brahmin wrote:i thought it was when usa was itself a colony of england.. though it probably continued well after they declared their independence.... but even then the people back then were still english - the first generation of americans werent yet born.
but
even if usa is as much a colonial coultry as the other 6 i named, they have done more than their fair bit to help alleviate poverty, be it by virtue of the fact that they are the biggest donors to the uno (and probably amenesty and red cross as well) or be it in the fat cheques they come up with during calamities such as this recent tsunami.... which is not what can be said of the "dirty half-dozen".
But measuring the generosity of the United States depends on the yardstick.
The U.S. government is always near the top in total humanitarian aid dollars � even before private donations are counted � but it finishes near the bottom of the list of rich countries when that money is compared to gross national product.
As a percentage of gross national product, the OECD's (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) figures on development aid show that as of April, none of the world's richest countries donated even 1 percent of its gross national product. Norway was highest, at 0.92 percent; the United States was last, at 0.14 percent.
Such figures were what prompted Jan Egeland � the United Nations (news - web sites)' emergency relief coordinator and former head of the Norwegian Red Cross � to challenge the giving of rich nations.
"We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries," Egeland said. "And it is beyond me, why are we so stingy, really. ... Even Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least how rich we have become."
Egeland told reporters Tuesday his complaint wasn't directed at any nation in particular.
