🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr7.142725.19006@uni2b.unige.ch>, borbor@divsun.unige.ch (BORIS Borcic) writes...
>Now I had the impression that US citizens were among 
>the most vigorous militants under the "save the earth"
>banner. Is this impression mistaken ? Would it be
>legitimate for me to view "the Americans" as the 
>enemies of Earth's future, on average ?

Not from what I've seen, people in my dorm won't even recycle aluminium cans
because it involves a walk 25 yards down the hallway. 
They also have a bonfire here every year at which they torch several
thousand logs worth of trees - if you oppose it you are automatically deemed
to be some kind of dangerous radical or whining liberal.

Philip A. Carney		On Exchange from Lancaster University,
Texas A&M University, TX	England.

**********ALL VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN, NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF**************
******TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY, LANCASTER UNIVERSITY OR THEIR ASSOCIATES**********

"The lust for power is rooted not in strength, but in weakness..." - Erich Fromm

Boris -

I have several thoughts in response to your note.

***********************************************
Now I had the impression that US citizens were among 
the most vigorous militants under the "save the earth"
banner. Is this impression mistaken ? 
***********************************************

Yes, it is mistaken. A more appropriate view can be stated by changing
the wording of the sentence to read, "Among the most vigorous militants
under the "save the earth" banner are (some) U.S. citizens." To say that
the US citizenry, by and large, supports the political agendas of the
save-the-earth movement is entirely wrong.

There exists significant doubt within the scientific community about
"global warming", and significant disagreement about the roles of CO2,
CFCs, etc. Even among those who truly believe in it, there is concern
about the political and economic agendas of those countries who feel
that the U.S. should, in essence, pay the entire bill for cleanup.

***********************************************
Would it be legitimate for me to view "the Americans" as the 
enemies of Earth's future, on average ?
***********************************************

No, it would not be legitimate. I find it insulting that you would
choose to make such a broad denouncement of an entire nation simply
because we don't all stand up and shout "sieg heil" to your particular
political views.

It would be legitimate to say that Americans, who are comprised by widely 
disparate cultural, political, and economic subpopulations, are in open 
disagreement as to the validity, urgency, and priority of "save-the-earth" 
agendas.

**************************************************
Or is it the case that the US governement representatives
do not represent the US people on the capital matter
of "our common future" ? Would it be legitimate for me
to view "the Americans" as a people with no control on
their governement, and consequently to view the US
territory as one that is not under democratic control ?
***************************************************

The U.S. government represents a national position which may or may not
be the preference of the people. If the actions are sufficiently
unpopular, the result will be a change in the representatives when the
next election occurs.

You are entirely correct when you say that the US (territory???) is not
under "democratic control" - that is, there is not a popular vote taken
for each and every action by the government. Our implementation of
democracy is through a republican form of government (and I mean
"republican" as a political model, not the Republican political party).
We elect representatives who we believe will best act in our behalfs and
according to our wishes; however, there is no real-time controls (i.e.,
instantaneous popular voting) on the daily acts of those
representatives. Laws are enacted and national policy decisions are made
through the conjoined efforts of those representatives. Again, if enough
people feel that those representatives have failed to act in our behalf,
or according to our wishes, new representatives will be chosen in the
next election.

****************************************************
Nevertheless, the streets in my city are polluted with
giant posters with slogans such as "Welcome to Marlboro
Country" or "Lucky Strike - meet an American Original"

Again, will you "Americans" over there overtake responsibility
for this representation ? Do you expect people all over the
world to sort through all the images that "your" industries
 propagate and discover the ones that represent you as you
"truly" are ? 
****************************************************

I don't know quite how to respond to this. I think that any American
company selling in Europe will use whatever American image will be
popularly received, leading to increased sales. In many cases, companies
will DISGUISE its product's American origins as a sales advantage. (Bank
of America created an enormously popular credit card which it marketed
under the name "BankAmericard". In order to overcome barriers to
international acceptance, in changed the name to "Visa".) In any event,
there is no such thing as an American consensus as to what our "image"
should or should not be, and I doubt that our companies care about the
impact of their advertising on international perceptions of America.

That may be irrelevant in any event. Most or all of these companies have
European headquarters where these advertising and marketing decisions
are made, and these are generally managed by native Europeans. Perhaps
your question should be addressed there.

Last, if these products or the manner in which they are marketed are
genuinely offensive to the populace at large, DON'T BUY THE PRODUCT. The
product and its advertisements will disappear in no time at all.

-Gary Hypes-