrity culture:

1. The quote ÌýÌý "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people" ÌýÌý is usually attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt. Are you suggesting, William, that religion is an outlook for small minds? In which case, I concur. Like the culture of celebrity, it is obsessed with people (usually one or two - God or Allah, plus Jesus or Mohammed etc) and their qualities and with 'following' them, as if one or two people possessed all the secrets of the universe. Which, of course, we all secretly know is absolute nonsense.

2. Following from (1), despite todays superior communications, the celebrity becomes the fount of all knowledge and wisdom. In fact, the media does the opposite of what it is supposed to do (seek the truth) and instead feeds the celebrity (24 hour news saturated with the Dianafication of Wacko Jacko: Iran, Iran, global warming, the recession, relegated to obscurity).

3. People believe what they want in both cases; evidence ÌýÌý of flaws, puerile obsessions etc Ìý is irrelevant and is dismissed out of hand. Myth is preferred to reality.

4. The image takes over. The hero has to have a good image and be 'beautiful': Jesus with a halo or Michael Jackson with his nose jobs, paint jobs and finally a mask to hide his ageing visage.

"Unhappy the land that is in need of heroes", wrote Bertolt Brecht. But then "no man is a hero to his valet", according to Montaigne (or was it Madame de Sevigne?)

In the 19th century, Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the people. I think in the 20th century that was replaced by sports. Talk about periodically assembling congregations of large numbers of people and rituals.

It's notable that the modern entertainers are the descendant of the court jesters who provided meaningless diversionary amusement as a respite from the real issues of life. The enormous financial gains they can earn today while the rest of our civilization crumbles around us unattended to shows where society places its values. The consequences will become increasingly manifest.

Helio

fuzzy-ma-shcuzzy

and here, why would you disconnect theology from "hope for the future and a drive for responsible and ethical treatment of people and our world, and a desire to find out more about how our universe works.", I don't.


Brain

"religion is an outlook for small minds"

Top notch argument that one, gotta hand it to ya, speechless I am, speechless. :-)

You never did tell me what you placed your hope in, nor what you really doubted, but ho hum.

Is celebrity culture a substitute for religion?

My answer to that is: if some of the contributors on this blog are right then who cares?

If life really is just a cosmic accident (and we really have struggled up "mount improbable" as a certain learned "celebrity", who apparently knows everything, assures us we have), and if worshipping Michael Jackson makes some people happy in their short blip of consciousness on this rock, then why worry? If science turns other people on, then I'm happy for them also, but such people are no more "wise" or "right" or "living according to the truth" (whatever those terms mean as part of our "evolution") than anyone else.

And if I happen to find that a certain "Christian" (dare I use that nasty politically incorrect word) worldview turns me on, then I'm happy for myself also. After all, my detractors will never be able to turn round to me one day, when this life is done and dusted, and say "I told you there wasn't a God!" (Think about it!!)

But anyway, perhaps Camus was right... let's just go with the flow. In fact I don't even know why we're even bothering to debate the issue, since it's all been determined by nature anyway... :-)

Brian McClinton:


"Are you suggesting, William, that religion is an outlook for small minds? In which case, I concur. Like the culture of celebrity, it is obsessed with people (usually one or two - God or Allah, plus Jesus or Mohammed etc)..."

Theism is not primarily about people as you well know, Brian, but expressly about an entity other than humanity: the divine.

The quote could help us further than simply destroying your assertion, though, because among the religious there are those who DO discuss God with primarily human-like qualities, as though he were a person. They fall on the small-minded side, if you ask me. Theism itself, on the other hand, deals not primarily in people, nor primarily in events, but in the idea of a supreme being.

Great minds discuss ideas, don't they Brian.

John/ Peter:

I think the Christian religion is the paradigm case of of the cult of celebrity in the western world. There is an obsession with the character of Jesus that goes beyond all reason and good sense, and thus a shadowy, ancient middle eastern figure is converted into an object of worship as an intimate friend and the yardstick for all behaviour.


As for the IDEA of a supreme being, it depends what you mean. If you are referring to a 'first cause' then, of course, if there is such an entity, it is almost certainly not a 'personal' being in the monotheistic sense, and there is absolutely no reason to worship it.

Perhaps the IDEA of worship turns a quest for knowledge and truth into a personal search for a mythical hero worthy of worship. If we divested ourselves of the concept of worship, then it would be easier to divest religion from its celebrity culture. But of course we also need to define what we mean by religion.

I think that the phenomenon has been around for a long time. Go read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" which deals with religious relics and celebrity relics from long before TV.

I think if I hear the word "superstar" on TV even one more time I am going to throw up. There is only so much horse manure one man can take.

Marcus (post 12)

I whole heartedly agree. You're a sta....! Oops, couldn't resist!

Hi Marcus2
I could be wrong but did the court jester not have the right to tell the King the truth without being punished as long as he was funny, unlike everyone else at court who would tell the King anything in order to advance themselves. Or is that Monty Python and the Holy Grail I'm thinking of.

FiddleDeeDee;

I've tried to play the jester but every time I tell the truth about the British royal family, ´óÏó´«Ã½ deletes my postings.

Brian says:

"...it is almost certainly not a 'personal' being in the monotheistic sense, and there is absolutely no reason to worship it."

I'm not sure the second half of this sentence necessarily follows from the first. If this being is much much greater than ourselves, regardless of whether it's 'personal', wouldn't it be very reasonable to admire it? 'Worship' of course is a word loaded with millennia of religious tradition. Maybe we should say 'put on a pedestal' instead, which knowledge of such a being would inevitably create. Would there really be "absolutely no reason" to put such a being on a pedestal, unless it were 'personal'?

Mark (6 and 12):

Your views on celebrity culture are quite acute for an American. But we might also judge a nation by its obsession with celebrity. The greater the obsession, the smaller the minds of the people.

Ironically, much of this celebrity culture is American. The world is pumped full of American heroes: film stars, pop stars, sports stars. Media hype encourages us to believe that the sexiest women and the sexiest men are largely American, that the greatest singers are American, that the greatest actors are American, that the greatest directors are American, and so on and so on. It is, above all, American culture which debases the world and pumps it full of candy floss as a substitute for real art. Trivia and superficiality are treated as more important than the things that really matter. In short, culture is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator: an obsession with personalities.

Ulster too has an obsession with heroes, often ruthless Orange and Green thugs turned into supermen: people who shot others in their beds, planted bombs under family cars or aimed their snipers rifles from safe distances. This destructive and cowardly militarism dominates both Ulster and American cultures. Is it a coincidence that they are two of the most religious societies in the western world?

Lets quote a couple of Americans:

Every hero becomes a bore at last.
RALPH WALDO EMERSON

Show me a hero, and I will write you a tragedy.
F. SCOTT FITZGERALD

Brian, your views are quaint. As a European living in America I think you're full of it.

Actually, let me elaborate.

Nobody despises the celebrity worship more than many of the Americans I've met. There is more criticism of the media circus here in America than anywhere else. And of hero worship.

What does this teach us? It teaches us that America can't be so easily pigeonholed as you love to do. It's a land of variety and of extremes. Freedom inevitably gives us this. It allows people to pursue whatever they want. But for every seemingly abundant form of excess in America, there is an abundant form of the opposite, ALSO in America. Action, reaction. Ying, yang.

Only typical European smallmindedness precludes you from seeing this.

(And you didn't answer my criticism of your earlier assertion that unless a God is claimed to be personal then it isn't worth worshipping.)

John:

I'm sure America is a land of variety. Most countries and most people are. That's not what we are talking about.
We are talking about celebrity culture. I don't think there's anything remotely 'quaint' about suggesting that most of the world endures American cultural imperialism. You've only got to look around you: kids wearing tee-shirts with American place names; kids watching video games made largely in the USA; most of us watching largely US films (80% of global box office revenue), the majority of which are mindless rubbish; consumers stuffing themselves with junk food like Big Macs etc.

The trouble with all of this is that it is the opposite of the diversity that you applaud. I welcome Americans or anybody criticising it. So on that we agree.

As for worshipping a God that isn't personal, I don't know what it means. It requires definitions of the terms.
'Admiring' is, as you suggest, not quite the same as showing 'love and devotion' (worship). We can certainly admire what we don't love. I suppose you might admire a god's omnipotence while hating his cruelty, but personally I wouldn't because I could not admire a being who could prevent suffering but refuses to do so.

The McClintonism: "Most of the world endures American cultural imperialism."

The truth: Most of the world chooses the products of American culture.

Nobody forces anybody to wear T-shirts which iconize American culture, or to watch Hollywood films, or to eat burgers and fries. They choose to do so! It would appear, Brian, that they enjoy it. You may think they're unenlightened, or you may otherwise pretentiously lament their choices, but one thing's certain: it sure as hell isn't America's fault that people in other nations find their culture very agreeable.

By the way, there's one very well understood reason that people from other nations seem to enjoy American culture. America was born of people from other nations, and today it is the product of the freedom they enjoyed when they came here. So, it should come as no surprise that other nations would enjoy what they did with it.

John:

I see, youre back into the snide remarks mode. So we're not really thinking for ourselves here. We're hiding behind what the majority think. Do you always employ this strategy in argument? It doesnt sound very libertarian to me. My opinion is my own, except when somebody else disagrees with it. Then it becomes 'the norm' with which all sensible people concur, except those who are full of themselves and of full of pretentious laments. It seems you cannot just disagree: you have to do it with a dollop of superciliousness. Its almost as if you lack confidence in your own reasoning and feel compelled to back it up with a dose of argument ad hominem.

"Nobody forces anybody to imbibe American culture". Largely correct, though it is so ubiquitous that it is difficult to escape from it and also difficult for a young person to resist the pressure to conform to it, i.e. to be the freethinking person you claim to be.

"You may think they are unenlightened". Correct, they are, though it's not all crap - Hollywood has produced some of the best movies as well as reels and reels of mindless dross.

"It sure as hell isnt Americas fault that people in other nations find their culture very agreeable". Ah, now heres where the big problem arises.This is not quite correct. It paints a very benign picture, doesnt it? The truth is a bit murkier. American cultural imperialism mirrors US imperialism in general in its power to influence the rest of the world. It is an unrelenting barrage of bombs, bullets, billion-dollar ads and cut-throat marketing.

Let us be quite clear. I am objecting not only to the POWER of this cultural imperialism but also to its CONTENT. It is psychotically obsessed with celebrity, violence, anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism. Under the pretence of promoting diversity, it has spread a homogenised product throughout the world. A hamburger is a hamburger is hamburger, no matter what dressing you put on it.

The point, my dear John, is that the theory totally contradicts the practice. The theory is about values like justice, rights, freedom, democracy, compassion etc - all the great virtues of western civilisation. But the practice is a constant contradiction of these very values, whether we are discussing the imposition of a standardised hamburger culture or Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the overthrow of democratically elected politicians, the killing of civilians, etc etc.

America is hated rather than loved in so many parts of the world precisely because it operates on a massive dose of double standards and hypocrisy.

Gandhi said: "I do not want my house to be walled on sides and my windows stuffed. I want the culture of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any".
As a liberal, I am sure that this is a sentiment with which you would agree. The problem is that America in its dealings with the rest of the world doesn't (whatever individuals Americans or fly-ins may do in America).

Brian-


"I see, youre back into the snide remarks mode. So we're not really thinking for ourselves here. We're hiding behind what the majority think. Do you always employ this strategy in argument?"

I never employ it, and I'm not here. You said most of the world endures American cultural imperialism; I'm disagreeing by saying that they have chosen to 'partake'. That argument doesn't appeal to them being right to do so, it just contradicts your assertion that they are enduring it as though they didn't wear jeans or go to the movies or eat donuts or burgers. Personally, I love American culture, and when I did those things living in Ireland I did them because I enjoyed them, not because I was being forced to endure them.

Where people go to a French restaurant and eat cheese and drink wine and take 4 hours to eat it, you have no criticisms. But if suddenly everyone decided that French culture and cuisine was the best thing ever, and it became as ubiquitous as American culture is, you couldn't suddenly blame the French for the homogeneity of French culture in the world! Indeed, if you enjoyed it yourself, you wouldn't blame anybody at all. On the other hand, if you were averse to it, you might want to blame the people around you rather than the country whose culture was being spread.

The ironic thing, of course, is that American culture is precisely what you're claiming it's not. It's a land of variety, as I said earlier. I don't know if you've ever been here, but in every place I've ever been in America, the way people tend to choose what they eat (for example) is: "What'll it be tonight? Italian? Mexican? Chinese, Thai, Japanese?" There's greater variety here in Los Angeles, for example, than I've ever seen in 'homogenized' Belfast: see here for .

Anyway, whether what's happened is a homogenization due to the rapid adoption of American culture around the world or not, you can hardly blame America for it. And that's where you disagree:


"The truth is a bit murkier. American cultural imperialism mirrors US imperialism in general in its power to influence the rest of the world. It is an unrelenting barrage of bombs, bullets, billion-dollar ads and cut-throat marketing."

Apologies if I read you wrong, but what bullets were fired in order that McDonald's could thrive overseas? What bombs were detonated so that people would wear T-shirts with "Route 66" printed on them? And what the hell is wrong with advertising now?


"The point, my dear John, is that the theory totally contradicts the practice. The theory is about values like justice, rights, freedom, democracy, compassion etc - all the great virtues of western civilisation. But the practice is a constant contradiction of these very values, whether we are discussing the imposition of a standardised hamburger culture or Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the overthrow of democratically elected politicians, the killing of civilians, etc etc."

Well it should firstly be noted that it is a fallacy to judge a culture by what its political leaders choose to do. I presume you would object to the United Kingdom and its culture being judged by the actions of Tony Blair, and you would object to Ireland and its culture being judged by the actions of the political establishment which allowed the abuse of children to go on in its institutions for years. America, still, refuses to judge nations on the fallacious basis you are judging America. A majority of Americans found what happened at Abu Ghraib deplorable, and disagree with the existence of Guantanamo. Many are even 'anti-war', Brian. I don't see you criticize with near the same gusto the culture of European nations on the basis of the 'theory' of society they strive to attain.

Second, it is yet again unclear how you intend to claim that by making hamburgers ubiquitous, 'America' has contradicted its values of freedom, justice, rights, democracy, etc. Making hamburgers available and seeing other people choose to eat them sounds fairly consistent with democracy to me!


Gandhi said: "I do not want my house to be walled on sides and my windows stuffed. I want the culture of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any."

He could as easily be describing America's approach to its own society and its place in the world.

If you want an example of how religious language and thinking is applied to celebrity culture, take a look at this article by the Times sports writer Matthew Syed concerning a possible British victory at Wimbledon:


Here are some quotes (and, of course, it's all rather ironic since Andy Murray has just lost in the semi-final):

"...a Murray victory would transcend the tramlines of Centre Court and sear deep into our national consciousness, eclipsing anything to have happened in British sport since Bobby raised the Jules Rimet trophy and Nobby danced a jig. It would redefine the way we think about our summers, the way we think about ourselves. It would change the national conversation, its tone and its tenor."

"Symbolism matters. Shared national moments matter. These powerful detonations of patriotism leave a residue that can subtly and cumulatively alter the way we think and feel. Even those of us not particularly interested in sport define our modern history in iconographic terms."

"It is a big responsibility for the youngster, but if Monday evening told us anything, it is that he has the shoulders to carry the weight of expectation. ... You can almost feel the possibilities, the looming sense of national redemption."

national consciousness?
national conversation?
powerful denotions of patriotism (that) leave a residue that can ... alter the way we think and feel?
the looming sense of national redemption? REDEMPTION!!!!

With all due respect to Andy Murray (and I'm truly disappointed he lost), he's just a tennis player! Syed makes it sound like he's supposed to be some kind of cultural saviour. What ... for hitting a ball over a net??

However, there could be some truth in what Syed is saying, but it only reveals something neurotic about this country (and I'm aware that things are probably worse in other countries).

I have a theory about all this. I won't elaborate on it, as I know what the inevitable reaction will be.

Let's just say that I think something is seriously missing in our society.

Of course, for "denotions" read "detonations" in the post above.

(And to think I always fancied myself as a decent proof-reader!)

LSV

REDEMPTION!!!! for hitting a ball over a net??

(or into a goal, or for a wicket which wins the Ashes.)


Sadly, yes, for the simple reason that it's feel good redemption, no need of salvation from ourselves.

(Now step back and watch the, inevitable, fireworks!)

brainiac;

"Mark (6 and 12):

Your views on celebrity culture are quite acute for an American."

Shhhh, Sorry, no time to argue. The Sci-Fi Channel is having a Twilight Zone 4th of July marathon.

John:

Youve have said that my views are quaint and also exhibit typical European smallmindednes.
Its quite a trick to suggest that the typical European view is quaint.

Youre missing my point. I dont doubt that there is a wide spectrum of views in the US and also elsewhere, and even in Ulster. The issue is whether there is a hegemony of a certain kind of view, one that effectively swamps the alternatives. An example would be the Orange culture in Protestantism.

I have no doubt that there is a hegemonic American culture which predominates, ESPECIALLY OUTSIDE AMERICA, which was the point I was making. It does an injustice to the variety of views and attitudes of Americans, just as, for example, Orangism misrepresents the varied opinions of Protestants.

A major difference is that the hegemonic American culture swamps most of the world and poisons it with its superficial obsession with personality, violence, and anti-intellctualism. Weve had a week of Jackson mania, with news channels saturated with it for several days after his death (the same is true for Fox, CNN, etc, as I've looked at them). Everything else was pushed aside for at least 24 hours on ´óÏó´«Ã½ news, Sky, Fox etc. This is ridiculous, especially when we are aware of the suspicions that have hung over the man.

Let me put it bluntly. Would a non-celebrity receive such sycophantic eulogising if he had previously been accused of paedophilia by at least two boys and his own sister, if he had pornographic pictures of boys in his home, and if he had admitted sleeping with boys? On the contrary, the words 'cunning', 'evil', 'predatory' etc. would have been splashed all over the media.

This is what celebrity does. It insulates the person from all criticism when it really matters (this is a religious practice, with the same hero-worship towards the founders, which is what the thread is about).The dissenting voices from the flow of one-way thinking are muffled or sidelined. Just like the arguments about the Iraq War. Its one reason why opinion is not as free as we like to think it is, whether here or in the good ol' us of a.

I agree with what you just said Brian, but it represents a marked change in tone and emphasis from your earlier comments which were directed at America. Could it be true that, when people really stop and consider carefully their own anti-American feelings, they suddenly seem a little less rational?

Certainly I'll concede to you that what U.S. administrations do with their power greatly affects international feelings about America. But the same liberal people who are accustomed to differentiating between what Ahmadinejad does and the people/culture of Iran, or between the Taleban and the innocent people of Afghanistan - examples - seem to willfully ignore the difference between the U.S. administration and its people and culture.

It seems to me that if good liberal, thoughtful considerations were applied equally to the United States as it is to the underdogs of the world, European sentiment on America would look very different. Of course the reason for this is that it's a result of a misapplication of liberalism: an overcompensating for what people perceive as inequality. So, because there are people dying in the world while Americans get fat eating burgers, Americans should be blamed for the fact that this is so, despite the fact that McDonald's employs more people at higher wages in many third world countries than there'd be otherwise, and despite the fact that America gives more to the third world than any other first-world nation, and a hundred other things. It's actually stupidity, rather than thoughtfulness; a knee-jerk reaction to inequality. Misplaced anger. They see rich people in America and poor people in Africa, and surely it must be the rich in America's fault. (And by extension America itself, and by extension burgers themselves.)

It's idiotic, but there are reasons for it that can be understood. That's why I seek to correct the record when I can.

Hi John,

Little fact nag, that isn't too important for the overall discussion, but I'm fond of getting things accurate whenever possible (and not going out tonight, duh)

"despite the fact that America gives more to the third world than any other first-world nation"

That would be correct the last few years, but at least during most of the 1990s, Japan was the biggest third world aid contributor. On a per capita basis, they are still ahead of the US and almost all European countries.

Actually, you are both wrong. In 1970 the worlds 22 richest countries agreed to give 0.7 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP, now GNI) as official development assistance (ODA) to developing nations by 1975, but 34 years on only five countries have met this target: Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, all in Europe, John.

The United States spends 0.19 percent of its GNI on aid and has been called the scrooge of the western world. The UK is a little better, at about 0.4%. Japan is about equal to the US on the latest figures, at the bottom of the league! (see table at


Moreover, most of the aid given by the US and UK in particular is primarly designed to benefit the strategic and economic interests of the donor countries.

John:

The only anti-American remark I made was tongue-in-cheek to Mark: You are quite acute for an American. Show me a serious one.

Brian, I was talking in absolute numbers or per capita, not % of GDP. In fact, the page you like to confirms what I said by the metric I was talking about:

"Between 1992 and 2000, Japan had been the largest donor of aid, in terms of raw dollars. From 2001 the United States claimed that position, a year that also saw Japans amount of aid drop by nearly 4 billion dollars."

Oh, maybe I was not correct about Japan being ahead of most European countries on a per capita basis.:(

Peter:

The accepted measure of 'official' (i.e. government) aid is percentage of GNI (formerly GDP), which is reasonable. Totals are meaningless because populations vary so much. On this criterion, the US and Japan are the stingiest of the rich countries and the Scandanavian countries are the most generous. The Netherlands comes out well too as having exceeded the 0.7% target set in 1970.

On some calculations, for every dollar the US gives in aid, she gets three dollars back in trade.

Hi Brian,

I know that different population numbers make totals useless as a measure of generosity. But not for the effect that the total amount has. If you represented the nations receiving aid, would you rather receive 0.19% of the US GDP, or 2% of Luxembourghs GDP?

And the way John phrased it when he first mentioned the aid the US gives, seems to have referred to totals. You can criticize him for picking a metric that if favourable to the US if you want.

Brianmcclinton

"A major difference is that the hegemonic American culture swamps most of the world and poisons it with its superficial obsession with personality, violence, and anti-intellctualism."

You mean like President Obama? You got anyone in Europe in or out of political power even half as smart? Who would you like to put up against him? Sarkozy? Gordon Brown? Merckel? Berlisconi? Which of those Bozo the clowns would you consider anything like his equal?

Mark:

I think you said the same thing about Bush! I didn't realise you were an Obama supporter as well. Yes, I agree, that Obama is promising (mind you, so was Blair in 1997).

But I wouldn't reduce it all to personalities. That is what this thread is questioning. We need to get beyond an obsession with 'leaders'. After all, we live in democracies and in your case there are (rightly) more checks on the leaders (at least domestically) than in the UK. The latter, as Hailsham suggested 30 years ago, is an elective dictatorship.

Well if you listen to Brian McClinton, the U.S. is so selfish and imperialist you'd be surprised it's giving anything at all.

"The accepted..." metric is a percentage of GNP? Hell's bells, folks. We're talking about completely different things here.

Brian is talking about the percentage of GNP that a country's government gives. Talk about picking a metric! For a country which traditionally believes that giving should be primarily voluntary rather than taxed from its people and then given, it's inherently an unfavourable metric. And even on the basis of THAT metric, the U.S. is giving more than any other nation in terms of real pounds and pence, dollars and cents!

Actually, according to , in 2006 Americans donated 2.2 percent of their average disposable income to charities (after tax), much of which went overseas.

Since foreign aid is what we're talking about, only 20% of the total came from Brian's figure, which is what the U.S. government gave:

"Americans long have preferred to donate their money through the private sector or to private charities. Of the $122.8 billion of foreign aid provided by Americans in 2005, the most current data available, $95.5 billion, or 79 percent, came from private foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations and individuals, according to the latest annual Index of Global Philanthropy."

Anyway, it seems a tad curious that, of a conversation which started as an indictment of American culture and foreign policy, we're now down to debating the percentage of its GNP it gives overseas.

Oh, let me quote that figure again, lest 'American imperialism' be allowed to become the retort once again:

ONE-HUNDRED AND TWENTY-TWO POINT EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS.

Anyone for a Big Mac?

And....

"On this criterion, the US and Japan are the stingiest of the rich countries and the Scandanavian countries are the most generous.

Let me rephrase. In reality:

On this criterion, the U.S. and Japan allow their governments to tax them for foreign aid least, and the Scandanavian countries allow their governments to tax them most.

John:

The Index of Global Philanthropy 2006 gives a figure of $71bn for private sector US donations. Even if you add this to the official ODA from the government, it still comes to about 0.5% of the country's GNI, which is less than the top European countries % of ODA alone, never mind their private donations, and STILL less than the 0.7% set by the UN in 1970.

Of course, it is true that private US citizens are more 'generous' than their government, but much of the giving has 'strings attached' which are to the benefit of the donors. Overall, it has been estimated that every dollar America gives in assistance to the Third World, she receives 3 dollars back.

You say: "Anyway, it seems a tad curious that, of a conversation which started as an indictment of American culture and foreign policy, we're now down to debating the percentage of its GNP it gives overseas". Maybe, but it was you who raised the matter in post 29.

John:

A few more points just to reciprocate your multiple posting (I shall have more tomorrow):

1. Two thirds of Official American aid goes to only two countries: Israel and Egypt.

2. Most of the remaining one third is used to promote US exports or to fight a 'war on drugs' that can only be won by tackling abuse at home.

3. On the question of the return on the 'investment in aid', Kofi Annan said:

"Developing countries made the sixth consecutive and largest ever transfer of funds to 'other countries' in 2002, a sum totalling almost $200 billion.

Funds should be moving from developed countries to developing countries, but these numbers tell us the opposite is happening. Funds that should be promoting investment and growth in developing countries, or building schools and hospitals, or supporting other steps towards the Millennium Development Goals, are, instead, being transferred abroad.

Brian,

I won't pretend to have any better sources than you, but I'll tell you that my understanding of those figures is very different. According to Understanding America, a collection of essays about the U.S. which the New York Times called "An authoritative, up-to-date portrait of a vast, complex and endlessly fascinating country," in 1995, Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and fourteen times as much as the Italians. Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percentage points more likely to volunteer than the Dutch, 21 points more likely than the Swiss, and 32 points more likely than the Germans.

Wait, Americans are selfish imperialists, right?

Whether your sources or mine are right (or whether they even disagree directly) probably isn't all that important, since it seems obvious to me that your earlier points in this conversation - including lamenting "kids wearing tee-shirts with American place names" - rely on more of a gut anti-American feeling than they do any well-considered points making America so deserving of your rebuke; why else would it matter to you that "for every dollar the US gives in aid, she gets three dollars back in trade"? Isn't trade the exchange of goods and money? Isn't therefore the conspicuous missing component of that damning sentence the component that those countries receive from the U.S. for their goods? It's totally unfair, people say, so unfair that the countries involved in the trade eagerly engage in it, improve their lives as a result of it, change their countries because of it.

You implied earlier that you aren't anti-American. Any attentive reader to this thread knows that's untrue, but why should you have to apologise for it? It's a perfectly valid thing to be, and you certainly shouldn't be made to feel like it's 'heretical'. (In fact, it's the majority opinion among Europeans, it seems.)

John:

Once again, the individualist appeals to a majority ('any attentive reader'). The charge of anti-Americanism is usually a kind of moral blackmail designed to stifle debate and avoid the self-examination that this powerful but troubled country badly needs.

I make no apologies for my criticisms. You will find, if you read this blog, that I am also highly critical of Ulster, Irish and British societies. Without criticism, there is no progress. I have also argued that American institutions are more democratic than the UK. Does that make me anti-British? And that Ireland is obsessed with religion. Does that make me anti-Irish? Okay, then I'm anti-American, anti-British and anti-Irish - and proud of them all.

Humanists are, by their nature, critical. We question everything. We also believe in the essential equality of all humanity, and therefore tend to be cosmopolitan and internationalist rather than narrowly patriotic. Every human being should be worthy of equal respect. Yet it appears that many Americans do not seem to share this view because there is much evidence of Americas treatment of non-Americans as less worthy of respect, even dispensable, and I think this is wrong and will not refrain from saying so.

America is a gigantic series of paradoxes. It is the richest country in total, yet it has the highest level of poverty of any developed country. It has the largest number of millionaires, yet it has the highest rate of infant mortality of any developed country. It has the highest number of Nobel laureates, yet its students perform near the bottom of international tests.

Perhaps, above all, its people are deeply infused with a profound sense of their own decency and goodness, yet in their dealings with one another or with perceived enemies at home or abroad, they are in reality no better, and often worse, than the rest of humanity. They are just as capable as any people of lies, deceit, cruelty, cunning, jealousy, intolerance etc. But perhaps because they insist on perpetuating this myth of special American niceness, the hypocrisy is all the more glaring to many other countries in the world where there is deep hatred of America. If you look at US foreign policy over the years, it is premised not on 'niceness' but on a merciless subservience of every country and every situation to American interests. Where was the niceness in the Tokyo fire bombs? At Hiroshima or Nagasaki? At My Lai? On the Basra Road in 1991? In Iraq in 2003?

If you look at the predominant culture, it is riddled with blood and death. If you look at its big business practices, they are riddled with corruption, deception and aggressive salesmanship. And if you look at its economic policies abroad, they are largely designed to clobber the poor and downtrodden, hypocritically demanding free markets while raising bariiers to imports which compete with American producers.

Your evidence of Americam generosity is in fact superficial and anecdotal. "We are the stingiest nation of all" was a remark made by a fomer American President - Jimmy Carter. This is nearer the mark when you dig below the surface and consider:

1. Amercias control over institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, where the conditions for loans are designed to suit the US economy first and foremost.
2. The one-way interpretation of free trade mentioned above: free access for American MNEs, combined with protectionism at home.
3. Massive tariffs on agricultural products like rice, sugar, groundnuts and coffee.
4. Policies designed to bring down commody prices in LDCs.
5. Iraq is just the latest country ravaged for US imperialism. Alan Greenspan, of course, spilled the beans in his memoirs: The Iraq war is largely about oil. As American troops begin their withdrawal from Iraq cities, the government is auctioning off some of Iraqs largest oilfields to the big oil companies. For this, up to 1 million Iraqis lost their lives and 4 million were made homeless. And of course, the whole war was premised on a pack of blatant lies.

So, John, there are myths and there are realities. What is attractive to you as a fly-in admirer of the country appears very different from the perspective of others who do not wear rose-coloured spectacles.

Brian-

Earlier in this thread I called you pretentious, and you told me I was making arguments ad hominem. Now you imply I'm simply a "fly-in admirer" of America who wears "rose-coloured spectacles". Seems like after 5 years living here I'd be very well acquainted with America, warts and all, and quite how you imply that you are in a better position to judge it than I am having moved here is beyond me.

I did say you shouldn't be made to feel as though your criticisms of America are 'heretical', and I meant it. I enjoy open debate, and I admire those who criticise, as I do, all aspects of everything. As you say, it's from this that progress derives.

I don't have the sources to contradict what you say is evidence that America is stingy. It's the opposite of what I see, I feel obliged to tell you, and as I said above I feel better qualified than you to measure it. But I don't think the primary measure of America as a nation is how much it donates in monetary terms: in fact where we disagree most is that the things you criticise America for I applaud it for, the things I believe America has given the world you believe the world must "endure" (wasn't that your word?).

This is mostly about political ideology, Brian. You're a left-wing liberal who sees government coercion as a means to equality; I'm a libertarian who believes in small government and free markets. So, when free markets allow American corporations to do business across the world, and when globalisation sends those businesses into developing countries to manufacture goods, etc., I think it's wonderful.

How can I view America as stingy when its business practices are helping lift India out of poverty? How can I see it as stingy when it's giving jobs to people in China that wouldn't otherwise exist?

Like I said, whether America donates more money than Europe to charity, as I sincerely believe, or whether it donates less as you believe equally sincerely, it's about ideology.

I respect yours as much as I disagree.

John:

You say: "when free markets allow American corporations to do business across the world, and when globalisation sends those businesses into developing countries to manufacture goods, etc., I think it's wonderful". This looks good on the surface. But too often it is not what actually happens. There is more exploitation than benefit to LDCs.


I work on the basic premise that words harm people far less than actions. Therefore I would be ultra liberal in terms of freedom of opinion. We should be strong enough to bear hearing opinions we strongly disagree with.

Actions are a different matter altogether. If people have total freedom to do what they like, they can easily be tempted to ride roughshod over the rights of others in order to get what they want. I feel that America's dealings with the rest of the world have been too exploitative, and there are excessive extremes within its own country. Government intervention (call it coercion if you wish) is necessary in these circumstances. I would have thought that the current recession has effectively proved the need for this.

The choice is not between the state or the market. The richest and best run countries, like those in Scandinavia, have mixed economies in which there is a compromise between the state and the market.
So America is NOT the model for the world.

John:
There is a good article in this week's New Statesman by John Pilger


He talks of Americanism as the 'oath of loyalty to all things American: from the business of armaments and war (which consumes 42 cents in every tax dollar today) to the business of food, known as 'agripower' (which receives $157bn a year in government subsidies)".

That last figure is, of course, more than all Americans give, whether through the ate or privately, to less developed countrries, even by your own inflated figure.

Pilger also quotes the definition of anti-American by the American war correspondent Martha Gellhorn:

"I'll tell you what 'anti-American' is. It's what governments and their vested interests call those who honour America by objecting to war and the theft of resources and believing in all of humanity".

Precisely.

I am sure there are lots of Americans who think like that: who want the government to care for those who cannot care for themselves; who would pay higher taxes to guarantee health care for everyone; who want nuclear disarmament; who want an end to America's colonial wars; who want to see fair trade with the rest of the world; and so on.

Giving people 'freedom', John, includes helping them when they need it. You seem to realise this fact on an individual level, because you are anxious to praise the 'generosity' of individual Americans. But surely you must accept that individuals can only do so much. Private charity to the Third World will never reach the level of which states are capable, nor will it provide enough hospitals or schools for the needy at home.