Having dinner at my girlfriend's house last night, politics came up and I mentioned the idea of "the ignorant American"-- that Americans are less aware of world history and events than the citizens of other countries. My girlfriend's mom asked me to cite evidence relating to the statement. I couldn't off the top of my head, so I told her I'd get back to her-- she pointed out the difficulty in quantitatively measuring data to make such an assesment. Does anyone have anything they know off the top of their heads relative to this?

...and you didn't.....?

An example:

In 1999, my wife and I accepted an exchange student from Germany. Now Germany brags about their educational system as do most of Europe. Out of curiosity, I asked Nadine about German history. Since she was just seventeen years old, I didn't really expect much - and I wasn't disappointed.

According to her, Germany "began" with re-unification. To her, there was no Germany before that. So I asked her who Bismark was. "Bismark who?", she queried.

As things turned out, she had been taught nothing of WWI or WWII. She didn't realize that it was Bismark who "unified" Germany. She knew nothing of the reach for global empire by the Kaiser. She knew nothing of Hitler, the holocaust, Germany's defeat in two world wars, or the division afterwards.

East Germans were lazy and only wanted handouts from West Germany Therefore, East Germans were hated after re-unification. Oh! One other thing. Nadine did know that her grandfather fought in a war (it was WWII) but she didn't know which.

History is one of the most important subjects which one can be taught. The tragedy is that it is usually taught in a "memorize these dates, these names, these places" manner and the relevance is never really taught.

I'd quote George Santayana, but since you started this thread you must be familiar with history, so I won't quote him.

when Jay Leno brings in retards (which are most likely actors) that think Guatamalla is a type of fish, and his show is watched by millions of people, these millions really start believing that Americans really are stupid.

every person that goes through university has to take a history course at least as an elective
highschools have world history courses

while it's impossible to know the history of every country for the past century, Americans probably know on average about as much as Europeans do, except Europeans have an advantage since they live in Europe because it's their history while to Americans it's foreign history.

when Jay Leno brings in retards (which are most likely actors) that think Guatamalla is a type of fish, and his show is watched by millions of people, these millions really start believing that Americans really are stupid.

Sadly, they aren't actors. He actually came to my university and they were random people. Maybe they were acting dumb for the cameras, maybe not... but they weren't actors working for the show.


every person that goes through university has to take a history course at least as an elective
highschools have world history courses
That doesn't mean that the history is presented in an accurate way (see marv's example about germany) or even more so that the students pay attention. Let's not forget that many people do not have any college education (mostly residing in the Bible belt or below)


while it's impossible to know the history of every country for the past century, Americans probably know on average about as much as Europeans do, except Europeans have an advantage since they live in Europe because it's their history while to Americans it's foreign history.
True... to an extent. I think the problem with the American classroom is that students are taught all sorts of fun facts and dates and people, but rarely are they taught the lessons we have learned from it.

marv: Thanks for the story, but I'm looking for more than one-case examples. I actually went to school in Germany (and Russia, but I mostly have lived and now attend college in the US), and I can tell you that Nadine's ignorance was not the norm. We can think of people that are very ignorant of history, but what about cultural, nation-wide ignorance?

What about current events, however?
Get you news from any major source in the US, then listen to the BBC on the same day.
On network news there are very few world news stories at all, unless they directly affect the USA, and sometimes not even then.
The BBC will talk of government collapses, coup attempts, successful coups, and a whole host of other top news stoires that don't even get a mention on the news here.
Americans are exceptionally America-centric.
When I started listening to the BBC news when I was in high school I was blown away by all the things going on in the world that I had NO CLUE about.
Not to mention the piss poor American public school system and our atrocious literacy rate.

My european friends are much more informed about the world (and history, in fact) than my American counter-parts.
How much did they teach you about Bismarck (spelled with a "c" by the way) in high school? Not college.
I would be willing to bet a paycheck that at least 90% of Americans between the ages of 15 and 18 have no clue who Bismarck is at all, and those that have heard of him know little about him at all.
Those people on Leno, sadly they ARE the average American.
Our reading, writing and math skills are pathetic.
I am going to look for some stats.

For the time being Click Here (http://www.library.american.edu/e_ref/statistics_t.html) and scroll down to Education.
There are links to some good information there.

every person that goes through university has to take a history course at least as an elective highschools have world history courses

I wouldn't give much credit to this... a lot of people don't attend college (and a lot of times, it's not really college), and highschool history class is a joke. I remember talking to my highschool teacher about the enormous disparity between how much is expected in 'normal' history classes and how much is expected in 'honors' history classes. She said that the department describes 'honors' students as those that want to learn history, and 'normal' students as those that are there because they have to fill the requirement, and don't actually have to learn anything. The problem, however, is that there is only one or two 'honors' classes compared to 5-6 'regular' classes. Within New Jersey, this is one of the top 10 high schools academically, and one of the best funded (top 3, I'm pretty sure). I find it hard to imagine what most of the other schools must be like... This is all US History, btw.

World history was a freshman class that would serve to divide students into the 'honors' and 'regular' tracks. It was a joke, seriously. We learned things that were outright false (celebration of Stalin's death) and spent most of the time coloring in maps and memorizing countries and capitals (not that it isn't important -- it just doesn't belong in a history class).

How many people in the US knew who Bin Laden was or what al Qaeda was before 9/11?
Even though Bin Laden was on the top ten most wanted list for the FBI long before that and the US was involved, in one way or another since as early as 1978 - 79, very few Americans ever heard of him.
Most, if not ALL of the people I know from Europe knew who he was long before 9/11.

Here's something on a similar topic--

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

This compares the awareness of facts in Bush and Kerry voters. (If you want to discuss this, please start a new thread!).

Pretty much, Kerry supporters know his policies (as well as all kinds of facts) much better than Bush supporters do. If I could first point to evidence that Europeans know history and current events better than Americans do, I could make the case that the result is a more corrupt and less effective form of government (both I and my girly's family are Kerry supporters).

PS-- however, I don't want to use the backwards logic that since Bush got elected, the electorate is dumb, which is how I got there myself... :-P

How many people in the US knew who Bin Laden was or what al Qaeda was before 9/11?

Funny you mention it, I asked exactly the same question at that dinner... :)

It's a conspiracy I tell ya!!.

How else can you get a bunch of idiots to follow a fascist?.

The dumbing of Amricans have been going on for quite a while it's nothing new, it is just about reaching it's zenith. http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/pages/book.htm

I educated myself when I droped out of HighSchool and fortunately that education will never end till I die.

Godless.

ignorant American, you said enough there, although i have been known to use worse word when talking about these people...

I don't hold it against someone when they don't know jack about other countries. To most people, their home country is the only one who plays a part in their daily lives. The chance that the Taklamakan desert is going to come up in conversation is pretty damn small.

I do hold it against them if they don't know jack about their own country. They should know at least the rudiments of national history. Perhaps not exact dates and weird twisted little details, but at least a rough outline of things.

And by the way... the United States is somewhat better that it appears to be when dealing with education. In many countries, only those who really have potential go into higher education get the chance. America schools every idiot and slacker at least through highschool and gives them a chance to make their way through college. Thus, average scores are better in many other countries.

Clockwood: maybe you are right, but there are a lot of colleges here (I currently reside in the US) that aren't very... 'serious', it's almost like play-college. You pay money, you get a degree, but you don't really learn much...

Here's some good links I can def. use:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/11/19/study.abroad.ap/

which talks about this:
http://www.nafsa.org/content/PublicPolicy/stf/STFEAreport.pdf

Cool stuff. I'll post some kind of draft for people to look at/edit tomorrow if you guys want :)

Cool stuff. I'll post some kind of draft for people to look at/edit tomorrow if you guys want :)
I'd like to see it.

By the way, I grew up in New Jersey, I can personally vouch for their pathetic public school system as well.

Part of the appearance of ignorance is specialization. Americans in general work harder than is healthy, and they don't really have time for what their work ethic considers non-essential.

As I see it, this explains a number of negative appearances about Americans:


• Americans recognize a skewed version of history: In addition to a certain amount of jingoism, the American curriculum usually teaches a very fragmented version of history. Some of the seemingly strange fascinations of conspiracy theorists and the American social-science fringes develop in response to an overwhelming sensation when facing reality. Somehow the jagged pieces don't suffice. The world in its broader context can be very confusing.

• Americans recognize a bizarre version of current events: Time is money, and efficiency demands efficient information transfer. Hence our strange obsession with what Doonesbury once called "news McNuggets". Desert Storm did for the news industry what the Netscape IPO did for the internet and, by some measures, the economy itself. Notice that the 1990s also marks the rise of the American sound-bite culture to possessing proportions. The bottom line is that compression equals loss, and in some cases distortion. The long-term effects can be shocking to the outside observer.

• Analogy - "Christianity in America is a Strange Notion": Sometimes we infidels hear our Christian neighbors say some things that seem to contradict our basic understanding of the faith they proclaim. In the modern era of high-fuel politics, information compression, and overextension of labor resources, it seems as if even something like religious faith is subject to the modern warp. There are other factors affecting the perception, of course, but every once in a while we hear someone say something that seems exactly opposite what they would generally claim their faith asserts. And they believe in it, and act on it. And it seems that they're not necessarily stupid as perhaps, just like their neighbors, too busy for the in-depth version. Who knows? Maybe it's just too many news McNuggets clogging the arteries of knowledge. Not everyone in the ranks is akin to the man leading the charge, and by that I don't mean Jesus. But whether it's the ballot box, the big gun in the briefcase, Falwell ranting about 9/11, or the indelible image of teenagers at Dave Roever's summer camp throwing records, cassettes, and music magazines onto a bonfire°, it's hard to conclude that what we're seeing accords with the accepted and asserted confines of normalcy or propriety. If we assert that perceived necessity demands superficial examinations and affirmations of faith, well, there you go.

In the end, it's simply that Americans, in general, are focused elsewhere in the broad spectrum of reality. Seriously, it all comes down to people expecting far too much of themselves.

Really.

I promise.

Between priorities of focus and an obsession with efficiency (or perhaps with the passing of time itself), a great deal about "What's wrong with Americans?" can be explained.

(Yes. Seriously. I know it sounds simple. It is. At least, until we try to figure out what to do about it. But conceptually, it really is that simple.)

In the end, it's simply that Americans, in general, are focused elsewhere in the broad spectrum of reality. Seriously, it all comes down to people expecting far too much of themselves.

Really.

I promise.


I really don't think it IS all that simple.
I think that any analysis about "American Ignorance" would be remiss, at best, if it didn't include the phenomena of "American Arrogance".
One of the most disturbing trends I see regarding the American-centric point of view is not that people are too busy to pat attention ot the rest of the world, though that may be the excuse some ofthem use.
I think it's that people here simply don't care what is happening in the rest of the world.
"If it's not taking money out of my wallet, I could care less."
Americans have a very short-sighted vision that is a perfect match with their short attention span.
If it isn't directly affecting them right now, this minute, then it doesn't really matter.
It goes beyond looking at world events, you can see it in every day behavior, politics, social trends and just about every other aspect of "The American Lifestyle".
I'm not sure what causes it (I waver from time to time) but what I generally leap towards is the self-centered idealism and arrogant sense of entitlement that is the bastard child that our special form of Captialism and Democracy is breeding.
People are generally apathetic to anything that they can't see directly affecting them in this moment.

I would be willing to bet a paycheck that at least 90% of Americans between the ages of 15 and 18 have no clue who Bismarck is at all, and those that have heard of him know little about him at all.

While I seriously doubt many American high school students have any real knowledge of Bismarck, outside of maybe having heard the name itself, I would be curious to know how many average German high school students learn about an American like say Teddy Roosevelt, other than a small percentage similar to American honor students who maybe have a greater than normal interest in foreign history. I admit I knew nothing of the chancellor when I was in high school (there were no 'honors' courses way back then), and wasn't exposed to the man and his significance in any depth until I took freshman world civ in college.

An example:
In 1999, my wife and I accepted an exchange student from Germany. Now Germany brags about their educational system as do most of Europe.
Marv, this may, by chance, be a very bad example. The restriction of the teaching of German history to post WWII was a deliberate policy intended to prevent any resurgence of naziism.
From recent news articles I understand they are seriously re-evaluating this. Indeed it may already have changed.


On the general topic of the thread here is one thing to consider. I could fly from Aberdeen, in the north of Scotland to Amsterdam, take the train through the Netherlands, Belgium and northern France to Paris, hire a car and drive to the channel, ferry across, on to London and a flight back to Aberdeen. Four countries (five if you count Scotland seperately), three capital cities (four counting Brussels, five if you accept Aberdeen as the 'oil capital of Europe' :) ).
Now make a similar trip in the US (in most cases without the benefit of a train) . How about Houston, Midland/Oddessa, San Antonio, Houston. And I haven't even set foot outside Texas.
It is a huge country. Its relatively high degree of self-sufficiency means that for work or pleasure the average American does not need to leave the country, and if she does so it is logistically much more complex than it is for a European.

That said when I lived in the US I did tend to feel that [I]The Dallas Morning News considered something about Oklahoma to be international news.
Parochialism? I'm on a roll. There is a story that the Aberdeen Press and Journal carried a headline in the early part of the 20th century which read Three North East Men Drown at Sea. The article was about the Titanic.

How about separating wheat from chaff, aka 'a history test'?

A simple question, which American President first went to war with an Islamic nation over Islamic practices?

While I seriously doubt many American high school students have any real knowledge of Bismarck, outside of maybe having heard the name itself, I would be curious to know how many average German high school students learn about an American like say Teddy Roosevelt,

Historically Teddy Roosevelt had no effect on Germany or on that matter on much of the world. Bismarck did, it’s like comparing a historical apple and orange. Yes Teddy was important to the US but that’s about it, Bismarck literally shaped the world in a new light Teddy simply did not. I mean why don’t we learn about Atlee? He was more important then Roosevelt.

I admit I knew nothing of the chancellor when I was in high school (there were no 'honors' courses way back then), and wasn't exposed to the man and his significance in any depth until I took freshman world civ in college.

Some schools in the US don’t even teach history because it isn’t counted on this no child left behind thing, or something like that.

A simple question, which American President first went to war with an Islamic nation over Islamic practices?

Going out on a limb here...Jefferson? Against the Barbary states because they were seizing US shipping in the Mediterranean.

:) Let me saw the limb off with you sitting on it.
Unless Marv is being very broad in his use of terms, I don't think seizing shipping constitutes a normal Islamic practice. ;)
I am fighting down the temptation to google the answer, and instead to work it out by deduction. I am thinking a Phillipines connection at the moment.

I didn't even notice that...I don't think its a "Islamic practice" either, just a practice that took after the British...pirates. It's like saying "which Christian nation over an Christian practice"...pretty stupid eh?

An excellent book I purchased kinda on this subject was:


Lies My Teacher Told Me:
Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong

By James Loewen



One of the most telling things this book says is that in American textbooks We(Americans) have never commited a "crime" or unjustice....despite treatment of Native Americans or Africans (or most other minorities) we have always been about fair and equal treatment for everyone

I seriously doubt many American high school students have any real knowledge of BismarckI agree, it'd bet a paycheck that 98% of Americans 15-18 have no clue if Bismarck is a person or city.


I'm not sure what causes it.Maybe I should just post the entire dinner conversation here, but I came to the subject of "American ignorance" when I was criticizing an obsession with consumerist entertainment that is very stereotypically American-- we like to consume without producing. Americans are too used to instant gratification-- they have been 'spoiled' by McDonald's and Disney, following the logic that since time is money, money invested in a dinner is the equivalent of cooking it yourself; money invested in the movie is the equivalent of time invested in reading the book (not to say that all movies are bad, just that there are a lot more good books than there are good movies).

As a result, we have not been doing much real research on what's been going on around us-- this is why 74% of those that support Bush think he supports the Labor Standards and Trade Agreements (see p.12 of my earlier link (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf)), and only 13% know that he opposes it? Noam Chomsky's famous (among his fans, at least) anecdote rings along the same lines:


"You'll be pleased to know that the Pentagon recently downgraded the threat of Cuban conquest of the United States. It's still there, but it's not as serious as it was. The reason, they explained, is the deterioration of the awesome Cuban military forces after the end of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union stopped supplying them. So we can rest a little bit easier; we don't have to hide under tables the way we were taught to do in first grade. This elicited no ridicule when it was publicly announced, at least here. I'm sure it did elsewhere; you might recall the response of the Mexican ambassador when John F. Kennedy was trying to organize collective security in defense against Cuba back in the early '60s in Mexico: the ambassador said he would regretfully have to decline because if he were to tell Mexicans that Cuba was a threat to their national security, 40 million Mexicans would die laughing."

To be fair it seems pretty obvious the point is to make Americans ignorant of their history so they don't question their governments motives in a time of war, I was watching the Daily Show last night and the guest a author called “Zinn” sorry don’t know him but seems to be famous, said (paraphrasing) “If Americans knew about the atrocities committed under our name you wouldn’t have a single recruit at the recruiting stations”. Which is I suspect very true, most Americans can’t even point to their home town on a map, most Americans have no idea of their own history let alone anyone else’s, and what they do know is glamorized misrepresentations from Hollywood. American’s are sheeple of no fault of their own really… their government has failed them.

Funny little thing-- I called my girlfriend fifteen minutes ago or so and asked her if she'd heard of Bismarck. She said 'no'. I asked if it was a country in Europe, she didn't think so. A city? She didn't think so either. A famous person from Europe? She said no. She was getting aggitated by then, so I thanked her and hung up.

She just called me back-- said "The capital of North Dakota" and hung up.

Well, it's not like she was wrong...

Historically Teddy Roosevelt had no effect on Germany or on that matter on much of the world. Bismarck did, it’s like comparing a historical apple and orange. Yes Teddy was important to the US but that’s about it, Bismarck literally shaped the world in a new light Teddy simply did not. I mean why don’t we learn about Atlee? He was more important then Roosevelt.

In your rush to make a point, you missed my point. Bismarck's alliance system was certainly a factor leading to the Great War, although definitely not the only factor, but still he is very influential in history, but mainly in European history. By the same token Roosevelt was very influential in US history. He was one of the leading advocates in the late 19th/early 20th centuries for the US becoming a Great Power and becoming influential in world affairs. If you consider Bismarck a factor leading to the Great War, and therefore important for him to be included in American high school World Civ courses, then equally, if European high school students are to understand how America came to be involved in European affairs beginning with the Great War, they would have to be exposed to Roosevelt and like thinkers of the era.


I didn't even notice that...I don't think its a "Islamic practice" either, just a practice that took after the British...pirates. It's like saying "which Christian nation over an Christian practice"...pretty stupid eh?

Regardless of the generalization, I would still suspect he was referring to Jefferson and the Barbary War.

Undecided-- I'm so glad you mentioned him. I love Stewart for having him on. He is famous in certain circles. I just got his best known book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060528370/qid=1105125516/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-4562846-0540735?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) (mentioned a couple of times on The Daily Show) for Christmas, and it's amazing!

In your rush to make a point, you missed my point. Bismarck's alliance system was certainly a factor leading to the Great War, although definitely not the only factor, but still he is very influential in history, but mainly in European history. By the same token Roosevelt was very influential in US history.

Exactly…that is my point as well, I guarantee you there is no disagreement. The problem is that the US at that period in time was not very important to the world’s geo-political order which was dominated by the UK, and the only nation that threatened the UK in any serious manner was Germany. Teddy was important in the US, I alluded to that but not important outside that context, the unification of Germany is one of the most important events in world history, and its architect is one of the most important men. Bismarck is important because his invention makes WWI a possibility, and affected US history. Teddy you must admit did not even come close. Now Wilson, yes they should learn about him…

He was one of the leading advocates in the late 19th/early 20th centuries for the US becoming a Great Power and becoming influential in world affairs.

Rhetoric and reality are two different things…not every American president is important... ;)

If you consider Bismarck a factor leading to the Great War, and therefore important for him to be included in American high school World Civ courses, then equally, if European high school students are to understand how America came to be involved in European affairs beginning with the Great War, they would have to be exposed to Roosevelt and like thinkers of the era.

No, because the reason the US became involved was because of Wilson, not Teddy. He had nothing to do with it, if anything Europeans should learn about American isolationalism which was further enhanced by Teddy. America got involved in European affairs out of necessity not choice.

Regardless of the generalization, I would still suspect he was referring to Jefferson and the Barbary War

In your rush to make a point, you seemed to miss I already anwered that question.

You should delete one of your posts Spyke...

the quote by Howard Zinn, by the way, was:

"If young people going to school knew the history of American expansion-- first on the continent, and then in the world and if they knew the history of lies and the history of massacres that took place alongside this expansion nobody would go to a recruiting station to sign up for any war. Nobody." --Howard Zinn on The Daily Show, Jan 6, 2005

You win the prize, Undecided.

The "Islamic practice" I referred to was the taking of captives to be held for ransom, or failing that, for slavery. Zakat, something we in the West would call extortion, could be paid for "protection". Of course, how much "protection" a nation received was determined by how much zakat was paid. (A Muslim will tell you that zakat has an entirely different meaning.)

Jefferson, even before he was President, advocated military intervention in the Barbary states. Thomas Jefferson was the George W. Bush of his time. Our conflict with the Barbary pirates solved both our problems and those of Europe. Jefferson did the same things for the same reasons as Dubya did starting with Afganistan.

Moving on to Howard Zinn, he forgets that the "native Americans" were not native to America at all, but imigrants from Asia. Further, the Europeans who first explored the New World found canabilism, human sacrifice, slavery, and constant warfare to be the norm between the various tribes. I always chuckle when I hear someone talk about how white settlers "destroyed" the idylic life-style of these natives who communed so with nature. Hell, these natives so in tune with and loving of nature had already killed off the mastodon, the North American camel, native horses, a species of giant bison, and who knows what else before we got here.

Moving on to Howard Zinn, he forgets that the "native Americans" were not native to America at all, but imigrants from Asia. Oh, OK. So because their ancestors migrated from somewhere else 12,000 years ago (that's twelve thousand), killing some estimated 10 million people, raping, and lying was allright. Mybad. That civilization had it coming; every one of them deserved to die.

Obviously you have not read much of Mr. Zinn's, as he takes your view into careful consideration and counters it quite masterfully (read The People's History of the United States (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060528370/qid=1105137805/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-4562846-0540735)). Or, if you're completely anti-Zinn, or if you want more than one chapter's worth of the immorality of American expansionism in the 19th century, try Dee Brown's "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805066691/qid=1105137292/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-4562846-0540735?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)".

Either way, please stop talking out of your ass.

You win the prize, Undecided.

Well in reality I shouldn’t have, an American should have…

The "Islamic practice" I referred to was the taking of captives to be held for ransom, or failing that, for slavery.

Mind showing us the passage in the Quran in which such a practice is advertised? Because there is a difference btwn being a country, and being religious. If we are to use your logic thus far, was British pirateering was an exercise in Christianity? I doubt it…so please before you state it is an “Islamic practice” show us where in the Quran it states as such.

Moving on to Howard Zinn, he forgets that the "native Americans" were not native to America at all, but imigrants from Asia.

Then using that logic Europeans aren’t native to Europe, Chinese aren’t native to Asia, etc. The only place where we are all “native” is a cave in South Africa on the coasts of the Indian Ocean. Since we all migrated somewhere, sorry but the Natives of America were the first human inhabitants of this land and as a result are the original owners of it.

Further, the Europeans who first explored the New World found canabilism, human sacrifice, slavery, and constant warfare to be the norm between the various tribes.

Even if this were true, this doesn’t justify our colonialization of the land in the way we did it. I don’t necessarily object to the colonialization of America, what I object to is the manner in which we did it. I mean if the situation was reversed they would have found our religions, our inquisitions, our wars, our diseases, and our bigotry to be reasons to “civilize” us. This idea of “civilize” is so relativist it loses all meaning.

I always chuckle when I hear someone talk about how white settlers "destroyed" the idylic life-style of these natives who communed so with nature.

True their lives were not idyllic, but it was better then, then it was under American (meaning continent wide) white enslavement, and native holocaust. If anything we are the barbarians not them for killing upwards of 30 million to some estimates.

Hell, these natives so in tune with and loving of nature had already killed off the mastodon, the North American camel, native horses, a species of giant bison, and who knows what else before we got here.

Well how many creatures have Western Europeans killed off? No one is innocent...

I would have to agree with tiassa on this point. Americans are ignorant of history for two basic reasons: the history education they recieve in school sucks, and once they graduate they have no real need for it. How many people do you know who study 19th century European history in their spare time? The sad fact is most Americans don't need to, or want, to learn more than they need to do their job. They make money, spend it on something enjoyable (and to most learning is not something enjoyable; HDTV's, new cars, sports, movies, sex toys, video games are), and then repeat the process. That's most Americans summed up right there.

There are many stupid people in the USA makes me sick. Most of that is caused by woman's rights activists saying how woman should expire to be highly educated but still be super models. Then they tell guys that they need to be stuid jocks and if they are smart and get great grades they are considered dorks, nurds, and losers. So more or less Men are dang near forced to be jocks/thugs and women are more exepted to be smart but are still told they must be mindless super models also.

If the states droped the need for super models and jocks/thug rapers and prased the efforts of the smart with out beating them into the ground the USA would be a better place. Jocks and models are fine thugs are worthless because of the way of life they think is cool and hip. But if some one is smart they should not be degraded for it.

This just brings up why we need to geneticly engeneer a few generations. So everone can be rocket engeneers and football playing models 8)...

ya I can't spell I have Dislexia live with it... Just one more reason for genetic engeneering.

Exactly…that is my point as well, I guarantee you there is no disagreement. The problem is that the US at that period in time was not very important to the world’s geo-political order which was dominated by the UK, and the only nation that threatened the UK in any serious manner was Germany. Teddy was important in the US, I alluded to that but not important outside that context, the unification of Germany is one of the most important events in world history, and its architect is one of the most important men. Bismarck is important because his invention makes WWI a possibility, and affected US history. Teddy you must admit did not even come close. Now Wilson, yes they should learn about him…

Wilson is important to the Great War in the same vein as Wilhelm II, simply because they were the leaders of the moment, so yes, Wilson should be in European high school history texts as the Kaiser should be in American HS history texts. But Bismarck has no more reason to be in American HS history texts at the high school level that Roosevelt does in European HS texts. Bismarck is significant to Europeans because of German unification, and because of his secret alliances. That's not any more significant to an American high school student as is Roosevelt's being say the first Progressive president, or setting the standard for an increasingly powerful executive office in the 20th century (and he did that without even being a war-time president), or for the Panama Canal, or the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Donctrine, or his Big Stick policy, or the Great White Fleet should be to a European HS student.


He was one of the leading advocates in the late 19th/early 20th centuries for the US becoming a Great Power and becoming influential in world affairs.

Rhetoric and reality are two different things…not every American president is important... ;)

Not particularly important to a German high school student maybe, I agree, although Roosevelt is certainly important in American history by any standard (and why he ranks in the top 5 in every presidential ranking I've ever seen (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR generally being the other 4). But by the same token, there's no reason to expect Bismarck to be of any more importance to an American HS student.


If you consider Bismarck a factor leading to the Great War, and therefore important for him to be included in American high school World Civ courses, then equally, if European high school students are to understand how America came to be involved in European affairs beginning with the Great War, they would have to be exposed to Roosevelt and like thinkers of the era.

No, because the reason the US became involved was because of Wilson, not Teddy. He had nothing to do with it,

Bismarck had nothing to do with the war itself either, however, it was policies of both Bismarck and Roosevelt during their tenures that made their two nations involvement in the war probable, Bismarck through his secret alliances, Roosevelt through his aggressive doctrine, his build up of the navy, and his belief that great nations (which he wanted the US to be) were nations that took action. Wilson even tried to keep the US out of the war for the first 3 years, while Roosevelt, as a private citizen, increasingly publicly criticized Wislon for not getting involved, arguing that the US should fight for what she believed in.


if anything Europeans should learn about American isolationalism which was further enhanced by Teddy.

Are you serious? Teddy was anything but an isolationist. He argued that if the US was going to be a great nation she should act like it. He believed the US should be involved in world affairs. According to him, the nations that didn't, withered away. He was an advocate of the war with Spain, of Hawaiian annexation, of Philippine annexation, of the Panama Canal so his navy could be a 'two-ocean' navy, he won the Nobel Peace Prize for arbitrating an end to the Russo-Japanese War at Portsmouth. he was anything but an isolationist.


America got involved in European affairs out of necessity not choice.

Of course there was a choice. No one attacked the US or declared war on her. The death of a few American civilians due to u-boats, while tragic, or the affront to the US by the Zimmerman message, did not make US involvement 'necessary'.


You should delete one of your posts Spyke...

Yep. I didn't realize until I logged back on that I had double posted.

But Bismarck has no more reason to be in American HS history texts at the high school level that Roosevelt does in European HS texts.

Are you serious? Honestly now Spyke I think this is where American exceptionalism creeps in, there is no way that Teddy was even close historically in significance to Bismarck. It was Bismarck who began the Germanic overseas empire, the German navy, the militarization of Germany, defeated France in 1871 which is noted as the first match for WWI, it was Bismarck’s alliances that were meant to keep the peace, that was a main existential reason for WWI, it was under his leadership that Germany became a world industrial power, no US president has even accomplished as much as Bismarck. Teddy did a little with the parks, the Panama Canal…woopie…outside of American’s “backyard” he was irrelevant. There is no reason why a German or a Canadian for that matter should learn about Teddy…yes he was one of America’s great presidents…but America’s only.

Bismarck is significant to Europeans because of German unification, and because of his secret alliances. That's not any more significant to an American high school student as is Roosevelt's being say the first Progressive president, or setting the standard for an increasingly powerful executive office in the 20th century (and he did that without even being a war-time president), or for the Panama Canal, or the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Donctrine, or his Big Stick policy, or the Great White Fleet should be to a European HS student.

Ok so because Teddy was progressive that garners him a place in a German’s history book? Is there a special “Amerika” chapter in German history books that I am not aware of? Spyke no one outside the US cares about Teedy’s progressivism, or executive manoeuvrings, the Panama Canal should get an honourable mention…the US naval expansion was aimed towards Japan more then Germany, and as a result if anything you should be saying Japanese students should be learning about Teddy. What he did internally in the US is not of great significance to anyone outside the US.

although Roosevelt is certainly important in American history by any standard

And? Explain to me why a German student should two shits? Note you said “American history” not world history, Bismarck was intergral to the world’s geo-political situation. If one doesn’t understand Bismarck, and the unification of Germany one has no idea about the next 100 years of history, I think we can all live without Teddy in retrospect.

Bismarck had nothing to do with the war itself either, however, it was policies of both Bismarck and Roosevelt during their tenures that made their two nations involvement in the war probable, Bismarck through his secret alliances, Roosevelt through his aggressive doctrine, his build up of the navy, and his belief that great nations (which he wanted the US to be) were nations that took action.

I reject the notion of yours that Roosevelt’s policies of naval aggrandizement was anything more then posturing to Japan, and possibly Great Britain. Roosevelt’s doctrine was directed in the third world, yes it’s a nice aside to American imperialism prior to 1914, but in relation to German it was nothing. Secondly no one was really scared of the American navy…the real thing the US had going for her was her millions of “doughboys”, money, and untapped industrial power. All of which precede Teddy. Bismarck policies made all this possible, Roosevelt’s policies could have made America marginally more powerful.

Wilson even tried to keep the US out of the war for the first 3 years, while Roosevelt, as a private citizen, increasingly publicly criticized Wislon for not getting involved, arguing that the US should fight for what she believed in.

He was out of office…thus irrelevant.

He argued that if the US was going to be a great nation she should act like it. He believed the US should be involved in world affairs. According to him, the nations that didn't, withered away

Remember that commercial from Burger King… “where’s the beef?” Again rhetoric and idealism sure are nice, but mean nothing.

He was an advocate of the war with Spain, of Hawaiian annexation, of Philippine annexation, of the Panama Canal so his navy could be a 'two-ocean' navy, he won the Nobel Peace Prize for arbitrating an end to the Russo-Japanese War at Portsmouth. he was anything but an isolationist.

He was fighting in the 1898 war wasn’t he? All those annexations were prior to his ascension into the presidency so I don’t hold him responsible. The Nobel Prize…honourable but that still doesn’t mean the US in a holistic sense was an extroverted nation, that’s a stretch. The Panama Canal the most outrageous show of American imperialism, forcibly cutting Colombia out of Central America…that’s something to be proud of…so really the only act of which I can surmise that he did that was really “extroverted” was the Panama Canal.

Of course there was a choice. No one attacked the US or declared war on her. The death of a few American civilians due to u-boats, while tragic, or the affront to the US by the Zimmerman message, did not make US involvement 'necessary'.

Yes it did…who was going to pay the US back her debts if the allies lost? That was the real necessity.

Obviously you have not read much of Mr. Zinn's,...I've never heard of Zinn until you mentioned him. GRO$$, you're still a teenager. I'm more that three times your age, with more than three times your experience and exposure to this world. It ain't pretty, but there's a natural flow to history, and many things you've yet to learn. For instance, those migrations ocurred in stages, some more than 20,000 years ago. Mitochondrial DNA suggests even earlier migrations by sea of Polynesian peoples. Does that make anyone migrating 12,000 years ago an invader?

The Qur'an on slavery...
"Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."...also 4:36, 4:92, 23:5-6, 24:31, 24:58, and 33:55.

Imigrants? See above.

Is civilization relative? Of course it is.
True their lives were not idyllic, but it was better then, then it was under American (meaning continent wide) white enslavement, and native holocaust.Well I suppose so as long as canabilism and human sacrifice are excluded.
[Was the death of species] actually proven? Or was it the climate?It's hard to argue with a spear point in the rib cage of a mammoth (I wrote mastodon earlier in error), or rock paintings showing horse and camel hunts in the American Southwest and Northern Mexico, and oral traditions of hunting giant bison.

The Qur'an on slavery......also 4:36, 4:92, 23:5-6, 24:31, 24:58, and 33:55.

Yes but that quote which you showed me does not extol the virtues of slavery…I want normative statements. Not historical interpretation of a real event. Your going to have to try again.

Imigrants? See above.

You mean this:

For instance, those migrations ocurred in stages, some more than 20,000 years ago. Mitochondrial DNA suggests even earlier migrations by sea of Polynesian peoples. Does that make anyone migrating 12,000 years ago an invader?

Firstly I don’t see the logic in that statement at all…and if no other humans beings were living in American they weren’t invading anything because it belonged to no one…In order for your theorem to work somehow you have to prove that the Natives were not natives, which of course is impossible. Stop beating a dead horse Marv.

Is civilization relative? Of course it is.

Then that means that I don’t want to hear anymore on these relativist value judgements.

Well I suppose so as long as canabilism and human sacrifice are excluded.

You want to talk about human sacrifice who was it that gilded natives in Gold for torture, who gave natives covers with small pox all over it? Cannibalism, every society at some point in time must have had a ritual of this nature.

It's hard to argue with a spear point in the rib cage of a mammoth (I wrote mastodon earlier in error), or rock paintings showing horse and camel hunts in the American Southwest and Northern Mexico, and oral traditions of hunting giant bison.

That doesn’t prove anything…it proves that they did what every single human society did…kill animals for sustenance. You aren’t proving anything marv…

Whether Teddy or Bismarck was more influential on the world stage is really a tangent of minor consequence, because of the statement that started the whole tangent.

While I seriously doubt many American high school students have any real knowledge of Bismarck, outside of maybe having heard the name itself, I would be curious to know how many average German high school students learn about an American like say Teddy Roosevelt, other than a small percentage similar to American honor students who maybe have a greater than normal interest in foreign history.
Although I can't relly speak for the German high school history courses (they are likely as mired in pro-German propaganda as we are in pro-America propaganda) I can say that friend I have in Europe (mostly England, France and Holland, but other countrues as well) DO know who Teddy Roosevent is, and, in fact, have a more in depth understanding his career and significance in American history than most of my American friends.
Eurpoeans have a better understanding of American history that has little to no effect at all outside America than Americans do.
Partly, I'm sure due to pro-America propaganda... For example, I know more than a few people that grew up in California and learned NOTHING in school about the fact that California once belonged to Mexico. The treatment of American Indians is another prime example. But I think it goes much deeper than simple propaganda. Perhaps the propaganda (largely cold war driven) shaped our minds so much to drive us to not care about "those insignificant countries over there" the "arrogant French pussies" and "evil Russians and commies".
Not to mention the fact that so many people here that I speak to have Nationalitic Pride down to an art form, except they think it's Patriotism.
They think that America is the only "free" country in the world and everyone else is starving or oppressed in some way.
It really is pathetic.

Jefferson, even before he was President, advocated military intervention in the Barbary states. Thomas Jefferson was the George W. Bush of his time. Our conflict with the Barbary pirates solved both our problems and those of Europe. Jefferson did the same things for the same reasons as Dubya did starting with Afganistan.
Oh. My. Gawd.

You totally did not just compare a brilliant philosopher who believed in honesty in an open government and who all but founded this country on the basic rights of freedom of man from tyranny to a pseudo theocro-fascist silver spoon fed idiot. That's fine and well that you like the guy, but please don't say Bush is a patriot.


Moving on to Howard Zinn, he forgets that the "native Americans" were not native to America at all, but imigrants from Asia.
Right, but they were here before any other civilizations. In essence, they were the native hominids of the north american continent. If we are to use your line of reasoning, then both you and I are natives of Africa (not to mention the north americans.)


Further, the Europeans who first explored the New World found canabilism, human sacrifice, slavery, and constant warfare to be the norm between the various tribes.
Some of the central American tribes did practice such things, but were hardly the norm. I think the point is that the natives were a completely unique culture from anything europe and the west had seen before and white europeans managed to annhilate their culture within in a few years for the sole purpouse of greed.


I always chuckle when I hear someone talk about how white settlers "destroyed" the idylic life-style of these natives who communed so with nature. Hell, these natives so in tune with and loving of nature had already killed off the mastodon, the North American camel, native horses, a species of giant bison, and who knows what else before we got here. You are referring to the ancestors of the native americans, not their descendents that came in contact with europeans. They did in fact have a highly advanced civilization that respected and was based around nature. Everything from crop rotations to land especially for hunting and producing game.

I think Marv just likes to post to get a knee jerk reaction. Maybe he can take over for Tucker Carlson and they won't have to cancel the show.

I (European) talk with mericans regularly. Overall their level of cluelessness and self centredness amazes me. But dont get me wrong, we have our faults here as well, every country does. Every country has things that are awful about it.

Theres just something different about America, cant quite put my finger on it. Maybe its the moral vacuum that so many live in, I dont know.

I'm a member of a country that enslaved a large portion of the whole world in the 1800s, causing an untold tide of death and utter misery, and whose fellow countrymen still describe this attribute as 'Great'

US and UK are friends, and like many friends there's always going to be something you just shake your head in disbelief over. That's life.


Lava

It is certainly possible that I only know exceptional Europeans, but I know Europeans from many walks of life and socio-econimic backgrounds.
I am not a history buff, and probably know less than most on this sub-forum with regards to history and politics, but I still know a lot more than most everyone I know in this country.
The historical knowledge (world history including America) and political savvy of Europeans I know puts me to shame.

As for Marv's statements about native americans...
First off, I would like to echo everything top mosker just said.

It doesn't matter in the least where they originally came from (relevant to this discussion, anyway) they were the first settlers to this land.
It WAS their land, and we stole it from them simply because we could (setting the standard for future American real estate deals).
You can't speak of native americans as a single homogenous whole.
Their practices, rituals, beliefs and societies varied widely.
There was very little cannibalism in North America and, as far as I know, the little that did happen was celebrations in time of war (which was also practiced in much of the rest of the world at one time or another).
Warriors in many early cultures ate the hearts of their victims.
Did you really condemn them for slavery?
Is it that slavery did not exist in America (or anywhere else in the world)?
Who DIDN'T practice slavery? That list would be shorter.
Warfare was no more common than warfare in Europe throughout history.
This was a country of many nations of people living together. War happened here just as it did everywhere else.
The majority of the nations lived peacefully, and they respected nature a great deal.
If they didn't they would have destroyed the natural resources of this country LONG ago (as we have been doing since we arrived) and killed themselves off or moved as most of them were not greatly agrarian, rather they lived off the naturally ocurring resources and migrated.

Even if their lifestyle was as bad and brutal as you are trying to make it out to be, does that really gives us the right to destroy their villages, kill them in astounding numbers and steal their land?
Why, how very American of you.

You win the prize, Undecided.

The "Islamic practice" I referred to was the taking of captives to be held for ransom, or failing that, for slavery. Zakat, something we in the West would call extortion, could be paid for "protection". Of course, how much "protection" a nation received was determined by how much zakat was paid. (A Muslim will tell you that zakat has an entirely different meaning.)

Jefferson, even before he was President, advocated military intervention in the Barbary states. Thomas Jefferson was the George W. Bush of his time. Our conflict with the Barbary pirates solved both our problems and those of Europe. Jefferson did the same things for the same reasons as Dubya did starting with Afganistan.

Moving on to Howard Zinn, he forgets that the "native Americans" were not native to America at all, but imigrants from Asia. Further, the Europeans who first explored the New World found canabilism, human sacrifice, slavery, and constant warfare to be the norm between the various tribes. I always chuckle when I hear someone talk about how white settlers "destroyed" the idylic life-style of these natives who communed so with nature. Hell, these natives so in tune with and loving of nature had already killed off the mastodon, the North American camel, native horses, a species of giant bison, and who knows what else before we got here.





OMG Marv your constant bashing of Islam is annoying :bugeye: you know a muslim will tell you it's different because thats not what Zakat is....sigh...... open a new thread bashing Islam instead of spamming every thread you post in with it

Even if their lifestyle was as bad and brutal as you are trying to make it out to be, does that really gives us the right to destroy their villages, kill them in astounding numbers and steal their land?
Why, how very American of you.
I don't know if you were trying to be sarcastic in that last sentence, but I can't think of anything MORE American than killing people in astounding numbers and stealing their land. :D

You win the prize, Undecided.

Well in reality I shouldn’t have, an American should have…


Yes, indeed, thank you...


I didn't even notice that...I don't think its a "Islamic practice" either, just a practice that took after the British...pirates. It's like saying "which Christian nation over an Christian practice"...pretty stupid eh?

Regardless of the generalization, I would still suspect he [undecided] was referring to Jefferson and the Barbary War.

...just send my prize to Anytown, USA.


Ok so because Teddy was progressive that garners him a place in a German’s history book? Is there a special “Amerika” chapter in German history books that I am not aware of? Spyke no one outside the US cares about Teedy’s progressivism, or executive manoeuvrings, the Panama Canal should get an honourable mention…the US naval expansion was aimed towards Japan more then Germany, and as a result if anything you should be saying Japanese students should be learning about Teddy. What he did internally in the US is not of great significance to anyone outside the US.

Rather than continuing back and forth through every point, let's cut it down to what's relevant, which, of course, is you're still missing the original point. I've not said Roosevelt should be significant in German history. All I've said from the beginning is Bismarck is no more significant to American history as Roosevelt is to European history. Changing my argument is not a nice thing to do. Tsk tsk. Americans no more need an understanding of Bismarck than Europeans need an understanding of Roosevelt. Period.


If one doesn’t understand Bismarck, and the unification of Germany one has no idea about the next 100 years of history

Not really.. From the prespective of an American student, as far as understanding 20th century history is concerned, it is really only necessary to have knowledge of Germany from the time of Wilhelm II's ascension. It was his desire to rival Britain as an imperial power that is of real significance to modern history. As far as Bismarck's alliance system, the various treaties had been designed to isolate France, but Wilhelm had not renewed some of them anyway, and imperial rivalries had caused interests to shift between the players by 1914 anyway.


While I seriously doubt many American high school students have any real knowledge of Bismarck, outside of maybe having heard the name itself, I would be curious to know how many average German high school students learn about an American like say Teddy Roosevelt, other than a small percentage similar to American honor students who maybe have a greater than normal interest in foreign history.

Although I can't relly speak for the German high school history courses (they are likely as mired in pro-German propaganda as we are in pro-America propaganda) I can say that friend I have in Europe (mostly England, France and Holland, but other countrues as well) DO know who Teddy Roosevent is, and,

I don't doubt that, just as I don't doubt that there are some American students who likely know more about European history than some European students.


Eurpoeans have a better understanding of American history that has little to no effect at all outside America than Americans do.

No, that's a generalization. You can only say that some Europeans have a better understanding than some Americans.

America is miscegenation and fast food. That's the end result of democracy.

No, that's a generalization. You can only say that some Europeans have a better understanding than some Americans.
Yes, it is a generalization.
This whole thread is about generalizations and whether or not they are deserved.
In this case, I think they are.
I can say more than "SOME" - I can say that in my experience MOST Europeans have a much better understanding than MOST Americans have.
Not just from people I personally know, either.
From second-hand accounts and every study I have ever heard of, as well.
Also, from my personal experience in the American public school system and what we are taught.

So, yes, I think the generalizations are certainly well-founded.

Having dinner at my girlfriend's house last night, politics came up and I mentioned the idea of "the ignorant American"-- that Americans are less aware of world history and events than the citizens of other countries. My girlfriend's mom asked me to cite evidence relating to the statement. I couldn't off the top of my head, so I told her I'd get back to her-- she pointed out the difficulty in quantitatively measuring data to make such an assesment. Does anyone have anything they know off the top of their heads relative to this?

You will find whatever you are looking for, regardless of which country you are in. If your mind is made up that certain nationalities are ignorant then that is what you will find (other evidence will be ignored but the answer you seek will jump out at you).

You will find whatever you are looking for, regardless of which country you are in. If your mind is made up that certain nationalities are ignorant then that is what you will find (other evidence will be ignored but the answer you seek will jump out at you)..
That's awfully presumtuous.

That's awfully presumtuous.

Has anyone else in the forum lived for at least 8 years in both the US and a european country?(there must be some others) Trust me ignorance as well as brilliance can be found everywhere.

Call it experience ;)

I only lived in 2 different European countries, but both social wellfare states with a good educational system. Needless to say the ignorance level is similar, but in a positive way.

It is a bit difficult to judge the ignorance level of other people, because I seem to know more than the average person. Many people therefore seem ignorant of many things. But then again I gave up on newsmedia, so I am currently totally ignorant of current events. Some people who meet me for the first time and can only talk about what is on the telly might think I am ignorant.

But if we are talking about what we used to call in school 'general knowledge' I think this is lacking more and more with current generations. But I can't help the feeling that this due maybe to a shift in importance of what general knowledge exactly is. Maybe it is more important nowadays to know the colour of Britney spears' favourite knickers than to know anything on classical Russian literature.

off topic: apparently the finnish scholing system is amongst one of the best of the world. And it is for free.

http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=30625#fre

off topic: apparently the finnish scholing system is amongst one of the best of the world. And it is for free.

http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=30625#fre

Same here in Norway scandinavia does it right. :D

Has anyone else in the forum lived for at least 8 years in both the US and a european country?(there must be some others) Trust me ignorance as well as brilliance can be found everywhere.

Call it experience ;)



Ya I agree Path...Ive been born and raised in the US.....lived 6 years in Iceland and 4 years in the M.E.(doesnt need to be 8 to see you are correct)

off topic: apparently the finnish scholing system is amongst one of the best of the world. And it is for free.

Of course its not for free, teachers have to get paid, equipment bought etc. Its just a question of how its paid for. Nothing free about it.

Lava

really...I would have never figured that out by myself.

I can say more than "SOME" - I can say that in my experience MOST Europeans have a much better understanding than MOST Americans have.

In your experience. Yes.


From second-hand accounts and every study I have ever heard of, as well.
Also, from my personal experience in the American public school system and what we are taught.

And this is where it gets debatable. From studies I've seen, including some that have been linked to this forum in the last couple of years, while the percentage of Americans that have a good understanding of both geography and history, including their own, is indeed fairly low (much less than 50%), the same studies show that less than 50% of European students have a good understanding of geography and history. Higher than Americans, yes, but not significantly. So from where I sit, according to my experiences and studies I've seen, you can realistically say more European students have a better knowledge than their American counterparts. Not most.

Rather than continuing back and forth through every point, let's cut it down to what's relevant, which, of course, is you're still missing the original point.

You think I am missing the point while I am not, I understand your premise but the premise is wrong. Roosevelt was not important enough to be compared to Bismarck, Wilson was. Wilson was the first true 20th century American president. Bismarck is significant to American history because Germany is important to American history, it would be en par to learning about Washington. If it wasn’t for Bismarck’s creation the US wouldn’t have become a world power in a long time, and the British Empire may still be around. If Roosevelt was shot mid-way through his term…history wouldn’t really care.

Not really.. From the prespective of an American student, as far as understanding 20th century history is concerned, it is really only necessary to have knowledge of Germany from the time of Wilhelm II's ascension.

And to understand his reign one has to understand how he did things that were against Bismarck’s plans for peace and stability.

and imperial rivalries had caused interests to shift between the players by 1914 anyway.

Because of a mismanaged alliance system…

Ya I agree Path...Ive been born and raised in the US.....lived 6 years in Iceland and 4 years in the M.E.(doesnt need to be 8 to see you are correct)

Right I didn't mean it must be 8 I simply meant a longer period of time long enough to be immersed in a culture not just visiting or studying but really living ie. working paying taxes speaking the language socializing etc.

really...I would have never figured that out by myself.

I'm sure you would easily have figured it out if you'd stopped to consider it. Unqusetioned assumptions keep tkaing people to the wrong asnwers.

The use of a human keyboard is causing me typing problms.

Lava

Ask any American who is the President of Mexico and see if they even knew Mexico had a president. Ask any European who is the President of their neighboring countryn and they will know. Also they could probabbly name a few of america's high ranking officials to boot. Again ask any American who the Sec. of State is, or the N.S.A. and they will most likely draw a blank. But if you ask any American about how they feel about France then you get a rather base opinion without any facts to back it up...

That's how we are here in America, we form opinions based on things we hear as opposed to hard facts or sound information. Of course I am not talking about everybody, but damn near an outstanding majority.

-ZERO MASS

I would have to agree with most people here that the average American is a miserable, unknowledgeable dumbshit. But I also think that can be good. A small percentage of American students will be taught far more than the standard student, and will learn much more. These will be the people who go on and lead, and make enormous and important scientific discoveries. The rest of America are the ones who will blindly use the tools and systems created by the intelligensia, and do the grunt work. Those people are the soldiers and workers, the proles of America. And we need them. They are the body of the country, the small other group being the fleshy brain organ needed to organize and design.

I'm a junior in high school, and right there witnessing the american school system like you people can't. Im in IB, and we spent the entire first semester talking about Napoleon and Bismarck and Marx and Mazzini and Cavour and Garibaldi, and I figure I know a helluva lot more than the average 16 year old student, in America, and elsewhere around the world. All the non-IB students in our school are extremely unintelligent. In case you didn't know, IB is the international Baccalaureate, some sort of world school program that emphasizes internationalism. You can visit their website (don't know what it is) but its kinda European and annoying sometimes, but overall, I think that I am receiving a far superior education than the average human. :m:

Is there a reason why soldiers, garbage men and mechanics can't be intelligent and well-informed people? :bugeye:
Is there a reason you think they aren't?

yes. there is a reason why they have to be unintelligent. why would you be any of those jobs if you could possibly comprehend all the other wonders of science and math? Its for the ill-informed and under-educated. :m:

yes. there is a reason why they have to be unintelligent. why would you be any of those jobs if you could possibly comprehend all the other wonders of science and math? Its for the ill-informed and under-educated. :m:
Your pseudo-intellectual elitism astounds and saddens me.
I happen to know quite a few highly intelligent, well informed and well educated laborers and craftsman.
Much moreso than many of the educated people I know.
Many top mechanics acyually have quite high IQ's.
The reason a lot of the educated people ARE educated is simply because they look down on the jobs that these other people take.
Many of the educated people I have known hated their jobs and when they got past their silly prejudices they pursued the jobs they wanted to pursue and were much happier.
What about carpenters and other skilled laborers?
Do you assume they are all dumb-asses as well?

Be a garbageman if your area has a good union. In every way, it is better than being a teacher.

There is something that is very fulfilling that stems from working with your hands and having something solid to show for it at the end of the day.
There is a great sense of pride that comes from analyzing, trouble-shooting and repairing a mechanical problem or coming up with a creative solution to mechanical problems.
There is a lot to be said for working a 9-5 manual labor job outdoors all day in nature and coming home to read and further your knowldge and understanding of the world in your spare time.
Have you ever built something beautiful that you designed with your own hands?
Many of them simply do not want to "work for the man" and would much rather be self-employed doing what they truly enjoy.

Your pseudo-intellectual elitism astounds and saddens me. Stole the words off my tounge. I'd stop there, the rest is self-evident (or not worth my time).

Im in IB, and we spent the entire first semester talking about Napoleon and Bismarck and Marx and Mazzini and Cavour and Garibaldi, and I figure I know a helluva lot more than the average 16 year old student, in America, and elsewhere around the world. Your pseudo-intellectual elitism sickens me.

Ask any American who is the President of Mexico and see if they even knew Mexico had a president. Ask any European who is the President of their neighboring countryn and they will know. Also they could probabbly name a few of america's high ranking officials to boot. Again ask any American who the Sec. of State is, or the N.S.A. and they will most likely draw a blank. But if you ask any American about how they feel about France then you get a rather base opinion without any facts to back it up...

While I agree there's some pretty ignorant people here in the U.S., the same applies everywhere though. I don't feel "an ignorant American" is a fair prejudice because we're just as "ignorant" to you as you are to us. The reason why you know more about international news is because your nations aren't that big to have much news about yourself so you learn more about others. That right there is the #1 reason. To brag about your international knowledge just shows your lack of perspective. The "neighbors" you know so much about aren't really your neighbors as they're part of the same European Union.

What you know about the countries/states in your European Union, that's like instead of me just getting news about California, I get news about other states here. Our national news is equal to European international news in regards to how much we have to learn. And so while you may know a lot about your neighbors, I know a lot about my neighboring states and even non-neighboring ones. How much do you know about our states/countries or Russia's broken-up states? It's pretty easy to keep general tabs and know so little when everything is lumped up all into one, eh? You know about the U.S., we know about the EU. You know about New York, we know about the UK. You know about California, we know about France. You don't keep tabs on all of the U.S. individually except for the major states, we don't keep tabs on all of the EU individually except for the major countries.

I don't know all the governors of the U.S. as I don't really care what goes on in all of them. I could care less what happens in rinky dink tiny Rhode Island or the hillbilly South as I just pay attention to the more important states and the same applies to me with countries. I guess "only the important states" must be that whole "self-interest" thing we Americans are always accused of. Yes, but sorry, I care not to know about every single individual country; I prefer to bunch up countries into regions and just worry whats going on in that region as a whole rather than having a slew of unimportant information about every single country. Basically, I just lump everything into: U.S., Canada, Mexico, Central America/Carribbean, South America, Africa, Australia, SE Asia/Indonesia, Japan, China, India, Middle East, EU, Russia, and that's about it. And then there's the bigger countries I pay individual attention to which fit into those general regions such as Brazil, UK, France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, but usually I just care what's going on in that area as a whole and lump em all together. Oh and yes, I know the leaders of all my neighboring international countries as well as most of the powerhouses or countries of concern.

So basically, if you're not a powerhouse, I don't pay much attention to your politics (well, some I still do, you peons just aren't worth mentioning :p ) and I'm sure the same applies to others than myself. You're all just tiny little countries not worth knowing about and you should just combine forces and form a bigger country. Sorry, Uruguay, Uganda, Qatar, U.A.E., Bangledesh, Laos, Moldova, and all you other little countries, I know of you, but I'll never know who your leader is! You countries are my Rhode Island! Go strike oil or create a basketball team and then maybe I'll pay attention to ya. Whoops, sorry, there goes my Americanism again.

As far as being able to name a few of our high officials, well duh, that's an easy one seeing as how we're the evil American empire always being watched and on the news about something. Now if you were talking about Costa Rica or some other small country to show your "international knowledge", then I'd be impressed. Otherwise, if you count the countries in Europe and lump them into the EU, we probably know the same internationaly as you do. Again, our high officials are easier to remember because we're one huge country. For the invidiual countries in the EU, that's a whole lot more to remember. We know as many of all your officials as you can name of all our govenors which is not many for each of us. Pretty even. If you turn into one huge EU run by a few high officials then you'd be on par and we'd easily know all your high officials as easily as you know ours. If you wanna compare your so-called "international knowledge" while calling us ignorant, you need to at least put things into perspective.

And for your last part of:

"But if you ask any American about how they feel about France then you get a rather base opinion without any facts to back it up..."

The problem comes when people aren't able to tell the difference between talking about a country in general or when talking about a country's government. The people of America have just as good reason to dislike the French government as the French government does of us. Neither side is basing opinions without facts if talking about the government. I don't blame countries for hating our government cause we have shady people in charge. However, when people start talking about the country as a whole like saying French people suck or Americans are ignorant, that's when we have a problem. And if you haven't noticed, it's the Europeans that tend to make the most mistakes by acting like snobs and targetting Americans as a whole, the people, as opposed to the government.

- just some ignorant American

P.S. Any "you's" are in general.

edit: For the original point of the thread, in regards to history, yeah, I think Americans are undereducated when it comes to that. History is just boring to most people here. I'm sure it's the same for kids in other countries too though. History is a subject that many don't learn in school but do once they're older and see the light. I rank history right up there with philosophy and poetry. It's an acquired and learned taste.

You got some good points NEILDO. Just couple of questions.

-What your take on that: How those SHADY dudes got elected ? Stolen elections or
why does majority of voters allow power to them, and why is that so ? Was is it like;
Bush is tough guy compared to Kerry, did voters identify themselves easier to Bush than Kerry. You know, the goofy Bush, the guy from next door, but least he is trying
to do hes best. It is nice to know that our Prez is just a common folk as we are. Or was it ignorance, or they didnt just care those miss-use of powers by Bush ? Or was it the fear-campaign of Bush that did the job ? No offence intented, just curious.

On the otherhand, I´m from Finland, so maybe you dont care to bother... ;)

To neildo:
It doesn't really matter that the US is a big country and has several large states.There are other big countries out there in the world. It projects to the rest of the world that citizens of the US don´t care about the world other than what is in the interest of the US. As if there isn't a world outside the US, that the US is the world. As you said, you are only interested in powerful nations. This is a typical American attitude; just interested in the players, not so much in the world.

Lets get a reality check on hsap's points: if a garbage man could get a job in a warm office, not having to exert himself all day, and getting more money, he would - in most cases. Sure not in all cases, but mostly yes.

I agree that smart folk do what they choose to, but lets be real, not very often is that garbage collection. Most people that do jobs that are looked down on like prison guards, garbage collection etc, do it because its their best shot, because they have not managed to get a better job

C'mon, lets be honest.


As for hsap's attitude, thats another thing. Sometimes intelligence counts for plenty, but most of the time it doesnt count for jack. And a person's worth is about a lot more than just iq, trust me.


Lava

hotsexyangelprincess:

>> Im in IB, and we spent the entire first semester talking about Napoleon and Bismarck and Marx and Mazzini and Cavour and Garibaldi, and I figure I know a helluva lot more than the average 16 year old student, in America, and elsewhere around the world.

GRO$$:

> Your pseudo-intellectual elitism sickens me.

Half the American population knows more than average, I'm not sure why thats sickening.


Lava

QUOTE one_raven
"There is something that is very fulfilling that stems from working with your hands and having something solid to show for it at the end of the day.
There is a great sense of pride that comes from analyzing, trouble-shooting and repairing a mechanical problem or coming up with a creative solution to mechanical problems."

agree, agree


"There is a lot to be said for working a 9-5 manual labor job outdoors all day in nature"

So what is there to be said for it?

Freezing cold, day after day, your fingers hurting and going numb with cold,
cleaning is an unfulfililng uncreative job



" and coming home to read and further your knowldge and understanding of the world in your spare time."

most poor paid workers dont do that, theyre not interested, thats why theyre poorly paid.


Lava

I would have to agree with most people here that the average American is a miserable, unknowledgeable dumbshit. But I also think that can be good. A small percentage of American students will be taught far more than the standard student, and will learn much more. These will be the people who go on and lead, and make enormous and important scientific discoveries. The rest of America are the ones who will blindly use the tools and systems created by the intelligensia, and do the grunt work. Those people are the soldiers and workers, the proles of America. And we need them. They are the body of the country, the small other group being the fleshy brain organ needed to organize and design.


hotsexyangelprincess, you self proclaimed your self to be of superior intelect but you lack the experience of life. Don't you comprehend that when you have a population as diverse as ours and many ingnorants living in that society it becomes easy pray for socialism, fascism, communism, as is the apparent current affair in our nation? This is were you lack experience, if we had had an educated public, at this moment the monster that is residing in the oval office would have been impeachead within the first four years of his reign, the intelectual downfall of this country would be the end of freedom in our lands, for only an "elite" would deem themselves worthy of leadership, and when you have this disparety of self proclaimed intelectuals, thinking they know best for everyone it becomes an oligarchy, not a democracy.

Godless.

I also reject Neildo’s assertion that a bigger country means less knowledge of the rest of the world. Canada is bigger then the US, and yet I would vouch that we know marginally more then Americans. To be fair to the US most nations on Earth are very ignorant, especially when it comes to other countries that’s what makes wars, nationalism, and jingoism all possible. The reason why the US is a target of our outrage is because the US has a responsibility whether or not she likes it, she is the sole superpower (for now) and is abusing her powers in the most spectacular (alas meaning retarded) fashion, which is only possible because of the electorate which by many accounts is woefully undereducated, and is falling way behind those of Canada, Japan, China, and Western Europe in many respects. The US cannot depend on a few brains; it needs an entire workforce of them. Otherwise the US will continue its slide into a Wal-Mart nation…not pretty at all because that means the US will be completely dependent on China and other manufacturing hubs.

You think I am missing the point while I am not, I understand your premise but the premise is wrong. Roosevelt was not important enough to be compared to Bismarck, Wilson was.

I think Wilson was more important to modern world history than Bismarck because events at Versailles shaped the rest of the 20th century.


Wilson was the first true 20th century American president.

No. He wasn't. He simply was president when the Great War broke out. Roosevelt had already begun re-defining the role of the modern president.


Bismarck is significant to American history because Germany is important to American history, it would be en par to learning about Washington.

Germany, prior to WW1, is simply not important to American history.


If it wasn’t for Bismarck’s creation the US wouldn’t have become a world power in a long time, and the British Empire may still be around.

That's a huge assumption.


If Roosevelt was shot mid-way through his term…history wouldn’t really care.

But he wasn't, so it's a moot point.


Not really.. From the prespective of an American student, as far as understanding 20th century history is concerned, it is really only necessary to have knowledge of Germany from the time of Wilhelm II's ascension.

And to understand his reign one has to understand how he did things that were against Bismarck’s plans for peace and stability.

No, you don't. You don't have to know anything about Bismarck to understand the Kaiser. An American only needs to understand the character of Wilhelm to have some knowledge of how Germany's 20th century history was shaped.


and imperial rivalries had caused interests to shift between the players by 1914 anyway.

Because of a mismanaged alliance system…

Mismanaged? Not really. Some of those alliances were always fragile and tenuous, such as expecting Italy and Austria to really share a common interest enough to defend each other, or Russia and Austria, or France to allow itself to remain isolated. Russia, Italy and Austria all had competing interests in the futures of the Ottoman Empire's European territories. There was no way those alliances could have lasted, which is exactly why some of them didn't.


I also reject Neildo’s assertion that a bigger country means less knowledge of the rest of the world. Canada is bigger then the US, and yet I would vouch that we know marginally more then Americans.

Canada is bigger? Right. If you count all of that uninhabited frozen tundra in the north. Most Canadians live fairly confined in the southern environs of your country.

I think Wilson was more important to modern world history than Bismarck because events at Versailles shaped the rest of the 20th century.

Well…I think Wilson was important and possibly more so then Bismarck, but I think Wilson will be remembered for his inability to sustain the 14 points, how he relatively easily cowered to French and British interests, and his failure to get the League of Nations accepted by the isolationalist US congress. Overall he was a failure, much like the Versailles treaty.

No. He wasn't. He simply was president when the Great War broke out. Roosevelt had already begun re-defining the role of the modern president.

I don’t think you understood what I meant; it was Wilson who was the first to really engage with the world in any large measure, using American power to the benefit of the US, he was the first to understand that importance of internationalism, and was the first to recognize that American power if used correctly could possibly lead to a better world as codified in the 14 points…

Germany, prior to WW1, is simply not important to American history.

We aren’t talking about pre-WWI necessarily what we are talking about is how WWI happened. Roosevelt had no influence on that war…disagree?

That's a huge assumption.

Not really considering that the main reason the British empire collapsed was because of the financial burden of the war, and its inability to re-establish its position as leader of the Gold Standard, the US become a nation of importance because of the war due to the amount of credit given to the allied powers, and huge increases in industrial output. All of this was possible because of Bismarck’s creation of a Prussian dominated Germany.

But he wasn't, so it's a moot point.

Its not a moot point, it only goes to show how ultimately irrelevant he was to the holistic sense of history.

No, you don't. You don't have to know anything about Bismarck to understand the Kaiser. An American only needs to understand the character of Wilhelm to have some knowledge of how Germany's 20th century history was shaped.

The Kaiser would be a no one without Bismarck so that is a moot point.

Mismanaged? Not really.

Spyke, either it was, or it wasn’t…

Canada is bigger? Right. If you count all of that uninhabited frozen tundra in the north. Most Canadians live fairly confined in the southern environs of your country.

Granted, but he didn’t define by what he meant as “big” did he? Let’s be more realistic shall we…the European Union is about the same size and knows more then the US holistically…American education lacks compared to advanced western nations.

I think Wilson was more important to modern world history than Bismarck because events at Versailles shaped the rest of the 20th century.

Well…I think Wilson was important and possibly more so then Bismarck, but I think Wilson will be remembered for his inability to sustain the 14 points, how he relatively easily cowered to French and British interests, and his failure to get the League of Nations accepted by the isolationalist US congress. Overall he was a failure, much like the Versailles treaty.

I agree for the most part, although I don't think it is fair to see Wilson 'cowered to French and British interests'. It's more fair to say that he couldn't sway them, Clemenceau particularly, who was insistent on seeing Germany prostrate. Even Lloyd George had misgivings about the reparations placed on Germany. He failed in Congress because he refused to compromise with Henry Cabot Lodge (Roosevelt's close friend) on the content of the peace treaty concerning the League, particularly Article X. His stubborness over that point caused him to fail.


No. He wasn't. He simply was president when the Great War broke out. Roosevelt had already begun re-defining the role of the modern president.

I don’t think you understood what I meant; it was Wilson who was the first to really engage with the world in any large measure, using American power to the benefit of the US, he was the first to understand that importance of internationalism, and was the first to recognize that American power if used correctly could possibly lead to a better world as codified in the 14 points…

I may have misunderstood, but again, I think you are wrong. Roosevelt was the first to project US power internationally. Read up on the European blockade of Venezuela in 1903, attempting to force the Venezuelans to pay their debts. Roosevelt saw it correctly as an attempt by the kaiser to land troops in South America, which could threaten the future isthmus canal. German ships bombarded one Venezuelan town. TR got the British and Italians to agree to arbitration, but the kaiser refused. Roosevelt told the German ambassador that if the Germans refused arbitration he would send Dewey's fleet to repel any German attempt to land troops. The kaiser agreed to the arbitration. Which brings to mind these 2 earlier statements of yours -

1. "I reject the notion of yours that Roosevelt’s policies of naval aggrandizement was anything more then posturing to Japan, and possibly Great Britain."

Germany was neither Japan nor Britain, and he was doing much more than posturing about Venezuela. He was serious about enforcing the Monroe Doctrine.

2. "Secondly no one was really scared of the American navy"

Dewey's Asiatic Fleet could have smashed the entire German navy of the day in about an hour and a half. Germany was just beginning her naval build up, as authorized by the 1898 and 1900 naval acts. Her navy at that time could not have handled Dewey's fleet, much less the US navy.


Germany, prior to WW1, is simply not important to American history.

We aren’t talking about pre-WWI necessarily what we are talking about is how WWI happened. Roosevelt had no influence on that war…disagree?

He had little influence, yes, although even as a civilian he was an influential voice in the country, and he was a leading warhawk from 1914 until the time the US entered the war. As president he had been influential in briging the US onto the world stage. On the other hand, Bismarck had no influence on that war other than he consolidated Germany. Yes, he consolidated Germany, but that in itself did not lead to war. Yes, he began some colonization, but cut it off in the mid 1890s. It was the kaiser's imperialism that was much more influential. But I'll agree that neither Bismarck or Roosevelt were directly influential as far as the war is concerned, which goes back to my original point in this thread that Americans have no more need of knowing Bismarck to understand the history of the 20th century as Europeans need to know Roosevelt to understand the same history.


That's a huge assumption.

Not really considering that the main reason the British empire collapsed was because of the financial burden of the war, and its inability to re-establish its position as leader of the Gold Standard, the US become a nation of importance because of the war due to the amount of credit given to the allied powers, and huge increases in industrial output. All of this was possible because of Bismarck’s creation of a Prussian dominated Germany.

And that was my point. Even if Germany had not consolidated under Bismarck, when war broke out between Austria and Russia, which it would have regardless of what Bismarck did between 1864-1871, Prussia would have allied with Austria, and the other Germanic states would almost certainly have been in that alliance. The war would have taken place, and events from that point on would likely not have been radically altered.


But he wasn't, so it's a moot point.

Its not a moot point, it only goes to show how ultimately irrelevant he was to the holistic sense of history.

But he wasn't irrelevant to history, regardless of your attempt to make him so.


No, you don't. You don't have to know anything about Bismarck to understand the Kaiser. An American only needs to understand the character of Wilhelm to have some knowledge of how Germany's 20th century history was shaped.

The Kaiser would be a no one without Bismarck so that is a moot point.

Come on now. You can't believe that. Even if Bismarck had not unified the Germanic states, the kaiser would have been head of Prussia, by far the most powerful of the Germanic states, and militarily the most powerful state in Europe. Prussia had defeated France and Austria already before unifying. Besides, nationalism was strong in the Germanic states before Bismarck's wars, he simply recognized it. It's highly possible the kaiser would have recognized it after 1890 as well, and also unified Germany.


Mismanaged? Not really.

Spyke, either it was, or it wasn’t…

They weren't 'mismanaged'. Rather they were ill-conceived. It was simply illogical to expect they could withstand the rivalries of imperialism.


Canada is bigger? Right. If you count all of that uninhabited frozen tundra in the north. Most Canadians live fairly confined in the southern environs of your country.

Granted, but he didn’t define by what he meant as “big” did he? Let’s be more realistic shall we…the European Union is about the same size and knows more then the US holistically…American education lacks compared to advanced western nations.

Maybe. Who knows? I believe American education does lag somewhat in areas such as history and geography. Personally, I don't think most American students have a strong knowledge in those areas, but I don't think most European students do either. I don't think students these days as a whole care enough about the humanities courses, and I believe this is true everywhere, but most students generally feel those courses are distractions from their career goals in school.

And 'holilistic' must be your new word. Twice in one thread. You must have finally grown bored with 'juche'. ;)

You got some good points NEILDO. Just couple of questions.

-What your take on that: How those SHADY dudes got elected ? Stolen elections or
why does majority of voters allow power to them, and why is that so ? Was is it like;
Bush is tough guy compared to Kerry, did voters identify themselves easier to Bush than Kerry. You know, the goofy Bush, the guy from next door, but least he is trying
to do hes best. It is nice to know that our Prez is just a common folk as we are. Or was it ignorance, or they didnt just care those miss-use of powers by Bush ? Or was it the fear-campaign of Bush that did the job ? No offence intented, just curious.

On the otherhand, I´m from Finland, so maybe you dont care to bother...

Well shady people get elected because almost nothing but shady people are the ones to be voted for. This isn’t really a democracy but rather a coporate oligarchy. Money buys everything. People buy their way to run for President and surely they can buy their votes to be elected President as well. There’s no real voter ignorance because Bush and Kerry aren’t really different as they’re basically on the same agenda. The rich get voted in and they continue to rule and there’s not much we can do about it unless we revolt.

And my comment about not caring about the little guy was sarcasm. It’s not that I don’t care about the little guy, it’s just hard to keep up on the politics of every single country. So unless those smaller countries or you guys up in Scandanavia come out of your shells and do something internationally significant, then I most likely won’t know about it and it’s not due to lack of caring. It’s bad enough having to keep up on 50 states, let alone other countries. Just being current on our state news is equal to all of Europe knowing every single thing about every single country there, plus six other international countries. So sorry if after working 55 hours a week and catching up on the news of 50 states that I don’t have the time to know everything about everyone other than the powerhouse international countries. You most likely don’t know what’s going on in the states here other than what our President and few cabinet members do internationally so it’s no biggie. It’s an equal exchange in so-called ignorance. There’s just too much politics from too many states and countries for all of us average citizens worldwide to know what we’re all doing.


I also reject Neildo’s assertion that a bigger country means less knowledge of the rest of the world. Canada is bigger then the US, and yet I would vouch that we know marginally more then Americans

It doesn't really matter that the US is a big country and has several large states.There are other big countries out there in the world. It projects to the rest of the world that citizens of the US don´t care about the world other than what is in the interest of the US. As if there isn't a world outside the US, that the US is the world. As you said, you are only interested in powerful nations. This is a typical American attitude; just interested in the players, not so much in the world.

I don’t mean a bigger country due to just landmass as with Canada because Canada isn’t divided up into as many areas as the U.S. is. Remember what the U.S. means, United States. We’re basically a bunch of united states/countries as the European Union will turn into. Having to know as much about America such as our neighboring states is like Europeans knowing as much as every single country in Europe, their neighboring countries. We don’t act as if there isn’t a world outside the U.S. or that the U.S. is the world, it’s just that it’s hard as hell to keep up with everything outside the U.S. Just having to keep up on the news about ourselves is like you guys keeping up with every single country in Europe. They have their 44 or so countries and we have our 50 states/countries. So once we finally keep up on all that darn news of our 50 states/countries, then we can finally start chipping away at learning about other countries. It’s easy for Europeans because you’re small countries so your knowledge about yourselves is barely keeping on par to us knowing just about ourselves.

So when they compare knowing a lot about their “international neighbors”, it’s really not that much to brag about. Just as I may make some general region opinions on the European Union as a whole, you make general opinions about the U.S. as a whole. I may not pay attention to every single countries politics in Europe, just as you may not pay attention to every single state politics here in the U.S. For the major states you know of here, I know the same in regards to the same major countries in the EU. You don’t know what happened in the states/countries today of South Dakota, Alabama, Kentucky, and Oregon just as I sure as heck don’t know what happened in Norway, Luxemburg, Estonia, or Romania. Not much of a difference in “ignorance”, really, but you don’t see me calling you guys ignorant.

Now if you guys happen to know all the leaders names and politics of every country in say Africa or Indonesia, then that’s something to brag about as that’s some real “international” stuff. But I doubt you guys know everything about every country in those regions just as I don’t. I pay attention to those regions as a whole just as you guys probably do other than the more important countries in those regions. It’s not about “self-interest”, it’s just about what goes on. Those more important countries (“players”) do more stuff that affects the international community as opposed to thet smaller ones that stay quiet and keep to themselves so we know more about them as opposed to all of the countries there. I can tell you what’s going on in Korea or Thailand for example, but I don’t know what the heck is going on in Mongolia, Laos, or Borneo as they don’t have a huge impact on the world. If they keep to themselves and remain quiet, how is the average person going to hear about them? Surely you should see the difference and it has nothing to do about just caring about the players and not the world. If you think otherwise, here’s a big F-U. Oh, sorry for my crude Americanism. You see, when constantly under fire about things which so-called intellectual and caring finger-pointing people such as yourself cannot put into proper perspective, we start to no longer give a damn.


Granted, but he didn’t define by what he meant as “big” did he? Let’s be more realistic shall we…the European Union is about the same size and knows more then the US holistically…American education lacks compared to advanced western nations.

I defined it. I compared our states to being equal to countries in Europe. Canada isn’t divided up like those two areas are. And as far as knowing more about an area on whole, that’s rubbish. Both sides are equal. The only reason why the EU would know about the US as a whole is because we have few leaders (when counting the president and their cabinet and such, not governors, etc) in charge of us internationally as a whole. Now if you guys became the European Union and had as little leaders as we do, we’d know as much about you as a whole too. Nobody can say what the EU is doing as a whole because each country is doing their own thing. Just a quick example is the war with UK being with us but France against us. How can we say what you’re doing as a whole when all your views are conflicting? That’d be like saying how California does this and that but New York does something else. Internationally, our states aren’t divided and can’t do their own little things as we’re united and do things as a whole, even if half of the U.S. may be against something due to lovely politics.

If you wanna claim superiority when it comes to knowing things as a whole, that’s just pure false as when it comes to the U.S. vs the EU, you can’t compare the two since the EU isn’t yet united, and when it comes to places outside the U.S. and EU, we’re just the same since we both seem to bunch areas up as a whole. I was just called a self-interested person by dividing up areas around the world into regions and only paying attention to them holistically too as opposed to knowing about every single country, especially the little guys. If I’m being called ignorant and selfish for doing that, you guys are just the same then. I guess we’re all just simple-viewed holistic bastards.


the intelectual downfall of this country would be the end of freedom in our lands, for only an "elite" would deem themselves worthy of leadership, and when you have this disparety of self proclaimed intelectuals, thinking they know best for everyone it becomes an oligarchy, not a democracy.

Isn’t that how it is and has always been here though? Democracy is just a word and system said to blind us lowly peons into thinking we’re free when we’re not. The rich people are in charge and have always been in charge since the end of WWII when capitalism took over. The richest and most sly person always gets their way, regardless of what the people may think or say, assuming the rich people’s propoganda hasn’t had an easy effect on them.

- N

Lets get a reality check on hsap's points: if a garbage man could get a job in a warm office, not having to exert himself all day, and getting more money, he would - in most cases. Sure not in all cases, but mostly yes.


Einstein was a postal worker.

The point is, sometimes, smart people get more out of being down and out than always on top.

Obviously they get less out of it, which is exactly why only a small minority of them choose to deliver post, collect garbage, etc.

Lava

No need to hijack a thread for this one; It just goes along with the title of the thread "Ingnorant Americans"; The dipshits of Congress sign thier own death warrants: Congress passes `doomsday' plan (http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=62564)

Yea, yea, it's just for the worst case scenario; however I've been reading this one a week after 9-11 in conspiracy theories websites!. thus rendering one of many theories to become "reality"!.

Godless.

Is it just me or does this give incentive for those "lawmakers" to want Capitol Hill or somewhere else so the people of Congress die thus usurping power unconstitutionally? I mean hey, since the people of America didn't choose those to be in charge if a disaster happens, who knows who those people really are. Sorry, but with the way things seem to be getting crappier and scarier, I wouldn't doubt someone wanting that to happen. Bush 'n Co. seems to want to take away our constitutional freedoms so this seems like the next huge step.

- N

I agree for the most part, although I don't think it is fair to see Wilson 'cowered to French and British interests'.

He wasn’t able to really do anything of significance, I mean the Brits and French were annoyed with his pretentiousness of democracy, and self-determination of states while these two “Great” Empires were there to just hand out another imperial fantasy of a peace treaty. He was not able to effectively use the carrot and stick here; he didn’t really tell the Europeans that he had their economic future in their hands through the debts. He wasn’t able to get any of the 14 points through, and was largely impotent. I read Paris 1919 and he began as a ray of hope and ended as a large failure.

I may have misunderstood, but again, I think you are wrong. Roosevelt was the first to project US power internationally.

No way is that true and you know it…The Americans went to Japan in the 1850’s that was the most the real first international move of real significance for the United States, the US first “gun-boat” policy team. Roosevelt’s waltz in Venezuela is linked to the Panama canal project and could hardly be called a “projection of power”.

Germany was neither Japan nor Britain, and he was doing much more than posturing about Venezuela. He was serious about enforcing the Monroe Doctrine.

I don’t see the logic in this statement, firstly it’s hard to understand, secondly I never mentioned Venezuela so why state that I am talking about “posturing about Venezuela”?

2. "Secondly no one was really scared of the American navy"

Firstly I didn’t even mention the Germans, secondly the British were not scared about the American fleet sure the American fleet could have caused the British some damage, but the experience and expertise of the British navy against the novice American navy would have surely won the day. The Japanese in turn also had proven their worth twice against the Chinese at the Battle of Yalu in 1895 which the Chinese had a far superior force, and the Russians in 1905 again with a technically superior force.

He had little influence, yes, although even as a civilian he was an influential voice in the country, and he was a leading warhawk from 1914 until the time the US entered the war.

Jingoistic Rhetoric means nothing to history…

As president he had been influential in briging the US onto the world stage.

He was a president who had limitedly flex the American muscles and at that vis-à-vis weak, unstable Latin American states. I wouldn’t call that putting the US on the world stage; I think the 1898 war against Spain was significantly more important, if anything Roosevelt was nothing but a continuation.

Yes, he consolidated Germany, but that in itself did not lead to war.

It lead to it being a world war, it lead to it being a world power, it lead to an arms race, it lead to the race for empire, etc. Without a German consolidation the war btwn Austria and Serbia would have been the 3rd Balkan war…not a world war.

Americans have no more need of knowing Bismarck to understand the history of the 20th century as Europeans need to know Roosevelt to understand the same history.

Of course that’s foolish…Bismarck again was the stalwart statesman of the 19th century, who created a empire out of the heap of the broken Holy Roman Empire, and within 30 years was able to directly challenge the power of Britain…no small feat. What did Roosevelt do that even comes close to that record? Name me any other statesman who comes close to that save Stalin…

Even if Germany had not consolidated under Bismarck, when war broke out between Austria and Russia, which it would have regardless of what Bismarck did between 1864-1871, Prussia would have allied with Austria, and the other Germanic states would almost certainly have been in that alliance.

Pure speculation, firstly why would Russia necessarily go to war with Austria if the alliance systems were largely a Bismarckian machination? Even assuming war did occur btwn the two states, it would not have created a western front, it be just another war btwn the “civilized” world and the “barbarians”. Prussia was not a fan of Austria firstly because it challenged her authority in “Germany”, and if anything the Prussians may have even supported Russia.

But he wasn't irrelevant to history, regardless of your attempt to make him so.

I didn’t state in the most unequivocal sense that he was totally and completely irrelevant, what I am saying is that in a global sense his influence was too limited, and irrelevant. He was a major figure in the US…ok…but we aren’t talking local history.

Come on now. You can't believe that.

The Kaiser would still be fundamentally the weakest major European state without Bismarck.

Even if Bismarck had not unified the Germanic states, the kaiser would have been head of Prussia, by far the most powerful of the Germanic states, and militarily the most powerful state in Europe.

The most what? Ok that’s a bit absurd…yes Prussia had an amazing army, but lacked in manpower, and industry compared to France. Without the Ruhr valley which was bordering France Germany would be much weaker state.

Prussia had defeated France and Austria already before unifying.

Which was I believe facilitated by Bismarck…look at a map of Prussia prior to Bismarck…

Besides, nationalism was strong in the Germanic states before Bismarck's wars, he simply recognized it.

Nationalisms…not nationalism…if it were one nationalistic feeling why the struggle btwn Austria and Prussia?

And 'holilistic' must be your new word. Twice in one thread. You must have finally grown bored with 'juche'. ;)

I still use Juche…as shown by my name…its just that most ppl don’t understand the significance of the term. Holistic is not my new word…my new word is: I.

I defined it.

No you didn’t actually it was convoluted at best because it did not speicify exactly “large” is…population, land mass, economy…etc?

I compared our states to being equal to countries in Europe. Canada isn’t divided up like those two areas are.

We have provinces and territories, many ppl in Ontario don’t know anything about Labrador, we know it exists. Meanwhile they know pretty much everything about Ontario. What I find very interesting about the relationship btwn Canada and the US, is that Americans have no clue about Canada but we know oh so much about you. In every country regardless of size there are predominate areas of economy, and politics, as a result I don’t but this “large” concept.

The only reason why the EU would know about the US as a whole is because we have few leaders

Ok already you are getting on a tangent here, who said anything about this being an exclusively American exercise in intelligence? I would vouch that Europeans have a more intimate knowledge of much of world for a couple of reasons:

1. Imperialism: the experience of colonizing and bringing back goods from their former colonies exposed them to other cultures.
2. History: Europeans have had a much more tremulous history then the US in terms of wars, and Europeans have to know thine enemy.
3. Proximity: Europe is at the crossroads of empire, its close to the Middle East and has a much better grasp of the situation, it has experienced imperial rule from Islamic, to Russians, and has a much better grasp of history, and cultures.

America has none of those things, America is a baby compared to Europe, 60 years of American hegemony means little compared to Europe’s hegemony. American’s conception of themselves as the best at everything makes them feel that since everyone is inferior to the American, and “our” way of life they should learn about us not visa versa. The Europeans weren’t so obtuse, they understood that learning the local culture, language, and customs leads to successful empire. One of the reasons the British were able to stay in India was so long was because the British understood Indian culture, so American culture is so “exceptionalist” Americans feel as if others have to conform to them or else…this is one of the principle reasons why the US is losing Iraq and the “war on terror”.

Nobody can say what the EU is doing as a whole because each country is doing their own thing. Just a quick example is the war with UK being with us but France against us. How can we say what you’re doing as a whole when all your views are conflicting? That’d be like saying how California does this and that but New York does something else. Internationally, our states aren’t divided and can’t do their own little things as we’re united and do things as a whole, even if half of the U.S. may be against something due to lovely politics.

I don’t see the relevance of this to the conversation at all…

If you wanna claim superiority when it comes to knowing things as a whole, that’s just pure false as when it comes to the U.S. vs the EU, you can’t compare the two since the EU isn’t yet united, and when it comes to places outside the U.S. and EU, we’re just the same since we both seem to bunch areas up as a whole.

Firstly once the EU adopts her constitution its pretty much united, and that should be this year. Secondly I can compare the EU with the US, because like the US they have an economy almost the exact same size, pretty much the same living standards, and like the US, Brussels (like Washington) subsides the poor states, let’s just say Nebraska meet Slovakia.

I was just called a self-interested person by dividing up areas around the world into regions and only paying attention to them holistically too as opposed to knowing about every single country, especially the little guys.

I am from one the little guys you mentioned, and not only is it offensive, but ignorant.

If I’m being called ignorant and selfish for doing that, you guys are just the same then. I guess we’re all just simple-viewed holistic bastards.
Sorry…but you don’t have the right to talk about anyone but yourself.

NEILDO, thanx for reply. Good post.

American?s conception of themselves as the best at everything

Yes, I've noticed this too, and its patently wrong. There seems to be this assumption standard in the US that the american way of doing whatever it is is the best.

Where America does win is:
1. with natural resources per head
2. With its constitution

But to think the rest is simply wrong.

Newborn deaths per 1000: US apx 6 per 1000, UK apx 4 per 1000.
Annual deaths from electrical wiring: US I dont recall, but thousands per annum. UK: ditto unfortunately! but somthing like 30.
People without access to basic medical facilities: US millions, UK none.
School achievements: Finland knocks the stuffing out of US.
etc etc etc

If you mericans got past your own ignorant arrogant views you could learn the lessons that other countries have, follow suit, and do much better for it. Its there for you if you'll stop and look.


Lava

In every country regardless of size there are predominate areas of economy, and politics, as a result I don’t but this “large” concept.

Since you love to bring up Canada, when my "large" comparison was between the U.S. and European countries, I'll say that Canada is the smartest of all countries and knows everyone about everyone just so I can omit them from the comparison since I wasn't originally talking about them.

No matter what you say, there can be absolutely no comparison between single European countries and the United States in regards to how much politics and stuff that has to be learned about their own selves before finally being able to learn about others. France is around the size of Texas, which isn’t all of the United States. So if a Texan decided to only care about their own state and no other states in the U.S., then they’d be able to learn a heck of a lot about other countries such as France gets to do. Now if France was the size, had the population of, and had the amount of territories as the United States, then I can guarantee they’d know less about their neighbors because of the overwhelming about of politics that happens just in their own country.

Like I said, the amount of politics between your 44 countries in Europe is like the amount of politics in our 50 states of the U.S. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat that or slightly change the wording to get you to understand that. It’s absolutely true so there can be made no comparison between the U.S. and Europe. It’s pretty simple. Small countries = less news about themselves which means more time to learn about other countries. U.S. is the size of Europe each with more states than all of the countries in Europe. Each U.S. state = each European country. Therefore the U.S. politics = that of all of Europe. If just knowing the politics of 44 European countries means they’re somehow smarter than others, than the U.S. of knowing the politics of 50 states is greater. But I’m not here trying to make bragging rights or claim one is better than the other unlike you arrogant guys are trying to do.



Nobody can say what the EU is doing as a whole because each country is doing their own thing. Just a quick example is the war with UK being with us but France against us. How can we say what you’re doing as a whole when all your views are conflicting? That’d be like saying how California does this and that but New York does something else. Internationally, our states aren’t divided and can’t do their own little things as we’re united and do things as a whole, even if half of the U.S. may be against something due to lovely politics. - N

I don’t see the relevance of this to the conversation at all…

That’s really relevant. You’re claiming that Europeans can know more about the U.S. holistically than the U.S. of Europe which somehow makes them smarter than Americans. The only reason why you can know more about the U.S. as a whole is because it’s pretty simple. Of our 50 states/mini countries, we only have a couple leaders that speak as a whole for all 50 states/mini countries. One cannot know what Europe is doing as a whole because they each have their own leaders for each 44 countries that do not all act in unison as the United States does. For a quick comparison sake, to know what the U.S. is doing as a whole, let’s say you only have to know what three decision makers are doing, now for Europe we’d have to multiply those three people by 44 countries which is 132 people compared to 3. And again, since each European country can acts individually as opposed to acting as a whole, you will have differing actions and opinions that clash with one another. How can one make a general holistic opinion of what the European Union is doing when they’re not all acting as a whole? As a quick example again, if the UK is with us on the war in Iraq yet France isn’t, what holistic opinion should I make about the EU when those two country viewpoints clash? Simple, you can’t because you’re not acting as a united whole as we are.


Firstly once the EU adopts her constitution its pretty much united, and that should be this year. Secondly I can compare the EU with the US, because like the US they have an economy almost the exact same size, pretty much the same living standards, and like the US, Brussels (like Washington) subsides the poor states, let’s just say Nebraska meet Slovakia.

The reason why you can’t compare the EU to the U.S. is because you said you can talk about the U.S. as a whole. How can you compare the two when the EU doesn’t act in unison which makes us unable to talk about the EU as a whole? That’s a pretty one-sided comparison. You can’t say that you’re smart because you know about us as a whole since we do act as a whole yet say we’re stupid for not knowing about the EU as a whole when you don’t act as a whole. Now if the EU did act as a whole as the United States, then finally you could make the comparison of knowing each areas politics and all that stuff.

If a European says we’re ignorant about not knowing the politics of every single country in Europe, then they’re just as ignorant for not knowing about every single state in the United States. We have states that are more populated and pull in more wealth than some of your countries! Our states are practically mini-countries so just keeping up on the politics of those states is like keeping up on a whole country. If you want to do a comparison in knowledge without counting the United States as one country to make things weighted and biased in your argument, the results will be pretty even. The amount of politics between 50 states/mini countries of the U.S. vs the amount of politics between 44 countries in Europe. Either count them each like that or count the U.S. and EU each as one country. I just wish I could count the EU as one country, but you guys don’t act united as you’re all able to have your own international agendas which our states aren’t able to

. So now that the U.S. and EU are balanced in regards to those numbers (50 vs 44), if we want to talk about knowing more about the international community, the only countries eligible are those outside of the U.S. and EU. And you know what? I have absolutely no problem with Europeans knowing more about international politics. My argument is towards those that keep up on just European politics and count each of their “neighboring” countries in Europe as if it’s some huge international accomplishment on political knowledge. You know each other’s politics because your countries themselves are so small which means having to keep up with less news about yourselves which in turn gives you more time to learn about other countries. If saying knowing the politics of the countries/states inside the European Union means that they know a lot about “international” politics, that means the United States knowing the politics about their 50 states is the same. Knowing the politics of each country in the European Union is no longer really “international” but rather just knowing a lot more about yourselves inside the European Union. So I guess that means that geez, you people must also think the world revolves around you and you care about no others than yourselves.. using the same comment against you guys as you said to about us.



If I’m being called ignorant and selfish for doing that, you guys are just the same then. I guess we’re all just simple-viewed holistic bastards. - N

Sorry…but you don’t have the right to talk about anyone but yourself.

My, what a hypocrit! So you can group up countries into regions and say you know a lot about them as a whole, yet when I mention that’s how I do it too, I’m called a person that cares only about the powerplayers, about myself, and not the little guys? Hi pot, meet the kettle. I admire your knowledge, have respect for you and all that, but damn dude, don’t be such a hypocritical, pompous ass.

- N

If you mericans got past your own ignorant arrogant views you could learn the lessons that other countries have, follow suit, and do much better for it. Its there for you if you'll stop and look.

And this is another problem I have that I mentioned earlier. Someone generalizing all Americans when they should be only spitting the flame towards our government.

As I said, we're not really a democracy. We don't get to make our own rules so we cannot learn the lessons and follow the suit of the greater countries in various areas. That's all left up to our darn politicians to create those laws. The only "choice" we have (assuming voter fraud and all that doesn't sway results which just means the politicians chose our choice for us) is voting for or against a law in which a politician comes up with which means we don't really have a very good selection on things. So once their crappy proposal gets rejected, we then have to wait years for another crappy proposal to be brought up.

Until a *politician* actually "gets it" correct, then finally we can follow suit of those other countries. The American people just get to wait around until those politicians that just don't get it finally end their term and hope that one that does "get it" gets elected.

There's been plenty of politicians that "get it" who have run for various official positions, but the thing is, they usually don't get elected because their views are deemed too radical and too big of a change by the higher ups. God forbid that in one aspect we take on a characteristic of a European country as opposed to coming up with the idea all ourselves. Money buys everything and unfortunately it's the bad ones that don't "get it" that have all the money so they just continue to reign over us. Powerful democractic votes? Ha! Let's see, do we vote for bad guy #1 or bad guy #2? Real democracy there, eh?

That's usually the only voting we get to do anyways. When it comes to the more important things, it's the damned senate that get to vote on them and we all know how corrupt they are and other lame proposals they make and pass. No Child Left Behind? I sure didn't get a chance to vote against that piece of crap, heh. The Patriot Act? I'm not stupid enough to vote away my freedoms. The Iraq War? I wasn't able to vote against that horrible mistake. All the important things you may have in mind that the U.S. needs to follow step of a European country and do, the American people don't get to vote for it, but the higher ups do.

So please, at least be a bit more specific and direct your disdain towards our government and not the American people. The people are pretty stupid in thinking how powerful their "democracy" is, I'll at least give anyone that point, but they really are weak and have little say in the important matters that you guys seem to hate so much about.

And when Americans in other countries get spit on or are shown other forms or ungodly rudeness all because they hate the actions of the American government, that's overboard. If that were me, I'd knock those dumbasses flat on their ass. You may hear people saying how they dislike France due to some of their disagreements with us (which I don't blame the disagreements), but if a French person, or someone from any foreign country, asks for help and mentions where they're from, in no way would a person hold a grudge against them. You'd see people being helpful and highly interested in them because we're suckers for foreigners. Quiet a difference in attitude, yet our people (not government) are the bastards?

- N

Neildo:
> If a European says we?re ignorant about not knowing the politics of every single country in Europe, then they?re just as ignorant for not knowing about every single state in the United States.

Very true. But theres something else to it, something I'm trying to get clearer in my own mind. Its that rather unrealistic assumption that any country that does different does it because theyre more backward, when really thats demonstrably not the case, time after time.

I guess over here we treat foreign cultures with more respect, we appreciate that there are reasons why they've chosen to do things the way they do, and that the issues and best solutions are gonig to be different in each place.

I'll respond to your other good post if I get time later.


Lava

I broadly agree with some of your reservations about the way the US is run, but other countries are no different in that respect, the comparison is equal.

The fact remains that America's medical system, as an example, has become an undemocratic rip off closed shop system, and it is reflected in the number of people unable to access important treatment, and the needlessly high infant mortality rates. And the fact remains, you the people arent doing a whole lot about it. Many are dying because of it, its very sad. And the reason the people are doing nothing is that very few have even got as far as realising that your system is not the best. The 'merican people arent even at base camp on this.

Of course that isnt the exclusive privilege of Americans. I guess Winston Churchill was right on one thing: Democracy is a terrible system, until you think of all the others.



> There's been plenty of politicians that "get it" who have run for various official positions, but the thing is, they usually don't get elected because their views are deemed too radical and too big of a change by the higher ups.

Yes, many solutions are rejected because they mean change. The trouble with change is that those that see it as good are relatively apathtic, while those against it are very vigorous and vociferous as a whole.

We have real solutions to all sorts of ills, but the people will not vote them in, as the people as a whole are not really solution oriented, rather they are primarily against any change.


Lava

I agree for the most part, although I don't think it is fair to see Wilson 'cowered to French and British interests'.

He wasn’t able to really do anything of significance, I mean the Brits and French were annoyed with his pretentiousness of democracy, and self-determination of states while these two “Great” Empires were there to just hand out another imperial fantasy of a peace treaty. He was not able to effectively use the carrot and stick here; he didn’t really tell the Europeans that he had their economic future in their hands through the debts. He wasn’t able to get any of the 14 points through, and was largely impotent. I read Paris 1919 and he began as a ray of hope and ended as a large failure.

I already agreed that he failed to achieve most of his goals at Versailles. I simply said it was wrong to say he 'cowered', and nothing you just said refuted that.


I may have misunderstood, but again, I think you are wrong. Roosevelt was the first to project US power internationally.

No way is that true and you know it…The Americans went to Japan in the 1850’s that was the most the real first international move of real significance for the United States, the US first “gun-boat” policy team.

We were talking about the first 20th century/modern president to project power. You said Wilson. I showed you it was Roosevelt. If we're going back prior to the 20th century I could point to Jefferson's Barbary wars as the first true projection of US power, but the point was the projection of power towards becoming a modern international power.


Roosevelt’s waltz in Venezuela is linked to the Panama canal project and could hardly be called a “projection of power”.

Wrong again. Telling Germany to either arbitrate or face Dewey's fleet was indeed a projection of power. And the kaiser agreed to arbitration, so he obviously took it seriously.


Germany was neither Japan nor Britain, and he was doing much more than posturing about Venezuela. He was serious about enforcing the Monroe Doctrine.

I don’t see the logic in this statement, firstly it’s hard to understand, secondly I never mentioned Venezuela so why state that I am talking about “posturing about Venezuela”?

Simple. You said Roosevelt's aggressive display of his navy was simply posturing towards Japan, and maybe Britain. I pointed out that threatening the Germans with the intevention of Dewey's fleet off of Venezeula to keep the Germans from landing troops there (which Roosevelt feared would be a permanent move) was posturing expressly for the Germans. Not Japan. Not Britain.


2. "Secondly no one was really scared of the American navy"

Firstly I didn’t even mention the Germans,

You said "no one was really scared of the American navy", which by implication also means 'everyone was not scared...', which would include the Germans. Since it was the German navy off the coast of Venezuela that Roosevelt threatened, how the two stack up is relevant. And Dewey would have smashed the Germans.


secondly the British were not scared about the American fleet sure the American fleet could have caused the British some damage, but the experience and expertise of the British navy against the novice American navy would have surely won the day. The Japanese in turn also had proven their worth twice against the Chinese at the Battle of Yalu in 1895 which the Chinese had a far superior force, and the Russians in 1905 again with a technically superior force.

Roosevelt wasn't posturing against the British, so it's pointless to even discuss this. No one questions the Royal Navy's total dominance of the seas in that period. Besides, relations were very good between the British and Americans at this time. And yes, the Japanese navy had proven itself a force to be reckoned with, but the Russians did not have a technically superior force. They had a numerically superior force at Tsushima, but the Japanese had a much more modern British designed and built fleet, with superior speed and fire range. Plus, they knew the Russian Baltic Fleet was coming and got the position to cross the Russian 'T'. They destroyed the Russian Pacific fleet because they launched a surprise attack with torpedo boats in Port Arthur harbor, damaging many of the Russians at anchor. Others were further damaged by Japanese artillery as Japanese land forces closed in on the port, until the czar finally ordered them to sea, where what was left was the either destroyed by the Japanese, or scuttled themselves. But like the Americans, both were rapidly increasing their dreadnought navies by 1905, and both navies had fairly recent battle experience.


As president he had been influential in briging the US onto the world stage.

He was a president who had limitedly flex the American muscles and at that vis-à-vis weak, unstable Latin American states. I wouldn’t call that putting the US on the world stage; I think the 1898 war against Spain was significantly more important, if anything Roosevelt was nothing but a continuation.

We come back to his posturing against Germany over Venezuela. And so you aren't confused this time, he...was...posturing...against...Germany...not
...Venezuela...so...let's...not...confuse...that.. .again...as...posturing...
against...a...weak...unstable...Latin...American.. .state. Comprende?


Yes, he consolidated Germany, but that in itself did not lead to war.

Without a German consolidation the war btwn Austria and Serbia would have been the 3rd Balkan war…not a world war.

Absurd. Russia, following the Balkan Wars, was committed to aiding Serbia. France had it's alliance with Russia. Even if there was no modern Germany, but still simply Prussia and the collection of Germanic states under the lose parliament of the Conference of Vienna (which basically established the loose parliament under Austrian auspices), they all still viewed France as a common enemy, not to mention Berlin, like Vienna, viewed Russia as a major threat to its interests. It would be wrong to assume that as Russia intervened on behalf of Serbia, that the rest of Europe would not have been sucked in.


Americans have no more need of knowing Bismarck to understand the history of the 20th century as Europeans need to know Roosevelt to understand the same history.

Of course that’s foolish…Bismarck again was the stalwart statesman of the 19th century, who created a empire out of the heap of the broken Holy Roman Empire, and within 30 years was able to directly challenge the power of Britain…no small feat. What did Roosevelt do that even comes close to that record? Name me any other statesman who comes close to that save Stalin…

He didn't create an empire. He created a state. He made a powerful kingdom even more powerful. He created a state because he recognized the potency of rising German nationalism (the German peoples had recognized such potential in a unifed France), and he understood that they were going to gravitate to either Vienna or Berlin. And he also recognized that the Austrian empire was gathering dust and was weak, and the time was right. And he deserves credit for that. He was a superb chancellor. But that's still not important for an American to have an understanding of WW1.


Even if Germany had not consolidated under Bismarck, when war broke out between Austria and Russia, which it would have regardless of what Bismarck did between 1864-1871, Prussia would have allied with Austria, and the other Germanic states would almost certainly have been in that alliance.

Pure speculation, firstly why would Russia necessarily go to war with Austria if the alliance systems were largely a Bismarckian machination?

It's not speculation. Russia had made it clear it would defend Serbia. The Germanic states, even if not unified under Bismarck, would have fought with Austria against Russia because they were tied to Austria via the Conference of Vienna. Which would have brought France into the war because of her alliance with Russia, and so on and so on.


Even assuming war did occur btwn the two states, it would not have created a western front, it be just another war btwn the “civilized” world and the “barbarians”. Prussia was not a fan of Austria firstly because it challenged her authority in “Germany”, and if anything the Prussians may have even supported Russia.

Prussia would not have supported Russia over Austria. Under any circumstance. Remember, Bismarck, during the war with Austria in 1866, was insistent that the war be limited so as not to risk weakening the Austrians too much, which he feared would strengthen Russia, the real threat.


Come on now. You can't believe that.

The Kaiser would still be fundamentally the weakest major European state without Bismarck.

That's just silly.


Even if Bismarck had not unified the Germanic states, the kaiser would have been head of Prussia, by far the most powerful of the Germanic states, and militarily the most powerful state in Europe.

The most what? Ok that’s a bit absurd…yes Prussia had an amazing army, but lacked in manpower, and industry compared to France. Without the Ruhr valley which was bordering France Germany would be much weaker state.

And with that amazing army, Wilhelm could have also done what Bismarck did between 1864-1871.


Prussia had defeated France and Austria already before unifying.

Which was I believe facilitated by Bismarck…look at a map of Prussia prior to Bismarck…

I know what a map prior to unification looked like. Doesn't alter what I said.


Besides, nationalism was strong in the Germanic states before Bismarck's wars, he simply recognized it.

Nationalisms…not nationalism…if it were one nationalistic feeling why the struggle btwn Austria and Prussia?

It was 'nationalism'. The question was 'was the loyalty going to be to Berlin or Vienna'? It was important to establish that the power lay in Berlin.

I already agreed that he failed to achieve most of his goals at Versailles. I simply said it was wrong to say he 'cowered', and nothing you just said refuted that.

I don't have the book on me right now, but if I believe one example would be the German reperations issue. Reading the book it seemed pretty obvious the Wilson did not have the personality to confront the European leaders, and they didn't really take him all to seriously.

We were talking about the first 20th century/modern president to project power. You said Wilson. I showed you it was Roosevelt.

Power is a subjective term to be sure, but I asserting that projecting power in Central America is not really projecting anything other then imperialism against defenceless states, and early regime change. Wilson was the first imo to really use American power in any meaningful way.

Wrong again. Telling Germany to either arbitrate or face Dewey's fleet was indeed a projection of power. And the kaiser agreed to arbitration, so he obviously took it seriously.

Ok from what I read about the subject (there is little on it), the British as well as the Germans were blockcading Venezuelan ports. Now about the Germans, there have to questions about why they cowered. I think the main reason why the Germans didn't confront the US was not because the Germans nessecarily feared the Americans, but rather must have asked themselves what's the point of getting in a war with the US to collect a couple of bills. He obviouslly nothing...we don't know why the Kaiser ultimately gave up. I think it was the fear of starting a war that wasn't worth its weight in gold.


Simple. You said Roosevelt's aggressive display of his navy was simply posturing towards Japan, and maybe Britain. I pointed out that threatening the Germans with the intevention of Dewey's fleet off of Venezeula to keep the Germans from landing troops there (which Roosevelt feared would be a permanent move) was posturing expressly for the Germans. Not Japan. Not Britain.

At the time when I wrote that statement there was no mention of Venezuela, I presumed what you were talking about was the naval expansion of the American fleet, that was surely not targeted towards Germany.

Since it was the German navy off the coast of Venezuela that Roosevelt threatened, how the two stack up is relevant. And Dewey would have smashed the Germans.

Firslty that's pretty obvious because i doubt the Germans at the time had the naval capability in the region to really confront the US. I don't know the composition of the German fleet in Venezuela but obviously smaller then that of the US which was just across the Carribean. Of course the Americans were at a comparative advantage vis-a-vis Germany should American ships been in the Baltic I think we would be singing a different tune. Like I said no one was really scared of the US navy, what I mean by that is that in a Battle of Jutland situation the Germans would have raped the Americans in 1914, they were able to keep the Brits at bay.

And yes, the Japanese navy had proven itself a force to be reckoned with, but the Russians did not have a technically superior force. They had a numerically superior force at Tsushima, but the Japanese had a much more modern British designed and built fleet, with superior speed and fire range.

I agree with that but in sheer firepower the Russians were still superior, the Russians lost against Japan for many reasons, one major reason was fatigue, the Russian fleet had to go all the way from Petrograd to Vladivostok past the Cape of Good Hope! That is one long ride to say the least, and the Russians had continous problems with maintence, like the situation in Venezuela the Russians were out of their element, while the Japanese weren't, that was one of the defining characteristics of the battle. The Japanese did have British made ships, and that did make much of the difference, and the Japanese were better organized, and in true Japanese fashion obedient.

We come back to his posturing against Germany over Venezuela. And so you aren't confused this time, he...was...posturing...against...Germany...not
...Venezuela...so...let's...not...confuse...that.. .again...as...posturing...
against...a...weak...unstable...Latin...American.. .state. Comprende?

I am offended by the tone first off...secondly I am offended by the inability for you to understand what I am articulating, what I meeant by weak latin states was the American's manipulation of Colombia, Venezuela wasn't even on my mind.

Absurd. Russia, following the Balkan Wars, was committed to aiding Serbia. France had it's alliance with Russia.

Would that alliance be nessecary pre-Bismarck no...if anything Russia and France were enemies prior to Bismarck, lets not forget that we are talking about a pre-Bismarckian world here. Firstly the holy alliance btwn Prussia, Russia, and Austria was against the liberalism of France, what would make you think that this would change without Bismarck? France allied itself with Russia to counter the unified German states...so no you got it wrong.

It would be wrong to assume that as Russia intervened on behalf of Serbia, that the rest of Europe would not have been sucked in.

I assert it wouldn't have been a pan European war, the reasoning you presented is counter to pre-Bismarckian realities.

He didn't create an empire.

So I guess the term "Reich" means nothing?

He was a superb chancellor. But that's still not important for an American to have an understanding of WW1.

Again of course it is because it sets the foundations of WWI...that war would have not happened without Bismarck, you constantly forget the influence of 1871, and how that was the prime reason for a western front, and a belligerent France.

It's not speculation. Russia had made it clear it would defend Serbia. The Germanic states, even if not unified under Bismarck, would have fought with Austria against Russia because they were tied to Austria via the Conference of Vienna. Which would have brought France into the war because of her alliance with Russia, and so on and so on.

The Germanic states were fundametally weak, I doubt the Germans would be able to co-ordinate with each other against a stronger Russia. Secondly you are again going on assumptions based on a Bismarckian European system alas the Franco-Russo alliance.

Prussia would not have supported Russia over Austria. Under any circumstance. Remember, Bismarck, during the war with Austria in 1866, was insistent that the war be limited so as not to risk weakening the Austrians too much, which he feared would strengthen Russia, the real threat.

Again Bismarck...I am not talking about Bismarck...this is what this conversation is about. Like I said, the Prussians without Bismarck would have probably supported Russia, or would have been neutral because it was in their interests to have a weaker Austria.

That's just silly.

Granted more powerful then Portugal, but I meant as in major European state.

And with that amazing army, Wilhelm could have also done what Bismarck did between 1864-1871.

I doubt he had the intellectual capability to do it...

I know what a map prior to unification looked like. Doesn't alter what I said.

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/germany/ger1815.gif

I doubt that could have seriously confronted France in 1871...we know it didn't with Napoleon.

It was 'nationalism'. The question was 'was the loyalty going to be to Berlin or Vienna'? It was important to establish that the power lay in Berlin

Exactly nationalisms...Berlin, and Vienna are very different places.

The fact remains that America's medical system, as an example, has become an undemocratic rip off closed shop system, and it is reflected in the number of people unable to access important treatment, and the needlessly high infant mortality rates. And the fact remains, you the people arent doing a whole lot about it

Well, if you have any ideas about what we should do, I'm all ears. You'll also become filthy rich if you find out the magic way of making this all happen, economically and morally. :)

Heck, I've never had medical insurance. I've never even been to a doctor except for when I was a kid getting my required school shots when I was 4 or 5. Never had a check-up or anything. I've no idea if there's anything wrong with my body and if there is, because I've never been to a doctor, I would think that it's "normal" because I'm so used to the way my body acts/reacts. Unless you have a good job that pays for your medical insurance, good luck getting it. It's still available to everyone but at the cost of around $450 a month which is pretty ridiculous when you add in other monthly payments such as rent, utilities, food, car insurance, gas, and all that crap, heh.

So heck, in those regards, I don't really care about the medical system since I've never even had a taste of it to realize how good it may be. My mentality is of the old days of survival in that if anything bad ever happens to me, that's basically the death of me so I gotta be careful. That's one of the reasons why I always prepare for the worst because if anything happens, there's not gonna be anyone to help me so I gotta be sure I can do most things myself. Kinda funny how I need to worry about those kind of things in a country supposedly so great, eh? It's only great for the rich and well, they're the minority.

- N

Well I've been out of this here thread only throwing a bit of "ingnorant americanism" when I do find some. I'm no world history buff so I look for the current trend a la stupidity of Americans. Here's a sample.

This is a good example of dumbass trash biggoted asshole americanism! sorry to be part of it!. what a shame.



American dumb ass (http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/2005/01/002815.html)

Godless.

It dawned on me. This whole thread was completely unessecery. If you are in the U.S. and think that we are not a nation of ignorant assholes, take a trip down to your local Wally World (that's Wal-Mart for those not in the know.) And I'm sure you will find more than enough examples of the ignorant American and plenty to remind you that birth control is a good idea. In any case, you won't find people reading Kant in the book aisle. Even the employees aren't too bright (or at least quite cowardly) - no one seems to want to unionize, even though it is one of the largest employers in the U.S.

A union at wall mart? that would be the day. There's no homogeny anywere in America, the unions are full of mafia bosses, running the show, and stealing your money. Who the hell wants that?, I'm not the Union type of guy, no thank you. Last time I was in a union, all it did me is got me a hole in my poket, no real benefit, non-whatsoever. This time I joined the freaking culinary union to no avail, they only refer me to jobs, but they refer hundreds of others to the same fucking job, what a waste of money!. finally I resorted to finding a job on my own, I still want to work for a casino, preferably non-union, but lately here in Vegas this is getting harder to do!.

Godless.

strong unions are one of the reasons teachers in the north east, especially PA, get paid better than anywhere else in the country. unions are awesome when they arent abused

Well, in Europe we have more civilized unions. They take care of the interests of the employees.

Well, if you have any ideas about what we should do, I'm all ears. You'll also become filthy rich if you find out the magic way of making this all happen, economically and morally. :)


See Healthcare in European social welfare states. You don't have to invent anything new. Just adopt something similar.

I think Americans are at a slight disadvantage at the knowledge game (btw, stupidity and ignorance are different things and should not be interchanged). For example, most people want to learn about America, as it is the most powerful nation on Earth. As a Canadian, I couldn't care less about Louis Riel or Lester B. Pearson or the CPR railway. I'd rather read about the Battle of Trenton, or Stonewall Jackson, or the Marshall Plan. I'm sorry, but that's just the way I feel. And if I do learn about American history, then I become "worldly" and "educated", because I know about a foreign country. However, if an American kid does the same thing, he's only learning what he's supposed to know anyway. And I doubt he'd reciprocate the favour and delve into Canadian history.

Interestingly, we hardly learn anything about internal american history. Because it is mostly irrelevant.


Jeez...we are just as bad. :)

One Raven



I really don't think it IS all that simple.

Admittedly, it depends on how one applies the generalization. For instance, I would assert that in the modern period, that arrogance is cyclically entwined. Perhaps we can blame Calvinism for the initial injection, but that American arrogance seems legitimized, or at least affirmed, by the necessary accommodation of the consumer by the marketplace. To draw such affirmation or legitimization from the marketplace responding to its perception of demand is, of course, wrongheaded, but such is the result of working with the capsule summaries of bullet-lists intended to compress real data into nuggets.

Part of the American people's political emboldenment comes from the muddling of the line between news and opinion, or in some cases outright entertainment. A 2003 study suggested FOX News viewers bore greater misperceptions about the war in Iraq. Interestingly, a clarification at the Seattle Times (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=kay06&date=20031006) website notes that, "the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy (PIPA), which conducted the survey, later issued a clarification that the correlation between viewing Fox News and holding misperceptions does not prove that Fox News' presentation caused the misperceptions." (Emphasis added.)

So let's think about FOX's potential role in misperceptions: FOX reports, and according to their editorial foci, certain issues seem presented in a conservative manner. In addition to cable-TV news nuggets on FOX, viewers are also offered analysis by such luminaries as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Ann Coulter is a regular guest on these shows, lending her "analytical" skills to the mix. The lines between news and entertainment, analysis and shilling punditry, between necessity and entertainment, are already skewed. So people get the FOX version, but what FOX isn't responsible for--except perhaps the notion that conservatives exploit ignorance and misperception--is whether or not those FOX viewers undertake any further examination of the issues in question. It is the choice of any member of the audience to look further into a story, or to ignore sources that don't meet the approval of one's standing political assertion.

Think for a minute of business journals. There are many in diverse industries, and they often tend to read with a conservative voice not necessarily because the editors or writers themselves are conservative; coincidence does not imply cause. However, those journals often deal with the business of business, and their column space is thus afforded. The human aspect of news may seem to take a backseat, sometimes, but that's not an industry journal's primary mission. Many Americans don't have or value even the minimal critical reading skills necessary to tell the difference between conservative politics and the coincidence of, say, an insurance-industry journal fretting about how much the storms in California are going to hack off various companies' bottom-line.

We get a hint of the American work ethic from a May, 2004 press release from the American Sociological Association regarding labor demands and the condition of the family:


With 40 percent of the American labor force working mostly during nonstandard hours—in the evenings, overnight, on rotating schedules, or on weekends—workers’ family life and health are being adversely affected, according to research by sociology professor Harriet B. Presser at the University of Maryland-College Park.

“Such schedules undermine the stability of marriages, increase the amount of housework to be done, reduce family cohesiveness, and require elaborate childcare arrangements,” according to Presser. She documents these consequences in her article “The Economy that Never Sleeps” in the spring 2004 issue of Contexts magazine, published by the American Sociological Association.

While these schedules might have some benefits, such as increased sharing of housework between husband and wife, increases in father’s engagement in childcare and interaction, and possible decrease in childcare costs, most married mothers say they do these schedules because the job demands it. A central factor generating the large number of people working nonstandard hours is the remarkable growth of the service economy, which requires more around-the-clock employees than does manufacturing.

American Sociological Association (http://www.asanet.org/media/work_hours.html)

(It should be noted that I have not yet finished reading Presser's article (http://www.contextsmagazine.org/content_sample_v3-2.php) mentioned in the press release.)

The ASA perceives a certain unfriendliness toward the family unit in work schedule demands, and also suggests potential health effects. In other words, we face the possibility that economic demands leave parents without time to take care of certain necessities for either their children or themselves.

And right there we can leave Calvinism aside, regardless of how satisfying an indictment of such a cracked ethic might be. We see the beginnings of compressed processes--parental guidance is compressed in order to meet economic demand. The bullet-list of life's virtues and principles, so to speak. Nobody can bestow the whole of their knowledge unto their children, else the monologue would never cease.

Sometimes parents say, "Because we say so," because the child is legitimately unprepared to understand the underlying complexities of life. That my daughter would, in years to come, have a strong assertion that, at 14, that she has the right to have sex with whomever she wants, doesn't mean I won't try to stop her. And that doesn't mean I won't stand on my authority as a parent. Could she sit through the patient recital of the underlying philosophy of social interrelationships and virtues? Would she? If you don't mind, I'd rather not dwell on it.

There comes a point where the bullet list merely reads, "Because I say so."

It's not inherent human corruption. It's resource allocation. Such a simple proposal, of course, should not suggest the dynamic it describes is not intricate or subtle. One can give the clinical description of a brain generating an electrical impulse in response to some stimulus, which impulse travels through the diverse media of the body's nervous system in order to incite certain muscles to flex a certain amount for a certain period with the result that the legs extend and propel .... Or we could just look at the frog and say, "It's jumping." The simple answer--What is happening?--that, "The frog is jumping," should not disparage biologists or neurologists in any way. Most people do not wish to dedicate such resources to what they perceive a simple question. The simple answer will suffice, as the issue of what is happening happens, in this instance, to be relatively unimportant.

If one constantly judges the underfunded--so to speak--needs, a certain tolerance will develop. This is true in any moral assertion, as morals change much like fashions. People fear the slippery slope, and are conscious of it all around them in the contemporary period in part because they live on it, and they constantly see people tumbling down and cracking their crowns.

And this is something like parenthood. True, there was a time when liberals in Oregon suggested, and not entirely politely, that conservatives ought to worry about their own families, first, before sticking their noses into other peoples. But when it comes to something like the latest news nuggets ... they don't have time to take care of their kids the way they want. They don't have time to take care of themselves the way they ought to. It seems simple enough to tell them to make the choice, but, you know, I'm not generally regarded as entirely sane, so I tend to allow people the liberty to face their demons when they feel up to the challenge.


• • •

I feel guilty because I'm not able to push through on four hours' sleep anymore, but then again I was no better at this parenting thing--even without a separate workplace--when I could. I was kicking myself this afternoon because, no matter how much I might wish to point to my partner and say, "Um, a little help here, please?" on the simple issue of resetting my daughter's sleep cycle to something a little more healthy, well, it's my kid, so I ought to be able to make it on four hours sleep or no sleep, if necessary. Should I feel guilty, then, if I'm so zombified that I can't carry through a normal schedule in order to help reset her sleep cycle? (Note: Cheerios are a better evening snack for a toddler than, say, Golden Grahams. Whoops.) At some point parents just shake it off and carry forward, or else they'll need serious and debilitating medication. Prozac, for instance, can only do so much for judgment, which is an unfortunate little as it's explained to me. Of course, I'm no more anxious about returning to the workplace this year than my partner is about returning to reasonable sobriety. I can't imagine what normal working parents go through. It always looked tough, but even with all of the quiet advantages we've been given as parents, I never imagined parenthood would be like this. It's not so much hard in my role as it is insane. It's just a matter of attuning my insanity to the ambient craziness, but that still feels like a compromise, like something short of normalcy. In the end, every scrap of information I teach my daughter will be inadequately expressed. That's as much an acknowledgment of reality as it is a challenge to transcend, but that's because I have a certain amount of time to think that others aren't necessarily privy to. That the novel isn't written despite my thousands--even millions--of words here at Sciforums is an equal reflection of resource allocation. If I could realistically carve out the time I need for the novel, I would try. In the meantime, it's enough to keep in motion, and even if these thoughts aren't much, they're more than I would have should I surrender to the Sisyphan absurdity.

There is a proverb, Chinese, I believe, that says, "If you do not know what to do next, do nothing." This is good advice when angry, but there comes a point in mundane affairs at which it represents an unacceptable condition.

Though many a voter--even a majority--would agree with me that the evolution of educational standards represents a decline in the real value of what our educational system produces, the condition is only addressed in tiny bites. Despite our tremendous leaps and bounds in general and specific knowledge, we're allocating more of our personal resources to specialization. "Well-rounded" is redefined out of existence, and the cycle of seemingly-victimizing necessity--compression and subsequent decay of signal--plays out again.

There's this much to account for even before we get into the issue of how well one is equipped to receive information; that presents a whole new set of problems.


• • •

In the end, the critical resource to be allocated and utilized is time. Americans are long-familiar with the phrase, "Time is money". Einstein even proved it, I think, according to a Far Side cartoon or some such. He might as well have proven it for real, for all Americans seem to care.


• • •

A political observation: Moralists in the U.S. have long been outraged at the "decay of the family". Strangely, central heating is one of the strongest blows against family unity. Yet unmarried cohabitation won acceptance in part because of the economic necessity, much to the dismay of some Christian moralists. Disney even faced boycott in the 1990s in response to offering benefits to unmarried domestic partners, which, of course, raised the issue of same-sex partners, and the moralists ended up feeling justified.

Yet it is economy again that is taxing the family, and these policies derived from American conservative political philosophy. After all, while Democrats are, in retrospect, happy enough with the Clinton economy, conservatives don't like to miss the opportunity to remind us that the Clinton economy was just a continuation of the Reagan economy.


• • •

As I noted previously, I would assert that, "Between priorities of focus and an obsession with efficiency (or perhaps with the passing of time itself), a great deal about 'What's wrong with Americans?' can be explained."

Perhaps a melodramatic comparison: The atheist asserts now and then that being free of religious dogma and superstition allows a person to think more clearly and rationally about the issues facing that individual. A question of, "Why?" seems almost intentionally silly. Resource allocation and utilization, a reduction of static in the signal ... any number of thematic metaphors works here. Faced with a circumstance and challenged to respond, it seems intuitive enough to presume that someone working with relevant facts will respond to a more accurate perception of the situation than one who casts it according to a psychological identity fantasy. It's simple enough to say that, when faced with a choice, the atheist is asserted in this case to have fewer distractions in the form of dogma and superstition; thus, more direct address can be given the issue.

Likewise, the overworked parent sees a reduction of resources utilized toward children and health. First in the extra hours spent at work, and then in the reduced allocations toward recovery from mundane exhaustion. Problem-solving and conflict resolution are best undertaken when wide awake. Yes, it's good to sleep on it, but part of the problem, so to speak, is that there's no time to do anything about it in the morning.


• • •

Nor can I encourage the pretense that resource-allocation issues are exclusive to working parents. My partner worked too hard before we had a child, as well. My mother works too hard, and the whole family has tried for years to get her to see that putting eighty hours a week into a job for which she's paid for just under half that is problematic. A friend of mine, a musician, worked so many hours keeping a roof over his head that he lost his band. Not that they resented him, or anything. They were all too busy. Now he's too busy as a student, but he's where he wants to be, doing what he wants to do, so it's easier to work himself too hard. This does not stop him from having opinions, and they are no better-informed for the quantitatively-reduced foundation. Such a statement does not, however, reflect the reduction of geographic and historical unawareness that comes to Americans living in Europe for varying periods.

Me? The last jobs I had were what the ASA's framing of the discussion would call "regular" schedules. I put in several years with "regular" schedules, although my longest tenure with any of those employers was only about three years. Living in that world drives me crazy. Absolutely freaking bonkers. Not because it's a regular schedule, though, but because of other resource-allocation issues that many people lament in their own workplaces, so I can spare us the detail. I do remember, in younger years, my parents asking why I didn't get a better job when I didn't make enough money at the one I had. I recall asking, in reflection of one of my work schedules, when I should pencil in some sleep. And at that time, I only needed four hours. Lived that way for years. But you know, I was told to stop making excuses.

In the years since, in failing to grow up, most of my conflicts have centered around this internal resource allocation, and since so many people around me tell me to chill out, that my problem's not unique, it seemed a natural enough idea to examine the world around me, and I'm neither surprised that it's so, or that it should seem so at all. This is one particular self-affirmation I'm not nearly as cynical about.

My primary resource allocation error? Protecting a specific "artistic necessity" while doing nothing to secure it. Kind of like going into battle without any fortifications or supply logistics.

And what I'm getting after is that it seems culturally-thematic. Americans expect a great deal in the world, and some of that is reflected in the arrogance itself, while the arrogance reflects its tributary themes. The underlying concept is rather quite human; the particular nature of its enactment is curiously unique.


• • •

The "ignorant American" image simply comes from living by the bullet-list and TV listings capsule. Americans might seem savvy as they deftly leap from buoy to buoy, but nothing about that apparent grace should suggest they have a clue what's under the water. Some do, some don't. Flip a coin.

The "arrogant American", of course, is what highlights that ignorance and makes it noteworthy. Americans are, like all stupid humans, stupid. But a stupid human picking on another stupid human for being stupid while ignoring his own stupidity in order to presume moral license makes that aggressive stupid human's stupidity stand out.


• • •

I just see it as culturally thematic. It comes up too often for me to write off. The fire marshall's report is well and fine, but for most people, to say the problem with the house is that it's on fire is a reasonable assessment, and I intend the simple assertion that resource allocation issues and their results are, in fact, what are burning the roof to go no farther. Whether or not we let the motherf@cker burn is purely a question of priorities: How important is it to us as individuals in a cooperative society to change this condition or perception we seem to resent?

Look at me, for instance: I have a tendency against certain actions resulting from my unwillingness to bow to this perception of thematic inaccuracy. I'm so busy questing after some notion of truth I rarely act on what I discover until I absolutely must. To that end, I haven't figured out how important is the difference between something falling over, my failure to attempt to catch what is too heavy for me to affect, and actually going forth and knocking it down.

Where does the detail come in on the list? Where does a nation that hasn't time for its children or itself rank the necessity of understanding geography or history or current events, or even the human condition itself? Some things just don't translate well in the compressed form, and that's the problem. In order to avoid a bottleneck, we're stripping out some of the information. The Big Picture, then, is incomplete. And when those gaps coincide with important issues, or are contrasted against a background of the arrogance of privilege, they stand out: hence, the stereotype of the ignorant American. Culturally, we derive many firm opinions from spurious or incomplete factual assertions. Internally, we fight bitterly over some of these opinions, creating something of a sideshow. And while "Freedom Fries" may be a product of our arrogance, I tend to push things like "Schwarzkopf to Schwarzkopf" in the vain hope that the history of that cycle will strike my American neighbors significantly. It's great for preaching to the converted, but it seems a stubborn denial of ignorance that I can't work around when pitching the notion to conservatives.


• • •

Somebody mentioned Loewen's, Lies My Teacher Told Me. My father, who's undergone a personal transformation over the last decade, a former capitalist and strident anti-Communist, has taken a much more communitarian view of the world. We were walking in Seattle, I think to the aerospace museum, and talking about something when I mentioned an issue that arises in the early chapters of Loewen's book. Most Americans who remember the Cold War don't know that the U.S. actually invaded Russia, had troops fighting inside the country. The notion seemed to affect my father more severely than I would have expected, but perhaps it's because part of his "American jingoistic arrogance" in earlier years perched smugly on the notion that "they started it". He mentioned that he felt badly that he didn't know that, but I didn't pursue it. The days for skewering his conscience are long gone. But the tremor was obvious.

So, someday he might go read the history and come back to the conclusion, "Hey, they did start it." But understanding what I do about the transformation he's undergone, I confidently suspect that he did not escape memory and doubt; yet another set of decisions from history for him to question.

It's a small thing, but nobody knows how it would have affected his decisions. Neither does he, and while it might be interesting to understand those reflections, I'm not about to press him. So, unfortunately, that end of the tale remains open.

But yes, small gaps can have enormous implications, and among those we have cultivated a stereotype much of the world holds as "ignorant" and "arrogant".

Or so says me. See how simple it is?

Er ....
_____________________

Notes:


McFadden, Kay. "Study shows TV news viewers have misperceptions about Iraq war". SeattleTimes.com, October 6, 2003. See http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=kay06&date=20031006

American Sociological Association. "24/7 Economy's Work Schedules Are Family Unfriendly and Suggest Needed Policy Changes". May 25, 2004. See http://www.asanet.org/media/work_hours.html

See Also -


Presser, Harriet B. "The Economy That Never Sleeps". Contexts, v.3, n.2, Spring, 2004. See http://www.contextsmagazine.org/content_sample_v3-2.php

See Healthcare in European social welfare states. You don't have to invent anything new. Just adopt something similar.

And now how do we make it so the politicians do exactly that? Remember, it's not the American people that get to make the rules nor do we get to even vote on most of them. We just get to sit back and twiddle our thumbs in hopes that the people in charge actually come up with a good idea, and have those people in charge vote and pass it, otherwise time just goes by as we continue to suffer with our current ways. I'm all for adopting many of your ways, but they aren't.

And damn, Tiassa, here I thought *I* made long posts. Nice summary (if it can be called that :P ) of the daily life of the average American.

- N

Damn, Tiassa, what a thoughtless waste of tripe you posted. It's full of your dumb liberal bias. It's almost making me want to throw-up. Here, have a history lesson.

The Russians did "Start it". First, Stalin REFUSED to accept UN control of the Nuclear Bomb, he wanted one of his own.

Stalin REFUSED to give-up territory he did NOT agree to in the confrences (read the book "The Conquerors")

The Soviet Union in general had always provided for the "Communist Internationale" (remember the "Anti-CommIntern" pact between Nazis and Japan, that's what it was against.)

The Communist Internationale invaded other nations, incited rebellions, and attempted to establish Communism there.

Notable successes? Cuba//North Korea//Afghanistan//Vietnam and Spain. All of which had violent rebellions thanks to infiltration by the Communist Internationale.

That same orginzation invaded the US, and spread propoganda across College Campuses during the Vietnam war. They worked in many different names within the US, but were actively supported by the Soviet Union.

As for your comments on Atheism, if that philosophy were so good, why is it all the greatest events of man were Religious?

The Pyramids.

The Temples of the Ancient World.

The Rennaissance.

Hell, even the Apollo Missions.

Apollo 8 read Genesis.

Apollo 11, the first thing done after stay//no stay was checked, was to have a Communion on the Moon.

It isn't Athiests doing great things, the Russians were not fully Athiest, most of their noteable people were secretively religious. And even so, their system horribly failed.

Man needs religion, whatever it is.

Sir Robert Bacon, "A little philosophy inclineth a man to Atheism, more philosophy inclineth a man to Religion."

I believe him because I went through that exact phase.

As for your ideas of "resource allocation", retarded. There are two methods, neither are good. One is you go and steal the resources for yourself, the other is the Government distributes them to you.

In the latter, the Government becomes the new owners and does not care about you one bit.

I will conclude here, in spite of saying you are a complete retard, in further saying that your problems with money is because you work too hard. You work and don't realize that investing is how you make money, you think you can't save and invest because you are stupid.

And that's about all there is worth saying.

It's a shame you wasted so much damn bandwidth.

FreeMason



Damn, Tiassa, what a thoughtless waste of tripe you posted. It's full of your dumb liberal bias. It's almost making me want to throw-up

Given the atrocious number of mechanical failures I've just corrected in my writing, as well as the quietly unsettling confidence that I haven't found them all, I might share your nausea. Such sympathy would be misplaced, though: your complaints don't seem to involve those problems in any significant manner.

As to history lessons--


The Russians did "Start it". First, Stalin REFUSED to accept UN control of the Nuclear Bomb, he wanted one of his own.

Stalin REFUSED to give-up territory he did NOT agree to in the confrences (read the book "The Conquerors")

The Soviet Union in general had always provided for the "Communist Internationale" (remember the "Anti-CommIntern" pact between Nazis and Japan, that's what it was against.)

The Communist Internationale invaded other nations, incited rebellions, and attempted to establish Communism there ....

--you seem to have overlooked a couple of important points:


(1) I left the conclusion of what history says open: "So, someday he might go read the history and come back to the conclusion, 'Hey, they did start it.'"

(2) You're citing events that come after the United States deployed troops to tamper with the Revolution. From August, 1918 through April 1, 1920, American regulars under General William S. Graves operated inside Russia.

In the tale of my father, he might well come back to his original conviction that yes, the Russians started it. But at the time, it seemed unsettling to him that something so obvious as invading Russia had escaped his knowledge and consideration.


As for your comments on Atheism, if that philosophy were so good, why is it all the greatest events of man were Religious?

When knowledge replaces superstition, the superstitious are often the last to understand. Humanity continues to evolve, to grow up. It took until Denis Diderot for the continuous historical progression you cite to reach the point of declaring that, "Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths."


Man needs religion, whatever it is.

I agree. Consider the "Church of Baseball", or the implications of "alien-seed theory".


Sir Robert Bacon, "A little philosophy inclineth a man to Atheism, more philosophy inclineth a man to Religion."

I believe him because I went through that exact phase.

I've been through it, too.

However, "religion" generally addresses what is unknown and often unanswerable. The problem we find in the prior considerations of atheism and religion comes when the superstitious assert their superstitions as facts.

Perversely, the Inquisitions fulfilled a fearful and superstitious worldview according to Matthew 25. It's kind of chilling in that context.


As for your ideas of "resource allocation", retarded. There are two methods, neither are good. One is you go and steal the resources for yourself, the other is the Government distributes them to you.

In the latter, the Government becomes the new owners and does not care about you one bit.

What resources have you devoted to understanding the notion of social contract?

Or should I cite a video game? "When you base a government on the lowest qualities of people, those qualities are reflected in their leaders." (Deus Ex)

Perhaps something a little more academic? How about Lysander Spooner? "(I)t is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess. They could not contribute to the government any rights, except such as they themselves possessed as individuals." ("Vices (http://lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm)")

That many Americans do not understand the philosophical undercurrents and social contract leading to the American Constitutional assertion of government authority is, in fact, a sad symptom of the compression of information. The social contract is more complex an assertion than the mere "right to keep and bear arms". For its complexity, it gets put to the background, and thus seems unimportant. Most Americans have heard the term in their lives, but few interpret the politics and doings of Americans according to the actual nature of the Constitution's asserted authority. They might get around to it in college, and they sure as hell don't like to remember their social studies.

Your consideration of the options seems unnaturally narrow.
____________________

Notes:


Spooner, Lysander. "Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication Of Moral Liberty". 1875. See http://lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm

QUOTE Neildo

> Well, if you have any ideas about what we should do, I'm all ears. You'll also become filthy rich if you find out the magic way of making this all happen, economically and morally. :)

It doesnt seem too hard in principle.

Firstly America would never adopt our socialist healthcare system, it is contrary to the very principles daer to nearly every American;s heart.

What is a workable solution? Instead of having only one organisation controlling and regulating medical practice, have 2, 3, or 4. America badly needs a more sensible approach to medicine than its current unafordably priced system, designed to deliberately extort as much money as it can. If there is demand for another system, and it is made legal, it will occur.

Also US needs to sort its laws out on medical practice. Currently in US you knowingly take a risk at every medical happening, yet you can sue drs for a fortune when it doesnt work out. It wasnt their fault...

Here in UK you can only sue for malpractice or negligence: the law recognises that we take risks with every treatment, and that if it doesnt work out the dr doesnt somehow owe us for it.

These 2 things would see a substantial reduction in med costs in the US.

Another thing needed is to allow trained midwives to attend births in place of doctors, this is one of the key reasons our infant death rate is much lower in the UK. In the US many are still giving birth without adequate medical assistance.


Now how on earth do I make a fortune outta that? :)


> It's still available to everyone but at the cost of around $450 a month which is pretty ridiculous when you add in other monthly payments such as rent, utilities, food, car insurance, gas, and all that crap, heh.

Very. Last time I looked at private med insurance here it was something like 200-300 GBP a year, around 250-350USD. Your script costs are mind boggling: I dont think I've ever paid over a tenner for a prescribed drug, and thats paying full price, no subsidy. I should add thats pharmacy stuff, its a bit different if youre in hospital.


> That's one of the reasons why I always prepare for the worst because if anything happens, there's not gonna be anyone to help me so I gotta be sure I can do most things myself. Kinda funny how I need to worry about those kind of things in a country supposedly so great, eh? It's only great for the rich and well, they're the minority.

exactly, the system is not working for millions of americans. Your wellbeing is being traded in for profit maximisation, at any cost, lives included.

You once lived in a democratic republic, nowadays it seems you live in a corporationocracy, where in some cases the corps go as far as extortion, and legitimate democratic capitalist competition is illegal. And many of you pay with it with your lives.

The weird thing is, hardly anyone's noticed. Your fellows still think its the greatest system going! heh.


Lava

A union at wall mart? that would be the day. There's no homogeny anywere in America, the unions are full of mafia bosses, running the show, and stealing your money. Who the hell wants that?, I'm not the Union type of guy, no thank you. Last time I was in a union, all it did me is got me a hole in my poket, no real benefit, non-whatsoever. This time I joined the freaking culinary union to no avail, they only refer me to jobs, but they refer hundreds of others to the same fucking job, what a waste of money!. finally I resorted to finding a job on my own, I still want to work for a casino, preferably non-union, but lately here in Vegas this is getting harder to do!.

Godless.
I hear ya - was in a union down there and yes they are quite corrupt. But I'm pretty sure Vegas is the only place where this is a huge problem. I've worked with some people up north in Reno who have been forming unions, and it actually seems like their intentions are in the right spot.

Could someone please give some actual supporting evidence that other nations populations are so much more intellectually advanced and well informed, on average, than the US? I already know the problems we face here. By the way, I love the title of this thread - "... a fair prejudice". What intellectual giant came up with that?

Check out relative national IQs, US doesnt do so well at 96 average.

Lava

Although I despise IQ's as nothing more then an eugenic machination to purposely make non-whites look stupid, if you want to use that then the US is behind many other nations:

Hong Kong 107
Korea, South 106
Japan 105
Taiwan 104
Singapore 104
Austria 102
Germany 102
Italy 102
Netherlands 102
Sweden 101
Switzerland 101
Belgium 100
China 100
New Zealand 100
U. Kingdom 100
Hungary 99
Poland 99
Australia 98
Denmark 98
France 98
Norway 98
United States 98

Although I despise IQ's as nothing more then an eugenic machination to purposely make non-whites look stupid, if you want to use that then the US is behind many other nations:

Yeah, damn all those insane amounts of minorities in our country for lowering our average IQ. :p

- N

Its true, the "white" IQ in the US is around 100...Black something like 85?

Hmm. Undecided, how did you happen to omit Canada's 97 average from your list? I'm sure it wasn't intentional. ;)

http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

Although I despise IQ's as nothing more then an eugenic machination to purposely make non-whites look stupid, if you want to use that then the US is behind many other nations:

I thought it was a concept developed to improve the selection of people for jobs, and was used with great success in the army in WW1.

Funny how people are so uncomfortable with such a proven concept.

Lava

I could spend my whole life training as an athlete, I'd never make it to the olympics.
Most could spend their whole life studying physics and never come up with the theory of relativity, or anything of similar merit.
Some are born into rich families, some are born in the middle of poverty or war in central Africa.
Some are born fit and healthy, some will struggle and struggle just to survive.
Etc etc, of course we're not equal. Some people really need to get over it.


Lava

Yeah, damn all those insane amounts of minorities in our country for lowering our average IQ. :p

- N

why is the netherlands above you then with its insane amount of minorities?


And could your asian minority actually be raising the US IQ?

Hmm. Undecided, how did you happen to omit Canada's 97 average from your list? I'm sure it wasn't intentional

No because the intention wasn’t to show nations below the US, but nations above. Why would I show Canada?

I thought it was a concept developed to improve the selection of people for jobs, and was used with great success in the army in WW1.

It was? According to the Eugenicists 70% of the all the men who fought in the war were considered inferior, let’s see what they say about your WWI assertion:


Predictably, Yerke’s results from all three tests identified vast numbers of morons among the eugenically inferior groups- so many that Yerkes asserted the army could not afford to reject all of them and still go to war. ‘It would be totally impossible to exclude all morons,’…because ’47 percent of whites and 89 percent of negros’ were shown to have a mental capacity below that of a thirteen-year-old…feeblemindedness against eugenically cherished groups was indeed miniscule. (Black 81-82)

Idiotic to say the least but we continue:


The deeply flawed roots of the IQ test…were more than apparent to many thinking people of the period. It became glaringly obvious that the tests were vehicles for cultural exclusion. (Black 83)

Ala the IQ test is bull shit…its not proven at all.

Why would I show Canada?

I agree. Why would you?

Hmm. Undecided, how did you happen to omit Canada's 97 average from your list? I'm sure it wasn't intentional. ;)

http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm
That site doesn't show a good linear regression......
And -$10,000 per capita GDP.......? :rolleyes:

I agree. Why would you?


:eek: :confused: :bugeye: Then why bring it up? I mean do you get some weird satisfaction about this?

That site doesn't show a good linear regression......
And -$10,000 per capita GDP.......?

Regardless of whether you agree/don't agree with the graph, or even the results of the two authors' study, that has nothing to do with the listed IQs They didn't come up with the IQ averages themselves, but rather used other studies' results of national IQs, and the site's list is identical to the list undecided provided, and may even be from the same site for all I know, since he didn't provide a link for some reason.

Then why bring it up? I mean do you get some weird satisfaction about this?

Why, yes. Yes, I suppose I do. I just can't help myself...

"Canada is bigger then the US, and yet I would vouch that we know marginally more then Americans."
:cool:

It's just in fun though. I think you're a pretty smart guy. For a Canadian. :p

It's just in fun though. I think you're a pretty smart guy. For a Canadian. :p

Sypke plz don't tell me you actually believe in the eugenic IQ test! Just like the SAT's the IQ test is made to make non-whites look stupid...is that intelligent? Oh and did u know that Tennessee has the same IQ as Canada...you are from that state aren't you? Frankly your state is below the American average, since you choose to believe the IQ test as an infallible measure of intelligence.

Regardless of whether you agree/don't agree with the graph, or even the results of the two authors' study, that has nothing to do with the listed IQs They didn't come up with the IQ averages themselves, but rather used other studies' results of national IQs, and the site's list is identical to the list undecided provided, and may even be from the same site for all I know, since he didn't provide a link for some reason.
Which studies? Do they cite the studies? Is the IQ test even effecient at all!? :rolleyes:


It's just in fun tough. I think you're a pretty smart guy. For a Canadian.
Well, that is a very intelligent remark for an American, that's what is sad.... :rolleyes:

No, Canadians are way smarter than Americans. For example, Canadians know that the world doesn't revolve around them.... :rolleyes:

Which studies? Do they cite the studies? Is the IQ test even effecient at all!?

How do I know? I haven't read the book. I simply linked the site.


Well, that is a very intelligent remark for an American, that's what is sad....

Develop a sense of humor and get back to me.


No, Canadians are way smarter than Americans.

Sorry. Statistics say you're not. But I don't hold it against you.


For example, Canadians know that the world doesn't revolve around them....

And well they should know that.


Undecided

Sypke plz don't tell me you actually believe in the eugenic IQ test!

Well, you're the one that opened this can of worms by listing national IQs. Me? I'm just goofing on you with it.


Oh and did u know that Tennessee has the same IQ as Canada...you are from that state aren't you?

Yep.


Frankly your state is below the American average, since you choose to believe the IQ test as an infallible measure of intelligence.

If you don't believe in IQ tests, then why did you bother to post a list of IQ averages trying to show the US had a lower IQ average than a host of other nations? Kind of makes your argument irrelevant.

FWIW though, I understand that Tennessee is slightly below the national average. Of course, we'uns from Tennessee ain't got much in the way of book larnin. I didn't even owns me a pair of shoes til I gots to the Army.

How do I know? I haven't read the book. I simply linked the site.
Typical american behavior.... :rolleyes:
How do you know the site is reliable at all?


Develop a sense of humor and get back to me.
What do you mean, american sense of humor?
"weytigqibyglwe!!!"
[american audience]Hahahahahahaha...[/american audience]
:rolleyes:


Sorry. Statistics say you're not. But I don't hold it against you.
1) I'm not Canadian
2) I highly doubt real statistics ay I'm wrong...


And well they should know that.
Yeah. Too bad american don't.... :rolleyes:

Typical american behavior.... :rolleyes:
How do you know the site is reliable at all?

Yes, by golly, you know, you could be on to something here. The authors may indeed have altered those statistics to make citizens of the US look smarter by only having 17 nations listed with higher IQs!:bugeye: Damned ingenious.


What do you mean, american sense of humor?
"weytigqibyglwe!!!"
[american audience]Hahahahahahaha...[/american audience]


Sorry. For humor to work it has to at least be coherent.


1) I'm not Canadian

Oh. So you only play one on message forums?


2) I highly doubt real statistics ay I'm wrong...

Soooo...show us some 'real' statistics that refute that site's, and then explain why they are more reliable.


Yeah. Too bad american don't.... :rolleyes:

Damned arrogant Americans and their senses of humor.