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

OK so this will probably be controversial so I'm donning a helmet and gum boots . . .

America endured a policy-change in the 60's that affected a lof of how media, finance and education was handled. essentiallly the choice was to isolate America from the rest of the globe - ensure its absolute independance. We see it in their sport (A world cup for a sport only they play?) we see it in their general lack of knowledge of anything outside their borders and certainly in their fiscal and foreign policies.

Working in the development arena I'm always amazed when an american based funding organisations (and there really aren't that many in comparison to other countries - using equivalence of resource as a scale) send representatives out here to South Africa. Not a day off the plane on their very first trip outside of the Americas and they will tell you how to run everything, what to do, how to do it. In a completely different socio-ecomomic environment.

I went to a talk on poverty aleviation in a certain area the other day and the speaker (a well respected UNESCO memeber) actually used the term: "he was so American about it" - speaking of someone who was arrogantly asserting their sole understanding of a situation while actually having no clue. The thing that made me smile was that the whole room (700+ delegates) knew exactly what he meant.

Anyhow, enough heavy stuff, here's some anecdotes from my trips on the net through chat-rooms and encountering Americans:

Where are you from?

Me: Johannesburg, South Africa.

Where's that?

Well you know America? go one continent to the right and down to the bottom - that's where.

Ohhhh! Africa! So do you get to the pyramids much?

?????!!!!!

2. South Africa? Goodness! So do you like have lions and giraffes outside your window?

3. South Africa! Oh wow, that's in Africa right?


Later on in the conversation they exclaim - so you're not black???? How does that happen?!

I actually ended up in an argument (I must have been VERY tired) with an american one night that insisted he knew all about South Africa and that it was one big desert, and since I insisted that I didn't live in a desert I HAD to be lying about where I lived. -

The whole 9/11 time convinced me that CNN was biased and I only ever watch the BBC now - even american media is so one-sided and isolationist that I've given up. I dont like prejudice in anyone but I must say I have to confess to a huge reservation towards dealing with Americans in any capacity. Sad, but true.(They actually agreed to fund a public legal service in South Africa but then insisted that all staff hired be Americans and that all equipment and services be provided in American - ??!!!) I think maybe if they dont care enough about the other people that share the planet with them - maybe we should just leave them to their own machinations and policitcal dramas. When they're ready to join the rest of the world - then that will be fabulous, but for now . . . . Only they're not going to leave us alone are they? Not when they cant produce enough oil or food. It will be interesting to see what happens in the United Nations over the next few months.

(And by the way - the South African general feeling on America and americans is decidedly negative). Our media reflects it with the news about america reported with decidedly "they're at it again!" overtones.

Sorry I'm rambling now - just feel sooooo strongly on this subject!

Keep passing open windows all!


Kosh

Mrs Malaprop isn't from the Importance of Being Ernest, don't what she is from so may have to do some googling to find out

Sheridan's 'The Rivals' (I think)

As to media coverage, as an expat I have been shocked at the insularity of the British news coverage at times. OK there is coverage of items from abroad, but it is not what I am used to from German TV News. Despite its bad reputation, CNN does seem to cover real World News.

For example, when New Orleans was under water, on German TV we only got told about that. The fact that Iran and Mexico were suffering the same fate at that time is something I only learned from CNN.

Geography at school meant to me, too, more like what is grown where, what is mined where, and what is sold by whom to whom etc. We did the Hudson valley in detail, once we had covered our own region.

I really wish I'd paid more attention, especially to geology because I found that really useful when travelling - there's a helluva lot of geology out there waiting to be admired. And it's nice to be able to put a name to the type of mountain, and to understand about "terminal moraine" and "lateral moraine" - words which have stuck in my head since school.

Sorry - am coming in from halfway along the thread here. Some of this may have already been said.

I've got more to say, but I doubt if anyone will have read this far for the time being.

I have just finished reading through ALL the postings on this thread- it must have taken hours......but was really interesting to see the opinions from a variety of different parts of the globe. I think it's important to remember not to take the "holier than thou" attitude - who can claim that they are not ignorant on many topics?
The point is that surely today we all should be striving to be world citizens isn't it? Knowing where any place is on the map, is just the gateway to finding out more about it and maybe understanding more about other cultures.How is it possible that we can even imagine sorting out all this old world's problems if all of us aren't interested in knowing about what's going on in the world?
Anyway, I want to say that some of my oldest and dearest friends are Americans- they detest the regime under which they are living and I can say , as a Brit, seeing the old country from living abroad,that I'm not very proud of how Blair is the American lackey, even trying to force the American will onto the European Union when he should be trying his best to unite European states.
I agree with the South African contributor, the American state machine wants to "take" everything from all corners of the globe, whilst trying to "take over" everywhere.I think for the whole of my adult life I can remember regularly repeated efforts on the US's part to "save" nations either from "dictators" or from conditions which they themselves were responsible for instigating.
No-one has mentioned so far the constant " stirring up"of situations so that neighbours feel antagonistic towards each other and who gets to sell them armaments for defence, just in case- we all know the answer!
There's a lot more I'd like to say.....Maybe next time......it was really great to read all the views expressed so far- thank you everybody!

I'm going to seem defensive here, but since the original poster said they were donning a helmet and gum boots - not sure what gum boots are, but they sound tough, so here goes ...

"We see it in their sport (A world cup for a sport only they play?)"
I'm going out on a limb here and assuming this is a reference to baseball. Now, I would point out that it's been called The World Series long before the 1960s, which seemed to be the point you were making about when isolationism began. I would also point out that about that time (the 1960s) was the period when the most drastic changes came about with regard to baseball as a national pasttime and began to include a world-wide cast of players as well as those of more ethnic variety. So it would seem to not only lend no evidence to the "1960s isolation period" theory, but actually detract from it.

"Not a day off the plane on their very first trip outside of the Americas and they will tell you how to run everything, what to do, how to do it. In a completely different socio-ecomomic environment."

I found this amusing to hear from someone outside of the USA as the exact opposite case is true for many of us in this nation experiencing people from other nations. As an American that meets and deals with a lot of people from all over the world (I work at Los Alamos National Laboratory), and having lived in places where a lot of people come in from all over the world to settle as well as the rest of the USA, I've found that sort of attitude to be common of a certain type of personality rather than a particular national or ethnic background. That is to say, I've had people from all walks of life, ages, races, and nationalities berate me about things they consider to be the "right way to do things," and "how stupid or backward it's being done right now" - and it's all been by people who've just arrived and haven't yet learned to appreciate the finer points of why things are the way they are. So it really isn't an American trait.

"I dont like prejudice in anyone but I must say I have to confess to a huge reservation towards dealing with Americans in any capacity. Sad, but true."
Well, I find that very sad and more than a little prejudiced. I respectfully submit that you haven't met enough of us to really make a sweeping judgement like that.

*shrug* There's no doubt that the USA is a rather isolationist, self-absorbed nation. Part of that has to be due to no small amount of pride born of the relatively young and rapidly developed wealth and power the nation has experienced. Part of it has to do with geography and the simple fact that two oceans separate it from other continents (though this obviously doesn't apply to the differences between neighboring nations and the South American continent). But a lot of this attitude, or more accurately the PERCEPTION by other nations of this attitude taht Americans have is entirely from how other nations view us through our media, so-called "popular" culture, and a misunderstood or incomplete view of our politics.

(As a small tempering aside comment, misunderstanding politics in this country is common for most people living in this country, so I don't think that's a fault of other nations - I'm continually baffled and taught some hard lessons about my fellow countrymen when it comes to politics.)

Anyway. $0.02 worth.

- JD

I second some of what JD says. The baseball part anyway Japan and Latin America love baseball. Canada has teams (or rather "a team" now, I think) that compete in the World Series too.

Personally, I'd be quite content to live in a nation that doesn't have to deal with all these issues and have a leadership role. In more than a few ways it's a burden for Americans. I view the vast majority of Americans like hobbits - content to just go through their lives, have children and try to have a happy, fulfilling life. I think that's a fairly universal trait too, but I feel like sometimes that's forgotten about Americans. Is being isolationist really a bad thing in that light? Is tending a garden instead of studying up on the latest international dispute that will probably never affect them a character flaw? I think in many ways, an individual outlook on life is not selfish, but admirable.

Also, I often feel like people are all too eager to present an anecdote about Americans as evidence of an entire nation's flaws. If this were a statistical situation, the margin of error for that data would be *staggeringly* high. I've encountered a few annoying Britons, even what I'd call socio-pathic Britons, but I don't think you'll ever catch me using that as an excuse to write off 60,000,000 people.

Lastly - and I haven't seen it here, but I'll bring it up anyway because I've seen it all too often around this site - I think it's too easy an excuse for us (seeing as this site is overwhelmingly liberal - so overwhelmingly that I've mostly stopping reading political debates for the lack of good debate) to condemn the millions of Republicans and Bush supporters while supposedly supporting America in general and as a concept. I was born into a mostly conservative family (Yup, I'm the of the family ), a family that went for Bush more than not in '04, and they are good people. Many Republicans are better people than I know how to be. A country's politics and a country's character are separate. Politics and the attitude of a few should not define a nation. I firmly believe that only those who make snap decisions and are unwilling to look deep into our national soul would conclude that we are morally bankrupt and arrogant.
That being said, I don't have any problem with someone saying "I don't hate Americans, I just hate their government". I hate my government right now as well

"There's no doubt that the USA is a rather isolationist, self-absorbed nation."

I don't understand, JD, how one can ascribe a characteristic like that to a nation. Are the people self-absorbed? Is government policy self-absorbed? Every nation is, to some extent, focused on its internal priorities. For a while back I had to ignore headlines in the BBC about UK matters I frankly didn't care about... something about school lunches was one of them. But this week when I saw all three of the top headlines on http://news.bbc.co.uk/ were about the US, I just sort of cringed and wanted to say "Leave us alone."

A peeved

Baseballwise, my undestanding is that it is not a world cup in any way.
Isn't it called the World Series because it was originally sponsored by a newspaper called The World?

It's also a question of culture. Everyone knows about LA or New York from all the programmes made there. Unless there is a disaster or something happens there, you don't get to hear about it.

I think Vladivostok is a great place yet no-ones ever heard of it never mind can point it out on a map. Unless their is an oil slick or they make an world-famous TV show there, it will forever remain in obsurity.

It's like the TV show 'hyperdrive', where they are trying to get aliens to invest in 'Britain', a place where anyone living outside Earth has ever heard of it!!!

As an English lass now living in America, I can say that in the time I've been here, on average the knowledge of places outside of the states is somewhat limited.

Most of the people I've met usually have a rough idea of where in the world I'm from and that's about it. However, I've found people are very much interested in learning about the geography of The British Isles and any differences between America and England. I'm often asked many questions.

I've also found that on average the people I've met here have excellent knowledge of American geography and being able to point out and name states and their capitals is pretty much standard. I'm not so sure that I know too many people back home who could place and name all the counties in England nevermind name at least one city from each.

I think the examples in the original post are a little extreme. I have on one occasion had a lady I met here comment on how well I spoke English considering I'm from a foreign country. (I kid ye not) This I feel was more to do with her own stupidity than the fact that she's American and 'ignorant' to the rest of the world.

3 0f 8

I haven't read the entire backlog, so excuse me if I've repeated something or haven't responded adequately to another thing.

Speaking as an American, Americans by and large do seem to have a poor knowledge of geography, both in their own country and around the world. I'd say that most of the kids at my high school would not be able to pick out all 50 states on a map, much less name the capitals. But I'd find it hard to believe that the same is not true for kids in other countries. As others have said, it's largely down to individual people. Some kids and adults are aware of world affairs and other countries; some aren't.

In the often ridiculous sphere of adolescent Californians, I often find myself acting as a 'translator' for Americans. Stereotypes are very common among people with whom I am acquainted: for example, many Americans who haven't met people from other English-speaking countries retain ideas such as the English being incredibly uptight or the Irish being permanently drunk, and are quite amazed when an English or Irish TV programme, book or real-life person presents this as not being the case. A lot of the time they seem to think that they must be right, and that the programme/book/person must therefore be mistaken.

As I said before, though, I think this lack of awareness is probably true of uneducated people in many other areas. At the risk of sounding elitist, many of my parents' friends are well-educated and so have a better understanding of the world they live in. I'm the president of the school Democrats Club and our members have a much greater understanding of the world around them than the average apathetic teenager.

Here in our schools we have something called the National Geographic Bee. Students from the ages of about 10-14 compete in this contest, sponsored by the National Geographic Society. I once placed at the school level, and one of my friends placed at state. So at least in some ways, geography is still alive in America's schools.

That's more or less it, I guess.

I received a big chunk of my education (age 8-16) in Canada (the rest was in the UK). Geography lessons, or the geography portions of "social studies", every year mainly consited of : The Map of Canada. The Canadian Provinces. The Provincial captials. Colouring in the Provinces. Taking cut-out shapes of the Provinces then rearranging them in the correct geographical conformation. And then colouring them. In fact, I remember being required to bring coloured pencils to an exam at age 15! There were other bits and pieces we learned, like the definitions of "plateau" and "peninsula".

I think geography expanded a bit at age 16 and we were required to know the locations of some major US cities. So, for all the Manitoba education system taught me, there was not a world outside North America. Luckily I had lived in England so I was aware of an outside world.

History lessons werent much better - they consisted of the history of Canada. I think the only time world history was ever brought up was "How World War II affected emigration to Canada". Yeah, because that was the only important thing about WWII. Adolf who? Concentration camp? Whats that? Luckily I learnt quite a bit about the early part of WWII from the instruction manual of a PC game called "Battle of Britain".

I just think that type of education is very narrow-spectrum and may cause the insularity that has been discussed. I would not like for my son to receive such an education. However I'm not too sure about what the geography and history curriculum in the UK involves either, as all I did here was early primary school and A-Levels. Can anyone enlighten me? Hopefully it is better than Canada's!

You just reminded me of sitting in on a geography class in Ireland for some 16-17 year olds. And being rather shocked that they seemed to spend most of it colouring in stuff. It was a substitute teacher which might have had something to do with it, but still. They also filled out some questions, one of which sticks in my mind; "What is the name of Ireland's capital?" I hope this was not representative of Irish geography. To me they seem to have an okay knowledge of things, perhaps partly because they have relatives everywhere.

I'm doing a history degree, and it's made me realise just how Britain-centric school history in the UK is. Obviously, you do things like the World Wars, but always from a British perspective.

Indeed it is which is unsurprising. World war II teaching in the UK tends to focus on the British western war - Dunkirk, D-Day, El Alamein etc. I'd never heard of the Battle of Kursk for example until I went off and did my own reading.

I did my late schooling in the 80s and so this may be out of date.

History curriculum. The Roman Empire, World wars 1 and 2. The Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings, William the Conqueror - Battle of Hastings, The Tudor Kings/Queens, a bit of the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution. The US War of Independence. Maybe some stuff on the Napoleonic Wars but I'm not sure...

The first and last bits took us outside the UK but not outside the 'pertaining to the UK' box.

Only since leaving school and getting interested myself have I discovered what a backwater the UK was for much of World History, only in the last 400 years or so have we become important in world history.

Geography - we learnt about Glaciation and its effects upon mountains - we spent ages on this and it was never examined in nearly twenty years of O' levels on this subject . The effects of rivers on land. We also did some simple geology fault lines, rock folding and continental drift etc.,
We learnt about reading maps - contour lines etc.
We did town planning stuff, where shops are located, central business districts, twilight zones and stuff. Social geography i guess,
Can't remember much else.

Hope that enlightened you

You got to do the Civil War? You lucky git!

Interesting...

I see that the history curriculum is generally English-centered, but it certainly looks better than what I learned in Canada. I think it is important for our children to learn about the wars of this century to learn from the mistakes, and to hopefully never let things like that happen again!

I suppose it is a bit much for children to learn about the history and geography of the entire world, but major wars, revolutions, and things like the rise and fall of empires etc. certainly enrich knowledge and understanding of the world.

Only briefly Mr D. I think it was in a junior school too (aged 11-12ish) so it wasn't exacly in depth stuff.

" certainly enrich knowledge and understanding of the world."
Might even help dispel some of the more common bits of folk history and national myths.

A friend of mine who is at Cambridge University changed from doing Natural Sciences (Physics) to Geography, and his first act as a geographer was to buy a packet of Crayola Coloured Pencils .

I was somewhat lucky in not having to do much in the way of British History, I think largely because it was an all-boys school and modern British history would have been more or less guaranteed to bore us all to tears. Development of the Wellfare State? Home Rule for Ireland? Appeasement. off. ing the ers. So the course was largely European focused with the odd extra detail or 'vote conservative' moral for Britain.