ARCHIVES OF EDITORIALS

 

 

January 20, 2005

An ungenerous spirit

President Bush’s pre-emptive strike against Iraq has caused great consternation in the Islamic world. This is especially so since the purported reason for the invasion was the existence of weapons of mass destruction which threatened America. It is not unreasonable for Islamic nations to conclude that the WMD ploy was merely a hoax.

The situation was made even more complex because of Bush’s unfortunate use of the word “crusade” to describe his Middle East adventures. In medieval Europe, the Crusades were wars by Christians to reclaim places where the people had converted to Islam.

In the past, Islamic nations were distrustful of the American government but generally accepting of the people. For the first time American travelers abroad are in danger of attack from militants. Travel to Muslim nations is especially hazardous.

The recent tsunami disaster provided an excellent opportunity for America to demonstrate its goodwill toward Asian nations. Frequently, crisis provides a time for healing and improving relations. However, the slow and miserly response of the Bush Administration provoked a backlash in the foreign press. Journalistic reports suggest that increases in contributions of the U.S. government to the relief effort resulted from the international outcry.

Although Americans proudly claim to be extraordinarily generous, the facts do not support this assertion. The U.S. ranks last among 22 top donor countries for relief and development in Africa, South America and Asia. The only way to evaluate generosity is by comparing the size of the donation to the country’s national income.

The U.S. gave to poorer countries only 15 cents of every $100 of national income. The similar donations of some other countries are: Denmark – 84 cents, the Netherlands – 80 cents, Belgium – 60 cents, and France – 41 cents. Private donations from Americans will add only 6 cents to the U.S. figure which will then total 21 cents, which is still much less than the truly generous donors.

Americans should rid themselves of the delusion that the country’s foreign aid policy is especially generous. Let us hope that our soldiers and aid workers can create the goodwill that the country’s penurious financial commitment has failed to do.

A racial affront

The conduct of the executives of Metro is indeed reprehensible. For them to engage in racially demeaning remarks is inexcusable. Self-respecting African Americans and all citizens who decry racial abuse should express their displeasure by refusing to read Metro Boston. Rev. Jeffrey Brown of the Ten Point Coalition is absolutely justified in calling for a boycott.

The Herald has been confounding the situation with its feigned sense of outrage. Except for Howard Manly’s column, the Herald has never shown any special sensitivity to the issues confronting African Americans in Boston. The Herald’s real objective is to derail the Globe’s acquisition of a minority interest in Metro Boston.

Under the management of the Taylor family the Boston Globe always demonstrated a great concern for racial justice. Boston was the only city in the nation to comply with the media recommendations of the Kerner Commission Report after the urban riots. That happened because of the leadership of the Globe. There is every reason to believe that the Globe will continue to respect this legacy.

The management policy at Metro Boston is clearly flawed. Many of the so-called minority population of Boston (blacks, Latinos and Asians) have now lost confidence in the impartiality and integrity of Metro’s editorial content. The input of a journalistic institution with the undisputed reputation of The Boston Globe and The New York Times will be needed to correct the problem.

 

Home Page