h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Digitial Redneck,

You've wandered into a pit of vipers. Many people here hate the United States and decry the ignorance of its citizens. Yet they go on to show the same ignorance, with comments like, "...but as long as the US don't pay their debts to UN, that's not likely going to happen..." The fact is that the back dues are paid, and that President Bush started that process when he came into office.

The one thing that I've learned here is that ignorance is not limited to the United States.

What I meant by "...but as long as the US don't pay their debts to UN, that's not likely going to happen..." was that the UN does not have/has had anywhere near the military resources of the US, because one of the biggest and most powerful members refused to pay up for years, yet demanded to have all the rights of a member...

...so what you're saying is that now that Bush jr is president, the US will pay up and never be in debt again?

I'm saying that President Bush had the bill paid. I don't know what we'll do with it in the future. I would be happy to withdraw from the the United Nations.

There are two kinds of critics of the US, those who think they stand idly by in their wealth while atrocious things happen all over the world, and those who think they meddle too much in the affairs of others.
The United States, for better or worse is the biggest player in the UN. The US government pays 25% of the UN budget and spearheads all UN military or peacekeeping operations. The UN is a valid organisation and we shouldn't give up on it, as it represents (in theory) a way to use American might for the greater good. Because the USA is powerful. There's no denying it, whatever you think of the place, its government, or its people. Such power can be weilded incorrectly, as I believe the current president is doing, by acting unilaterally and in the interests of business, not of the people. Calling America bad and evil doesn't help, though. It only angers Americans and makes them more insular. "To hell with you foreigners," they think when you criticise, "we don't need you anyway." And then they vote. I don't think this is a healthy attitude for the most powerful nation in a global society to have.

My personal feeling on the matter is that the US is too damn *big* to be one country anyway, and ought to be split into independent states to aviod the whole "na na na na naaa" factor.

KerrAvon - ducks and

We all want thigns that aren't going to happen.

We don't actually spearhead very many peacekeeping missions. The United States has tried to keep out of them as much as possible, although we have been in the ones that have gained the most press. The nation that does contribute to almost all of them is Canada. They have been very generous with their forces. They've been involved in some very successful opreations.

I know, I know two-bit. I believe execs. call it 'blue sky thinking'

On the matter of peace-keeping missions, I think that's precisely *why* Canada is percieved in a better light than the USA- It may be present on a lot of UN mission, but it is just *there* forming part of a *team*. Whereas the US, rightly or wrongly, is perceived to dominate missions it's present on. Whether that's actually true or not, I don't know, and it's not really relevent to the question. Nobody hears much about Canada in the news in the context of military operations, so no-one thinks about it, whereas the US *is* always in the news for doing *some*thing, hence the perception that it's always meddling.

We're big, strong and engaged. We usually won't allow foriegn commanders to put our troops at risk. If we're coming we're going to be in charge of our own affairs.

It's the nature of life to try to exert control. We are the strongest force in the world. We will exert influence over it. We are actaully very restrained. We don't generally take phsyical control over other countries.

We get a lot of press in this nation, and I think it comes from having such an open society and with a lot of press. Our press is loyal to their own notion of what America menas, hence the waving flags in the corner of our news shows, but they delight in pursuing scandal (as I have become personally aware of late). That creates a lot of fodder fo everyone.

I expec tit's much the same in UK.

Two Bit wrote:
"We get a lot of press in this nation, and I think it comes from having such an open society and with a lot of press. Our press is loyal to their own notion of what America means"

BUT Digital Redneck wrote:
"When the average American thinks of someone overseas distrusting or even hating us, the image is always of some extremist crackpot... The idea that rational educated people would feel this way is not even part of the national opinion."

An open society and a free press is desirable - but that press apparently isn't telling the people of America about the world outside their borders - or at least not the full story. Is this a symptom of the insularity of thought we're accusing Americans of? Or is it the REASON for it?

On the subject in the subject line - the biggest difference I would say there is between "world opinion" of the USA and Canada is that most people in the world have a STRONG opinion about the USA, and it's quite often negative, whereas most people in the world don't have *any* strong opinions about Canada (if they even realise it's separate from the US), and if they do, they're almost always positive.

H.

There's no 'but'. Our statments aren't all contradictory in the least. Our press actively seeks out our internal problems and shows them to whoever has CNN.

I was about to say that our press is insular, but I'm not sure if that's the case. I don't think they care what people really think, either at home or abroad. They just want our viewership. Some of them are obviously slanted to the left, like CNN. Some are slanted to the right, like Fox News (and possibly MSNBC). They look for scandal and they want to have their commentary, and I don't think they really care about fleshing anything out. Reporters and anchors generally strike me as uninformed idiots.

I think that's part of the appeal of talk radio. People can actually give some feedback from the media.

Not contradictory?
the country where people calling themself 'pro life' go around shouting 'kill them' because they have a different opinion?

"Our press actively seeks out our internal problems and shows them to whoever has CNN."

Precisely. Internal. And I appreciate that in a country of the size and diversity of the US, there's plenty to report on. Similarly, an insular attitude from the inhabitants of a country the size of the US is, if anything, to be expected.

It's often stated disparagingly that some tiny proportion of Americans have passports, as though that's evidence of blinkered attitudes and a stay-at-home nature. But I predict that one hundred years from now, a similar proportion of Europeans will have no passport. When you can travel across a huge geographical area, visit sites of cultural and historical interest, cross time zones and climate types and not have to bother carrying documentation or changing currency, going outside the zone of easy travel will not seem worth it. Europeans today are used to needing passports. In a few decades, the majority will have forgotten they ever needed one.

"I was about to say that our press is insular, but I'm not sure if that's the case. I don't think they care what people really think, either at home or abroad. They just want our viewership."

So, the press is insular because the people aren't interested in what's going on out in the rest of the world? It's an old joke about the nation (i.e. the US) switching off when the news anchor says "in Bangladesh today...". But if that really happens, the news organisations (who depend on advertising as much as anyone else) are going to learn PDQ to report news that people will watch, and if people aren't interested in what's going on in Europe, or Asia, or whatever, then they won't report it.

So is the people's lack of interest the fault of the media for not covering it? Or are the media not covering it because the people aren't interested? Or do we all get the media we deserve, in the same way we get the government we deserve? (Karma-ocracy?)

H.

What are you talking about? I was referring to the statements by Digital Redneck and myself that Hoovooloo was talking about. Why are you dragging this irrelevant crap into conversation?

>So, the press is insular because the people aren't interested in what's going on out in the rest of the world? ... if people aren't interested in what's going on in Europe, or Asia, or whatever, then they won't report it.

I don't think they're very responsive to what the viewers want. Then again, I don't claim to know what the viewers want either. I want some sort of depth behind the news, so I tend to listen to National Public Radio or talk radio. They're the only place in the media that will deal with things in more than 3 minute segments. Although both forums have their own bias.

The thing about "what the public wants" is that, if the public aren't presented with it, how can they decide if they're interested. Ie, if American news concentrates on domestic politics and events because that is what people are interested in, how can people gain an interest in the rest of the world?

I think these arguments are all very true for an America that existed before sept. 11. Things have changed. Everybody knows where Afghanistan is now, and the Israel/Palestine conflict gets quite a fair share of coverage on CNN.
My worry is that the ignorance Americans had of the rest of the world will be replaced by fear of it.

I think Digital Redneck said something about how American's have learned to fear the outside world they previously didn't take much interest in. Don't know whether that's true for the whole country or just D.R's personal perspective.

Here's a question for the Americans: Does the fact that the majority of the known population of the planet think that Americans are arrogant, self-righteous, cultural vacuum-heads (even those who like the US) imply that Americans have a problem; or that the rest of the world does? .

It's subjective. There is no objective right answer.

I think we're a generous freedom loving people.

For a country ranked tenth in the world for press freedom. Hos does it's citizens really know what's going on?