Thursday, May 4, 2017

Why Americans Smile So Much


OLGA KHAZAN, theatlantic.com [original article contain more illustration and a chart]

[JB Note: One anglophile cynic once noted that the reason Americans smile so much is that they fear the person (s) coming towards them may be carrying a gun ...]


How immigration and cultural values affect what people do with their faces

On Reddit forums that ask “What’s a dead giveaway that someone is American?” one trait comes up over and over again: big, toothy grins.

Here’s how one Reddit user in Finland put it:

When a stranger on the street smiles at you:

a. you assume he is drunk

b. he is insane

c. he’s an American

Last year, I wrote about why some countries seem to smile less than average—and mistrust those who do seem unusually peppy. A country’s level of instability, that study found, might be why people who seem happy for no reason in, say, Russia, are considered foolish.

But there’s an interesting line of research that helps explain outliers on the other end of the spectrum, too: Specifically, Americans and their stereotypically mega-watt smiles.

It turns out that countries with lots of immigration have historically relied more on nonverbal communication—and thus, people there might smile more.

For a study published in 2015, an international group of researchers looked at the number of “source countries” that have fed into various nations since the year 1500. Places like Canada and the United States are very diverse, with 63 and 83 source countries, respectively, while countries like China and Zimbabwe are fairly homogenous, with just a few nationalities represented in their populations.

After polling people from 32 countries to learn how much they felt various feelings should be expressed openly, the authors found that emotional expressiveness was correlated with diversity. In other words, when there are a lot of immigrants around, you might have to smile more to build trust and cooperation, since you don’t all speak the same language.

People in the more diverse countries also smiled for a different reason than the people in the more homogeneous nations. In the countries with more immigrants, people smiled in order to bond socially. Compared to the less-diverse nations, they were more likely to say smiles were a sign someone “wants to be a close friend of yours.” But in the countries that are more uniform, people were more likely to smile to show they were superior to one another. That might be, the authors speculate, because countries without significant influxes of outsiders tend to be more hierarchical, and nonverbal communication helps maintain these delicate power structures.

So Americans smile a lot because our Swedish forefathers wanted to befriend their Italian neighbors, but they couldn’t figure out how to pronounce buongiorno. Seems plausible. But there’s also something very w i d e about the classic American grin. Why is it that Americans smile with such fervor?

This could be because Americans value high-energy, happy feelings more than some other countries. For a study published last year, researchers compared the official photos of American and Chinese business and government leaders. After coding them according to their levels of “facial muscle movement,” they found that American leaders in all contexts were both more likely to smile and showed more “excited” smiles than the Chinese leaders did.

Later, they asked college students from 10 different countries how often they would ideally like to experience certain emotions—from happiness to calmness to hostility—in a given week.

Then, they looked at photos of legislators from those 10 countries. They found that the more a country’s college students valued happy, high-energy emotions, like excitement and enthusiasm, the more excited-looking the government officials looked in their photos. (The correlation held after controlling for economic indicators like GDP.) Interestingly, the amount that people in those countries actually felt happy didn’t matter. The leaders’ excitement appeared to reflect the ideal emotional states of their constituents, not their actual ones.

Other than causing consternation for tourists, these cultural differences in the value and uses of smiles are also why it can be hard for iconic American companies to expand overseas. As a recent episode of Invisibilia showed, when McDonald’s entered Russia in the ’90s, they had to coach their employees on how to smile. Here’s how Yuri Chekalin, a former McDonald’s employee, described the experience to Invisibilia host Alix Spiegel:

CHEKALIN: It was an American video, and it was just dubbed in Russian. How you’re supposed to smile, how you're supposed to greet.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Glad you came in, hope to see you again real soon.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: You bet.

SPIEGEL: And then the lights came back on, and the trainers got down to work breaking down the elements of American cheerfulness into digestible component parts. For example, when you meet someone, you must make direct eye contact, which seemed deeply strange to Yuri.

CHEKALIN: So in Russia we used to—if somebody looks at us, we just kind of look the other way, unless we about to fight or something like that. But in America, he says, you know, when you making eye contact, you smile.
And when Wal-Mart opened stores in Germany, the company also had to tweak its chipper ways to better suit the sober local mores, as The New York Times reported in 2006:

Wal-Mart stopped requiring sales clerks to smile at customers—a practice that some male shoppers interpreted as flirting—and scrapped the morning Wal-Mart chant by staff members.

“People found these things strange; Germans just don’t behave that way,” said Hans-Martin Poschmann, the secretary of the Verdi union, which represents 5,000 Wal-Mart employees here.

It wasn’t enough, alas: Wal-Mart pulled out of Germany that year after losing hundreds of millions of dollars. There were other cultural differences at play, like Wal-Mart’s failed attempts to get its German employees to relocate. And while the bosses back at Wal-Mart’s Bentonville, Arkansas, headquarters might have been cheerier than their Bavarian counterparts, they weren’t too happy with unions, a staple of the German labor market. (“Bentonville … thought we were communists,” Poschmann, the union secretary, told the Times.)

Like so many other daily practices, in other words, the American smile is a product of our culture. And it can be similarly difficult to export.

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Why are Six U.S. Senators Bolstering Thugs in the Balkans?


Maxim Tucker, newsweek.com

Skopje, Macedonia: Five minutes after we meet in a hotel, Vasko Lazarevski whips out his cell phone to show me the latest threat sent to his Facebook account.
“We will strike the spies first in the next war,” it reads. “No more mistakes.”
He clenches his jaw as he reads the next line. “Luka is your dearest, so love him and Macedonia. Don’t make me fuck your dearest in the ass. Do you understand, spy?”
Lazarevski is not a spy. He is a longtime activist and a colleague of mine at the Open Society Foundations, founded by financier and philanthropist George Soros. The Foundation Open Society Macedonia helps fund groups working in education, healthcare, community activism and independent journalism—innocuous activities, unless you start exposing the government’s theft of state funds allocated to them.
The message comes from a fake profile, set up using the name of the son of one of Lazarevski’s colleagues. The subtext of the message is as unsubtle as the threat itself. We’re watching you, your friends and your families.
Lazarevski thinks the message is from the Macedonian state security service—which doesn’t seem far-fetched, given that two government agents spend all day, every day, in his office, demanding documents as part of an ongoing investigation into an unspecified crime.
05_02_Macedonia_Senators_01Zoran Zaev, the opposition Social Democrats leader, injured when supporters of the former leading party VMRO-DPMNE entered the parliament after an allegedly unfair vote for a parliamentary speaker in Skopje, Macedonia, on April 27. Maxim Tucker writes that the assault on USAID–backed soft-power agencies in Macedonia, the Balkans and other Eastern European countries has been ignored by President Trump and Secretary of State Tillerson.STRINGER/AFP/GETTY
The agents arrived in December, just weeks after the election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States. That same week, more officers swarmed into another 21 NGO offices across the country. Eighteen of their search warrants specifically demanded the seizure of files documenting their work with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
“They made me sign every side of a 1,500 page submission,” says Uranija Pirovska, executive director of the Macedonian branch of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights (MHC), an international organization that receives U.S. funding for its branches around the world. “It took me three hours. They tie us up in paperwork so we can’t do our work.”
Pirovska’s office has been attacked six times by hooligans heaving rocks through its windows—in one instance injuring Pirovska and a colleague. The authorities have shown no interest in investigation or protection.
The Macedonian government has made this tiny nation of 2.1 million people a crucible for Trump and Tillerson foreign policy, but the assault on USAID–backed organizations has so far been ignored by the White House.
Trump’s isolationist rhetoric on the campaign trail appears to have emboldened the country’s increasingly authoritarian ruling party, VMRO, to challenge an American institution that has been synonymous with American soft power for more than half a century. White House plans, revealed last Monday, to slash the USAID budget will only make VMRO more daring.
That daring is born from desperation. In the national parliament building across town, VMRO members have been filibustering for weeks to prevent a vote that would end its decade-long rule and bring a new coalition into government. 
When lawmakers voted in favor of the new coalition on Thursday, pro-VMRO protesters stormed into the session chamber and assaulted its leaders. The head of the coalition, Zoran Zaev, left the hall battered and bloodied, with more than a hundred others reported injured.
Outside, electric saws scream through swirling dust as construction workers labor to finish “Skopje 2014,” announced by the party in 2010 as an $80 million euro government project to render the center of Macedonia’s capital into a neoclassical tribute to Alexander the Great.
Dozens of gleaming bronze statues, a whitewashed Greco-Roman facade and two faux-wood galleons face off along the banks of the Vardar River in a surreal competition for the city’s most kitsch object. Featuring work by a range of Macedonian poets, painters and patriots whose purpose is to evoke nationalist pride, yet its garish display largely ignores the contribution of Turks and Albanians to the city’s development as an Ottoman trade hub.
Now three years beyond its completion date and $480 million euros over budget, the unfinished project has become symbolic of rampant corruption and abuse of power in Macedonia—whose total annual budget is just $3.18 billion euros. Public debt has almost quadrupled while the project makes slow progress.
To make matters worse, recordings leaked in 2015 appear to show that VMRO leader Nikola Gruevski, who was then prime minister, ordered the wiretapping of 20,000 people and encouraged corruption and electoral fraud.
The revelations sparked mass protests and plunged the country into political crisis. The EU stepped in, describing VMRO’s rule as “state capture,” and persuaded Gruevski to resign, new elections to be held and a special prosecutor appointed to investigate. Yet despite Gruevski’s departure from office, he has remained the party leader and refused to allow a new coalition to take power.
The stakes are high—should VMRO give up power, Gruevski and his allies face ending their political careers behind bars. Instead, they have consolidated their control over the country’s law enforcement, judges and the media.
They have also backed a faux–“international movement” known as Stop Operation Soros, which operates only in authoritarian Hungary, Serbia and Macedonia. The group is, in fact, staffed by employees on the government payroll and publishes confidential data provided by the NGOs exclusively to the Macedonian police, making their collusion with the government clearly evident.
Now Republican senators and certain right-leaning media outlets have stepped into the fray. Six Republican senators—Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Jim Inhofe, Thom Tillis, David Perdue and Bill Cassidy—wrote a letter to Secretary of State Tillersonaccusing USAID and the Open Society Macedonia of conspiring to support left-wing political groups.
It would appear that without even bothering to check their sources, or take the time to read a VMRO manifesto, the right-leaning American press have bought into this narrative,depicting the struggle between USAID–funded transparency campaigners and corrupt leaders as an ideological battle between conservative leaders and liberal activists. George Soros’s endorsement alone is considered evidence enough to support this view.
Those pundits may be surprised to read the VMRO party’s latest blog post, which criticizes its opponents for planning to privatize state assets left over from communist Yugoslavia: “The [opposition Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM) party] was defeated in the elections, but are proficient in easily selling off the state and national interests,” the post reads. “Without effort they aim to dismantle the statehood which other generations have built with blood, sweat and tears.”
Clinging to socialist-state institutions is typically not considered a conservative trait. Applying the U.S.-centric “liberal versus conservative” frame simply doesn’t work in most central and Eastern European countries, where politics are often defined by clans and personality cults.
In Macedonia, the struggle is between an authoritarian kleptocratic regime and groups of all political stripes fighting for the rule of law. It’s through this prism that the work of USAID here should be viewed.
Journalists who criticize the government have been spat at, attacked in the streets and prosecuted, prompting the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative for Freedom of the Media, Dunja Mijatović, to intervene on numerous occasions.
Meanwhile, the state-controlled media pillory NGO leaders who criticize the government as “enemies of Macedonia.”
“In the morning, we would receive the bulletins from headquarters [VMRO Center for Information],” explains Ubavka Janevska, a former journalist at Macedonian national television. “They gave us the day’s talking points. Sometimes we didn’t even bother to adapt them or make them more creative, we just read them out on air.”
The process has become so automatic that journalists often don’t add bylines to their stories published on the pro-government news portals. TV reporters cover the stories simply by referring to unattributed pieces as their sources.
The propaganda effort in Macedonia is aided by another kleptocracy that has begun to show an increased interest in the country.
“The Kremlin is siding with Gruevski—it has published more press releases about Macedonia in the last two years than it had in the previous twenty,” says Vladimir Petreski, a veteran journalist with Media Fact Checking Service, a USAID project for strengthening media in Macedonia. “The number of diplomatic staff at the Russian Embassy has increased fivefold since the wiretapping scandal broke.”
Macedonia has even sprouted a local chapter of the infamous Night Wolves biker gang, whose Russian members helped annex Crimea and are fighting government forces in eastern Ukraine.
Amid the instability, Moscow appears to have spotted its chance to wreak havoc with a prospective EU and NATO member. Russia’s ruling party, United Russia, is even reported to have endorsed a concept called the “B4 strategic solution”—a plan to unify Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a neutral bulwark against NATO expansion.
However, the plan probably comes too late, since the U.S. approved Macedonia’s regional neighbor, Montenegro, to join NATO earlier this month. This occurred despite an attempted coup plotted by Russian agents and two “no” votes in the Senate—from Rand Paul and Mike Lee, the lead signatory in the letter attacking USAID activities in Macedonia and Albania.





But if President Putin can’t stop U.S. hard power in the Balkans, it doesn’t mean he can’t seize this opportunity to kill U.S. soft power. Even if Congress blocks Trump’s budget, Tillerson’s failure to respond to the attack on USAID in Macedonia could spell the beginning of the end for foreign aid as we know it.
For Lazarevski, his colleagues and his family, it could spell something much worse.
* The name of Lazarevski’s son has been changed to protect his identity.
Maxim Tucker is an expert on Eastern Europe with the Open Society Foundations.

Lavrov-Tillerson: a fraught relationship


whirledview.typepad.com

By Patricia H Kushlis
Tillerson-Lavrov Moscow April 2017 RFE-RL photoI was appalled when I watched the video clip of Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s ill-mannered behavior towards US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at the lunch in his honor in Moscow on April 12, 2017.  Lavrov came across as boorish, imperious and obnoxious.  His demeanor reminded me of the worst Soviet behavior when I worked in the city and had to deal with Soviet officials during the Cold War on behalf of the US government and large contingent of American scholars and students on the official bilateral educational exchange programs.  These agreements had been negotiated and renegotiated between the two governments over the years since the Kitchen Debate between Khrushchev and Nixon in Moscow in 1958.
Lavrov’s comments to Tillerson were unbecoming, designed to intimidate and no guest should be treated like this in public or private.  Had I been Tillerson, I would have left before the soup had been served.  I would also have departed from Moscow for points West and not stuck around to be kept cooling my heels for several hours waiting to see whether Vladimir Putin would deign to talk to me.  Exactly what did Tillerson get out of these meetings? Do we know?  Perhaps a rude awakening that dealing with the Kremlin as a top US government official was more difficult than as a businessman seeking a deal that both parties wanted?  
Since the Trump administration has kept the established media in the dark, the only way we find out is through the proverbial leaks to the media.  But those indicate the meetings did not go well.
On top of that, Tillerson’s overall reticence to brief the US media – or even take members of the press along – has left an information void which the Russians have been all too eager to fill. Is this how we should be learning about the contents of his contacts with his Russian counterpart?  Never was that way before: Usually quite the opposite.  What ever happened to the US side of the story?
It is possible that the Russian treatment of the new Secretary of State last month was foremost designed to demonstrate to the Russian population that the Russian government had the upper hand in foreign relations but as an outsider watching the charade unfold the behavior demonstrated by the Russian hosts did not sit well.  Hard to say.
A roller-coaster ride
Over the years, the US-Russian relationship has been a roller-coaster ride with its ups and downs:  Its peaks and valleys.  Often it was by nature strained.  During the Soviet era, the Communist ideology was a pretext for Soviet expansionism; now that is gone and raw geographic expansionism  - which predates 1917 by centuries – has become Moscow’s driving objective.  This clash of power and domination is primarily focused on Europe and the Middle East.         
One the one hand, such a troubled relationship does not need to be further exacerbated by unnecessary Russian boorish behavior.  On the other hand, I fail to see why Tillerson decided to make the Moscow visit in the first place despite his apparently lengthy meeting with Putin but only after being kept waiting for what was it – two hours.  That, in my view, just demonstrates the naivety (at best) on the part of the Trump administration.  In fact, when this trip was in the planning stages, Tillerson had first decided to blow off his first NATO Foreign Ministers meeting - foregoing a meeting with the allies in favor of a meeting with the Kremlin.  A bad decision which was ultimately and fortunately turned around. 
Ambassador Malcolm Toon’s basic rules for dealing with Moscow
Not long ago, I came across an April 11, 1985 newspaper article I had saved from the San Francisco Chronicle.  It was entitled “Open Forum:  Malcolm Toon.” Toon had served in the US Foreign Service as a Soviet specialist and had ended his career as US Ambassador to Moscow during the Cold War.  This included the first few months when I worked at the US Embassy in the cultural section.  In the Open Forum article, he laid out his following principles, or basic rules, for dealing with the Soviet Union.  Toon was known for being hardline anti-Soviet but the rules he sets down below are, in fact, basic ways of operating when dealing with an adversary and in particular one in the Kremlin.  
I think they are worth repeating because although times have changed, we should not forget that it was the Russians who ran the Soviet Union and much of Toon’s advice is just plain common sense based on his own considerable practical experience.
So here follows Ambassador Toon’s advice to the Reagan administration not all that long before Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.  Just substitute Russia for Soviet Union when reading Toon’s list below and you'll see what I mean.
“We should recast our relationship to reflect its essentially adversarial nature and within the following parameters:
  • We should agree with our allies on an illusion-free assessment of the Soviet threat.
  • We should have the self-confidence to carry on an effective dialogue with the Soviets.
  • We should have the courage and wisdom to forge solutions to the problems that divide us, bearing in mind that our proposals, if they are to be negotiable, must be perceived by the Soviets as not to their disadvantage.
  • We should recognize that the Soviets pay attention to what we do, not what we say. Adequate military underpinning is essential if our policies are to be credible.
  • We should have a clear understanding of our vital interests so that we know when we can compromise and when we must stand firm.
  • We must not seek bilateral agreements with the Soviets at the expense of our friends and allies.
  • We should be alert to Soviet attempts to drive wedges between ourselves and our allies.
  • We should avoid bluffs and idle threats in dealing with the Soviet Union.
  • We should avoid agreements, loosely worded and based on broad principles. All agreements should be specific, self-enforcing and adequately verifiable.
  • We should tone down our enthusiasm for summitry. A summit meeting must be carefully prepared and geared to a specific political objective.
  • We should avoid chumminess. Good faith and trust are ruled out by Soviet ideology and behavior.”
Rest in peace Ambassador Toon but thank you for your wise counsel. Your advice still resounds across the decades. Perhaps someone in Secretary Tillerson’s office would make this column available to him.  If that is, there’s anybody home.  He needs them.
For the record Malcolm Toon died in 2009 but The New York Times just published his obituary on May 2, 2017. Here it is.  Maybe the Times thinks this administration needs the counsel too. 

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

A Facebook query on the "liquidation" of Russian ...


    A query to Facebook "Friends" (friends -- talk about an overused word-- if there ever was one -- by the essentially anonymous "social" media; true friendship of course goes far beyond exchanging messages on USA-controlled (?) cyberspace.
    Tocqueville: in America, "the bond of human affection is extended, but it is relaxed." http://johnbrownnotesandessays.blogspot.com/…/key-quotation…
    FYI, The main reason am on FB is to get news/comments -- in the Russian language, a language I've been trying to learn for some 50 years -- from perceptive Russian citizens (and yes, the Russian government as well) on their country and the world.
    But in recent weeks on FB am no longer receiving the original Russian text from Russian "friends"/sources -- rather, in incredibly vulgar/idiotic machine (what else can it be labeled) "English" translations (without my ever asking for them) -- although I can click on to the original Russian text.
    To FB, non-native Russian speakers admirers of the language of Pushkin having to endure "machine strangulation" -- Have you experienced the same kind of linguistic vulgarity (some hysterics would say "imperialism)?

    richard-hooker.com "I confess that in America I saw more than America; I sought there the image of democracy…
    JOHNBROWNNOTESANDESSAYS.BLOGSPOT.COM

    Like
    Comment