Jane, I know the quote, but also can't recall who said it. I'll try to find out. It was sort of true then, but not now. Britain is a very secular country (even though there is now a Prime Minister who is the first practising Christian in the job for many many years); and you can buy food from all over the world (whereas in France, although the food is generally better, it's hard to get produce from other parts of France, let alone the world). The wide availability of all kinds of food is one of the reasons I like living here; at the same time I do realize that this wonderful availability of food is provided by a system which tends to impoverish the growers and line the pockets of the multi-nationals.... Susan -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 13 March 1999 15:53 Subject: Re: America and global involvement/human rights >In a message dated 3/13/99 6:08:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Dear Susan, thanks for your interesting analysis, in particular on >multinationals. It concerns me greatly that their power is so much above >national law, and their influence on the world so soul-less. > >On a lighter note, the following reminded me of a 17th century joke (perhaps >by Jonathan Swift, I don't recall the author--you might know) that said France >was a nation of 300 sauces and only one religion, whereas Britain was a nation >of only one sauce but 300 religions! ><< The French explained their imperial mission as one of civilization, > specifically, of course, French civilization; the colonized were expected > to appreciate that civilization and were (very moderately) rewarded when > they did. The British liked to explain their empire as a matter of accident > and noblesse oblige and pax Britannica and such; on the whole the 'natives' > could admire as much as they liked, but could also dream on. >> >Kind regards, >Jane
