TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

About U.S. hegemony.

Given, for example, that France is more philanthropic, per capita, than the rest of the world, including the U.S., and that countries, such as those in the Northeast region of Europe, seem to be doing relatively well regarding terrorism and associated threats, what reason is there for the U.S. to take "moral" or "military" leadership role within the world?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 28 2012: As support for your apparent assertion that the US ought not seek to lead the free world you say, "France is more philanthropic, per capita, than the rest of the world, including the U.S." Great care is advised when deciding using per capita data. For example I can show that New Zealand would win 2500 gold medals in the Olympics if she had as many people as China. No smoke or mirrrors are needed, I base it on per capita statistics. Thus I can say New Zealand is more athletic than any nation on earth, just as you can say France is more philanthropic than any nation on earth. Do we measure philanthropy by how much each person gives, or by how much is given total? America has the guns and money and must rank very high among all contenders for leader of the free world. Read the book Mr. Palmer mentions below. Thank you!
    • Dec 28 2012: A good point Mr. Long. I suppose that the saying "content without context is nothing" is appropriate in this case. What I think I was trying to communicate is that there are other societies in which philanthropism is woven more in to the fabric of the lives of the people?

      Do we Americans have that woven in to the fabric of our culture and souls more than most or all other countries, as much as FOX commentary wants to make us out to believe? Are we that special, or just should we be?
      • thumb
        Dec 28 2012: Agreed Mr. Westervelt that other countries may well have citizens with typically better morals and higher ideals than the US has. But the question of world leadership must include quantity, not just quality. If it were simply quality I think the US would be pretty far down on the list of good world leaders. Good question. Thank you for posting!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.