Which are you?

mjw_byrne said:

Yeah I watched that too. The guy pointed to West Africa when asked to point to the British Isles, and the UK is meant to be America's main ally in this ridiculous war in Iraq. Like you say, if their awareness of the rest of the world is that poor, no wonder their foreign policy is rather ropey.

A similar attitude is evident when you fill in a form online and you have to fill in the "What state do you live in?" box, even if you are not from the US. This has happened to me susprisingly often.

The other day I spoke to an American online and she asked me where I study. I said, "Oxford", and she replied, "ah, in Connecticut". 😕

Oxford.
Royal Blue.

Well MJW, you could have said it was Oxford on Jupiter to your colleague - it would have meant the same thing.

Connecticut - isn't that where all the "well-to-do" people live ?

davidmc said:

Don't you mean "some" of these americans. Your not making a broad generalization are you 😕 , because if you are then you will be in error.

Dave - I think he meant some.
Although like the US election - 54% of US citizens don't even know what the
capital of the USA is !
Frightening.

MountainPro said:

There only is one topic in the Soap Box...discussing what an [censored] Bush is.

every thread, no matter what its title is, eventually turns out this way.

This is true. It's a well known fact

limerickman said:

Oxford.
Royal Blue.

Well MJW, you could have said it was Oxford on Jupiter to your colleague - it would have meant the same thing.

Connecticut - isn't that where all the "well-to-do" people live ?

Yeah, they all commute to work in NYC from their estates

limerickman said:

Dave - I think he meant some.
Although like the US election - 54% of US citizens don't even know what the
capital of the USA is !
Frightening.

45% of the nation did'nt vote for bush. He does'nt have a mandate.

So this is where the pablum puking liberals, euroeffetes and marxists are hiding. They cackle as if their opinions are still relevant.
That's nice.
Perhaps adding a little prozac to their porridge would help them get through the day.

It's not really quite so true that Americans are poorly educated. I've met many on my travels who speak foreign languages and are pretty well-read. In fact, I take part in an ancient history forum on the net that has many American members and we have some pretty clever people contributing to the discussions. The majority are Americans. The idea about Americans being ignoramuses has much in common with the old jokes about the Irish we have in England.
Granted George Bush got in because the bible States such as Luisiana overwhelmed the votes of New Yorkers and Californians.
Having said that I recall an really amusing incident when a TV man in the U.S. stopped a passer-by to ask about an accident he had witnessed. He stuck the microphone under the passer-by and asked:
"What state was the accident victim in when you found him lying on the road-side?"
The pedestrian replied.
"Alabama."

mjw_byrne said:

Yeah I watched that too. The guy pointed to West Africa when asked to point to the British Isles, and the UK is meant to be America's main ally in this ridiculous war in Iraq. Like you say, if their awareness of the rest of the world is that poor, no wonder their foreign policy is rather ropey.

A similar attitude is evident when you fill in a form online and you have to fill in the "What state do you live in?" box, even if you are not from the US. This has happened to me susprisingly often.

The other day I spoke to an American online and she asked me where I study. I said, "Oxford", and she replied, "ah, in Connecticut". 😕

iknowtest said:

So this is where the pablum puking liberals, euroeffetes and marxists are hiding. They cackle as if their opinions are still relevant.
That's nice.
Perhaps adding a little prozac to their porridge would help them get through the day.

I'm glad you are providing intelligent points to these discussions. Nothing more innovative than insults and broad generalizations.

iknowtest said:

So this is where the pablum puking liberals, euroeffetes and marxists are hiding. They cackle as if their opinions are still relevant.
That's nice.
Perhaps adding a little prozac to their porridge would help them get through the day.

Welcome. Hey how've you been? Oh, wait a second, i thought you were someone else. Nevermind.

iknowtest said:

So this is where the pablum puking liberals, euroeffetes and marxists are hiding. They cackle as if their opinions are still relevant.
That's nice.
Perhaps adding a little prozac to their porridge would help them get through the day.

Interestingly enough, of all the countries Ive been to, americans would be the highest consumers of pharmeceutical products (prozac is a big favorite). I work i n this industry and we all know that americans love these types of drugs. What does that say about the state of your society?

Ssushi said:

Interestingly enough, of all the countries Ive been to, americans would be the highest consumers of pharmeceutical products (prozac is a big favorite). I work i n this industry and we all know that americans love these types of drugs. What does that say about the state of your society?

What is your problem with Americans and America?

recneps345 said:

What is your problem with Americans and America?

Idiots who call me a 'pablum puking liberals, euroeffete'

Get it?

Ssushi said:

Idiots who call me a 'pablum puking liberals, euroeffete'

Get it?

no, i dont get it.

recneps345 said:

no, i dont get it.

Clearly..........................................................

Ssushi said:

Clearly..........................................................

You really gave some great reasons for your problem with americans, congrats

recneps345 said:

You really gave some great reasons for your problem with americans, congrats

I dont have a problem with americans, i have a problem with people who insult me for being a liberal european. why not ask the more radical americans on this forum why they dont like 'EuroPeons'? Have you asked them? I suspect not...

I think that there is a distinction between been misinformed and being uneducated.

I think that some Americans (and indeed Europeans and others) appear to be misinformed.
What I mean is that opinions are formed based upon information other than
education.
History is history : and thus the need to record events objectively and with clarity is the basis of education.

However in this day and age, the media appears to have replaced the learning of history, with learning through the media.
For example, we have constant TV programs analysing the fall of Communism.
Depending on which TV program one happens to watch, Communism failed for
one of three reasons :
1.The USA beat Communism.
2.The Afghan rebels beat Communism.
3.The Pope and Ronald Reagan beat Communism.

I use this analogy to illustrate a point.
It appears that media reports (and their inherent bias) inform peoples views.
Thus stereotypes are created and re-enforced.

History and the requirement to sit down and analyse what actually happened
to create an outcome, is replaced by soundbite and "instant" political analysis.
This is dangerous ground that we're on here.
Because people refuse to think and let their view be formed by the media,
the need to reason is diminished.

limerickman said:

I think that there is a distinction between been misinformed and being uneducated.

I think that some Americans (and indeed Europeans and others) appear to be misinformed.
What I mean is that opinions are formed based upon information other than
education.
History is history : and thus the need to record events objectively and with clarity is the basis of education.

However in this day and age, the media appears to have replaced the learning of history, with learning through the media.
For example, we have constant TV programs analysing the fall of Communism.
Depending on which TV program one happens to watch, Communism failed for
one of three reasons :
1.The USA beat Communism.
2.The Afghan rebels beat Communism.
3.The Pope and Ronald Reagan beat Communism.

I use this analogy to illustrate a point.
It appears that media reports (and their inherent bias) inform peoples views.
Thus stereotypes are created and re-enforced.

History and the requirement to sit down and analyse what actually happened
to create an outcome, is replaced by soundbite and "instant" political analysis.
This is dangerous ground that we're on here.
Because people refuse to think and let their view be formed by the media,
the need to reason is diminished.

It's a good analogy Limerickman but historical records are sometimes (sometimes often) sketchy due the the egos of those involved at the time; they want to be recorded as being the warrior who won the battle, when they really sat at the side, they want to be represented as being taller, stronger, wiser etc... so even story of historical documentation is a mine field at best.

I do think however that there is a thing where people expect that newspapers are correct and unbiased (incorrect assumption), and that 'we' do not have a responsibility to ourselves to educate ourselves as we age - this surely ends when we leave school and all we have to do now is to read the papers - incorrect assumption.

limerickman said:

I think that there is a distinction between been misinformed and being uneducated.

I think that some Americans (and indeed Europeans and others) appear to be misinformed.
What I mean is that opinions are formed based upon information other than
education.
History is history : and thus the need to record events objectively and with clarity is the basis of education.

However in this day and age, the media appears to have replaced the learning of history, with learning through the media.
For example, we have constant TV programs analysing the fall of Communism.
Depending on which TV program one happens to watch, Communism failed for
one of three reasons :
1.The USA beat Communism.
2.The Afghan rebels beat Communism.
3.The Pope and Ronald Reagan beat Communism.

I use this analogy to illustrate a point.
It appears that media reports (and their inherent bias) inform peoples views.
Thus stereotypes are created and re-enforced.

History and the requirement to sit down and analyse what actually happened
to create an outcome, is replaced by soundbite and "instant" political analysis.
This is dangerous ground that we're on here.
Because people refuse to think and let their view be formed by the media,
the need to reason is diminished.

May I be so presumptuous to make a critique of the wordage? You use the word misinformed, against what I would say, and that is malinformed which indicates malice aforethought for reasons best known to the publisher.
History has always taken centre stage when written by the vainquer, and not the vanquished. It's all now television and media perspectives. I was going to write as a banner for FredC. That ' the media is a self generating publicity stunt'. You can have it, I don't want it.

Ssushi said:

It's a good analogy Limerickman but historical records are sometimes (sometimes often) sketchy due the the egos of those involved at the time; they want to be recorded as being the warrior who won the battle, when they really sat at the side, they want to be represented as being taller, stronger, wiser etc... so even story of historical documentation is a mine field at best.

I do think however that there is a thing where people expect that newspapers are correct and unbiased (incorrect assumption), and that 'we' do not have a responsibility to ourselves to educate ourselves as we age - this surely ends when we leave school and all we have to do now is to read the papers - incorrect assumption.

the winner writes history - and the vanquished are left to live with it.

It seems to me that the debate about Americans being uneducated is multifaceted.
A lot of the pro-Bush opinion here, is expressed and is derived directly from
soundbites, cliches and rhethoric through the media.
This creates the perception of Americans being uneducated (because the
soundbites, cliches and rhethoric is incorrect in the first place).

If someone is reliant upon what the media say, rather than having an understanding of history, then they are by definition misinformed.

Look at the USA in Iraq.
The premise was - we topple Saddam Hussein and then we'll win hearts and minds and then democracy will flourish and we'll be welcomed with open arms.

Anyone with the remotest knowledge of Iraq would know that Iraq is a fusion of three separate identities (Kurd, Sunni and Shia) and that this fusion would come apart.
The Sunni at the moment are retaliating - if the Shia join them, all hell will
break lose.

To enforce the basis of the soundbite - they threw in all the lies of WMD,
SH supporting AQ and terrorism.
Again, an analysis of history would have told people that SH would never have aligned with AQ, that WMD were destroyed in Gulf War 1.

Public opinion in the USA was influenced by the soundbite, cliche.
People refused to think about the history - they refused to think about the validity of Hussein having anything to do with BinLaden.
The people who support Bush here - continue to regurgitate the same old cliches, to justify their stance.
Instead, they don't look at the history and evaluate.

Therefore, there are two issues (a) being misinformed (b) being uneducated about history.