Oh, to make things more clear: I was not comparing the Sun to the NY Times. It’s clearly the equivalent of the NY Post. I was saying that the common newspaper of the masses is junk in both places, and trying to think of a foreign paper of quality. Which I thought the IHT was. My mistake, it’s a US paper available abroad.
That’s exactly what you were doing. Here’s the quote again with my emphasis:
You were not saying “that the common newspaper of the masses is junk in both places”, there was no mention of the Post or anything similar, you said that American papers were better than English ones and gave entirely inappropriate examples to support that view.
So, what you’re saying is that you believe that you believe that Americans are less globally aware, and are offering as evidence the fact that you use encounters with ignorant and/or stupid Americans to reinforce your prejudice? Last I checked, the forum name was “Great Debates” not IMHO, so I don’t really see what quoting your own opinion has to do with anything.
Like the underpants gnomes, step two is still entirely sketchy, and “Guy who likes to feel superior by slamming on Americans thinks Americans are less globally aware” isn’t much in the way of evidece.
Are you going to answer my question Riboflavin?
Yes, I structured that paragraph poorly, everton. The clarifying post was needed. To repeat: The common, tabloid papers are junk. I mistakenly was attempting to compare the IHT to the NY Times, but both are american. One simply is foreign only.
This backlash isn’t that recent, here (France). It began with the economical crisis in the 70’s, and the extreme-right began its rise during the early 80’s. Though Le Pen making it to the second round of the presidential election has been a massive surprise, it was due to the great number of candidates, especially on the left, “stealing” votes from the mainstream socialist party, but his score was consistent with previous elections (locals and nation-wide). The extreme-right votes have been in the 12-18% range for quite a long time (perhaps 15 years or so).
Also, “blaming immigrants” isn’t a new sport here. There has always been a lot of racism, discrimination, etc…Le Pen gave a lot of people a chance to express it in their vote.
What do you mean exactly by “lack of cultural diversity”? Apart from the fact that each european country has its own language, history, customs and habbits, food, etc…, I assume you’re refering mainly to the presence of immigrants of various origins. It widely depends on the country. Though Germany and France (and the UK to a lesser extent) have received a lot of immigrants, this isn’t necessarily true for all european countries. So, the situation may vary from one country to another. It would depends also on the immigration model (communautarist or integrationist models) in a given country.
Also, the importance of the backlash against immigrants doesn’t seem to be closely related with the actual number of immigrants in a given country. It seems much more severe in say, Denmark than in the UK, for instance, though I don’t think Denmark receive as much immigrants as the UK by a long shot (in %age of the population, I mean…though I know from a previous experience that it’s very difficult to find actual reliable figures for immigration. Figures released by well known international bodies or by national institutions vary widely with no obvious reason I couldn’t figure out)
I would hazard to say that anyway it’s not very relevant. Many people live with many, say african or asian neighbors and nevertheless know close to nothing about these immigrant’s country of origin, and aren’t interested at all. I would agree with other posters and say that people “world-awareness” (or lack thereof) is probably much more related to the education system and the content of the medias (and possibly other cultural or political peculiaities, say a tradition of isolationism in the US) than to immigration.
Yes you are. I’ve already quoted you once, but here it is again:
[/QUOTE]
I said that Western Europe appears less culturally diverse. Not that Western Europe is less culturally diverse, but that it looks that way to me. See, I admit that that’s just an opinion not based on any kind of objective information, so I wouldn’t try to defend it in GD as fact since I don’t have a clear and objectively definable definition of it, much less actual evidence (not that that stops anyone, judging from the rest of this thread). Looking at different areas and comparing protocols for meeting people, dating, finding a job, buying/renting a house/apartment, acceptable topics of conversation, and a number of other ‘how do I go through a day’ things would provide a good start. Diversity of laws and political choices also would be good indicators, and not just declaring ‘American politics is all far-right’ but comparing what choices there are on various issues.
I wouldn’t know about the average european, but I would dare to say that the average frenchman knows close to nothing about Asian countries, except perhaps for a couple of weeks, when a given country makes the headlines for some reason.
Riboflavin: I’ve re-read the thread and I haven’t seen any European claiming that Western Europe is more culturally diverse than the USA or declaring ‘American politics is all far-right’. If somebody did make that accusation it would be reasonable for you to ask them for an objective justification, but so far nobody else has made that sort of claim.
What do you think protocols for meeting people, dating, finding a job, buying/renting a house/apartment, acceptable topics of conversation, and a number of other ‘how do I go through a day’ issues are in Western Europe? What do you think the diversity of laws and political choices on various issues there is here? It seems to me you’re trying to get your retaliation in first for accusations you imagine a European poster might make in the future.
Perhaps this is an invitation to stray outside the rules of this forum, but I’m still interested to know why you’ve developed the opinion that Western Europe is less culturally diverse than the USA. Even without stats to back up the comment or an objective definition of what “cultural diversity” is, there must be some reason why that’s what you think.
There would be essentially three courses during which kids would be taught about foreign countries : Foreign languages, history and geography courses.
Foreign languages : it seems that for some reasons, people learning english aren’t taught much about english-speaking countries, except of course for the fact that the texts you’re learning from (say a newspaper article) refers to events, issues, etc…in the country where they were written. On the other hands, when one study, say spanish, russian, etc…, for some reason, teachers are much more likely to teach about the relevant countries customs, history, way of life, etc…
History : I must say that world history was, and probably still is, quite lacking in french schools (except perhaps for the last years of high school, and even then…). History taught is very-french centered, and only secondarily european-centered. As for the rest of the world…there’s not much which is taught…Beside, the teaching of fistory here is also seriously lacking concerning contemporary (or even merely recent) history. I would say I don’t think french kids learn more about the rest of the world, especially the rest of the world as it is now, during history courses.
Geography : that would probably be the courses where the most is taught about foreign countries, so I’m going to elaborate a little. You must know that what is taught is defined on a nation-wide level, so there isn’t a lot of difference from a school to another.
-“Ecole primaire” (6-10 y.o. kids) : The geography which is taught is of course very basic : things like french major features (rivers, mountains, etc…), how to read a map, various landscapes, etc…Though I vaguely remember having been told about Africa, for instance, I don’t think there’s a lot of things the kids would learn about foreign countries.
-“College” (11-14 y.o. kids…nothing to do with the american college) : Each year was (not sure if it’s still the case) dedicaced to one continent and one “side” of geography. For instance, one year it would be Africa and the climates in the world, another year, America and the landscapes and terrains, etc…
-Lycee (15-18 y.o. pupils) : Geography is much more centered on human and economical issues than about “pure” geography (features, names, etc…). IIRC, the first year was dedicaced to France, the second to Europe, and the third to the major other countries. For instance, for my final high school exam (that would be something like the english A-level), I had to write an essay (and fill a map) about Japanese industry. That would be quite typical of what we were taught about.
Concerning the Lyce, I must add though that the kind of teaching I’m refering to isn’t necessarilly typical, because high school in France is at the same time :
-quite selective (so for instance, what I stated above refer to the “general” studies, while part of the kids go to technical “lycees”, where there’s much less emphasis on general culture and studies, and much more on job-related courses, or even technical schools, were it’s even more true). So, a significant part of the kids would be taught much less about geography (or french, or maths, etc…for that matter).
-quite specialized. There are several “series” to choose from, and the content of the courses varies widely from one to another. For instance, I was in the “mathematics and physics” serie, and I got 9 hours/week of mathematics, and only 2 hours/week of phylosophy, while it could have been the reverse for someone belonging to say, the “letters and arts” or “letters and languages” serie. So, how much you learn about geography could depend on the serie you choose.
I’m not sure anymore how much we were taught about geography. I believe it was like 2 hours/week during the “college” and “lycee” (11 to 18 y.o.).
By the way, I strongly disagree with people stating that american states are somehow the same that european countries. An american state doesn’t sign international treaties, doesn’t put tarrifs, doesn’t wage wars, doesn’t print a currency, and so on (and it doesn’t even have a different language, a significantly different history, etc…).
.A given american state might have a population , GNP, etc…roughly similar to a given european country, but nevertheless, it’s of a much lesser importance because it isn’t an independant actor. Even on purely internal issues, its possibilities are rather limited by the federal government, the courts, etc… So, despite the size and GNP of, say, California, the name, political leaning and decisions of its governor are much more irrelevant than the political leaning and decisions of a much smaller and poorer independant country.
Something I wanted to add at the end of my post about teaching of geography, history, etc…in France…I was probably very aknowledgeable about the Japanese industry, the US geographical features or the USSR policies some days before the high school final exam. But it doesn’t mean that it’s still the case. Things you’re taught about in school tend to fade and be forgotten quickly. So, though what a teenager knows is probably closely related to what he was taught at school, it’s probably not that much relevant when you’re comparing the “world-awareness” of, say, two 40 y.o. people.
Also, I forgot to stress that, though we were taught about a selection of “important” countries, we were never taught anything about the major part of the world. For instance, I was never taught anything about India (picking on purpose a not exactly irrelevant country)
Bloody hell, Riboflavin, that is not my motivation. You’ve alleged this of me before, too, and just as you were wrong then, you’re wrong now. I note that you are not picking up on the Americans in this thread who are also confirming this phenomenon; rather you’re casting straw men and false motivations at me due to my nationality and some perception you have of my alleged superiority complex. I request politely that you stop this crap.
Furthermore, in the previous thread - you remember, the one where you called me a “whiny European” (for it was in fact he) - we were citing the National Geographic survey of young adults that showed a woeful comprehension of the world from US respondents (closely followed by the UK). There’s your cite. Now stop with the straw men and the knee-jerk defensiveness.
As a Canadian when I travel in the U.S. I find a lot of people who know really nothing about Canada… mainly I get Saskawhat?? That sounds like the Loch Ness Monster!! In general they mainly have no idea anything about out country other than the fact that its north of them. This is surprising since we are right beside them.
I am sorry to disappoint you, but, aside from the fact that I cannot name Proposition 252 or title IX (nor do I see necessity to be able to name them for ‘global awareness’), Europeans are frequently quite aware of those. Not necessarily of any and all governors, but since, unlike European heads of state, they have little influence on the international stage, that is not quite comparable.
It is a fallacy to believe that Europeans are eurocentric. I myself have worked for 3.5 years in the US -independent of any German endeavor there. Numerous friends and relatives of mine go on vacation to the US not just occasionally, but regularly. Many high school students go to the US for a year, into guest families. There’s a huge difference between living in a foreign country on your own compared to being part of a community of fellow countrymen as in, say, a facility of the US armed forces somewhere abroad. While you still learn some things about the other country, you are not as involved in day-to-day events.
Many Europeans also go on vacation to SE Asia and other locations -not just as ‘all inclusive’ tourists. It is an illusion to believe that all Europeans do is travel 100 miles by train. While such is the case for many, for many others, it is not. Of course, a lot depends on a)financial means and b)individual interests and c)education -someone with extensive foreign language knowledge is more likely to go backpacking in the Himalayans than someone who can barely speak ‘official’ German.
Just the other day, there was a report here on traveling carpenter journeymen who, during their traveling time, went to Namibia. As a former colony, there’s a few people there who speak German, and they worked there with one of them on a construction project.
Totally aside from that, I believe the extent of immigration to Europe from outside is hopelessly underestimated by most Americans, and their cultural dissimilarity. A great percentage of immigrants in Europe is, unlike their hosts, muslim. Asian religions are also more prevalent than some might think - London, Paris and the German city of Duesseldorf have quite large japanese communities. And we’re talking about Japanese here, not japanese americans, who, while having cultural roots in Japan, have ‘americanized’ to some degree or other over time.
As for the cultural diversity, there is plenty of it in Europe if one looks closely rather than just thinking of ‘the Euros’. Whether we’re talking about slavic vs. western European people, orthodox vs. catholic/protestant christians, let alone minorities like the Sami, if one wants to go looking for diversity, one is bound to find it.
Not the least, however, and having experienced media on both sides of the pond, I have to confirm the point made above, there is, comparatively, extensive coverage of other cultures and places in European media, frequently at or around primetime, and not always just as infotainment.
However, as a more impartial ledger, I’d like to recall the survey published by National Geographic a while ago ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1126_021120_TVGeoRoperSurvey.html ) The results, while less clear-cut, are definitely grounds for concern.
I definitely remember quite a bit of coverage on India at school in Germany, including the history of the division of the British posessions into India and Pakistan and the secession of Bangladesh, as well as cultural peculiarities, such as caste society, and how it came to have its current layout. I don’t remember each and every detail nowadays, but a lot of it is stored somewhere in subconscious memory to resurface when given cues by a TV emission or a newspaper article. In other regions, India was used as an example of a devloping country in geography classes etc. There’s definitely a lot of coverage on the so-called ‘Third world’ over here, but also comparisons between the structural peculiarities of indusrial countries etc…
I think that some state governors have more influence on the international stage than, say, Luxembourg. The Mexican government consistently tries to lobby the border governments into favorable legislation. For instance, Prop. 187 was not viewed very favorably. Governors also make international business trips, trying to recruit foreign businesses to set up shop in their state. While they can’t go and sign a treaty, they can advertise. State legislation can often have an effect on cross-border trade.
[qutoe]It is a fallacy to believe that Europeans are eurocentric. I myself have worked for 3.5 years in the US -independent of any German endeavor there. Numerous friends and relatives of mine go on vacation to the US not just occasionally, but regularly. Many high school students go to the US for a year, into guest families. There’s a huge difference between living in a foreign country on your own compared to being part of a community of fellow countrymen as in, say, a facility of the US armed forces somewhere abroad. While you still learn some things about the other country, you are not as involved in day-to-day events.
[/quote]
I find that hard to believe. I mean, I’ve never heard of an American living abroad, participating in student exchanges or working in a foreign country, so I find it hard to believe that Europeans do so.
Again, I find it hard to believe that Europeans do this when Americans never vacation internationally.
Fascinating. Never heard of an American working abroad.
**
Yes, it probably is about the same as the US. Both have comparable percentage of foreign-born population (Well, France does, Britain is not close, that’s all I know of). Of course, how much of that French foreign-born comes from surrounding states, I’m not sure. Just as the US foreign-born mainly comes from Europe and Latin America.
Also, I would find it funny if there was a large community of Japanese-Americans living in Duesseldorf.
**
Same thing in the US. Whoop-de-doo.
I’d like to thank clairobscur for posting some real information about the influx of foreign nationals into modern day Europe. I’ll also add that I’m well aware of how the backlash has been going on for some time now. I specifically mentioned the Turkish guest workers in Germany for that reason. They have been a hot button issue for decades. The neo-nazi exclusionary politics surrounding the presence of Turkish immigrants has had a spill-over effect in France, Britain and Denmark to name a few nations. That last being my mother’s home country and a source of much curiosity for me.
I think it is very important to address “cultural diversity” at this point. I’ll posit that America has a larger degree of cultural diversity than anywhere on earth. Our constitution provides a much greater range of protection for conflicting belief structures and its provisions for free speech make individual expression a lot easier. There is no state religion and our historical role as the world’s melting pot is one major reason for all of this.
To be sure, our geographic location (and configuration) is another substantial factor as well. Poised between the world’s two major oceans, we stand at a continental crossroads like few others. The more recent industrialization of our nation also plays a significant part. Economic power structures have not had such prolonged periods to entrench themselves. A more transparent business system only enhances the beneficial aspects of this. The ability to obtain wealth in our quasi-capitalist economy provides opportunities entirely absent in many other places. Despite their ignominious origins in slavery or its virtual equivalent, we now have noticeable African and Asian population segments. All of the above factors have been in play for two centuries and I am rather pleased with the results.
America does have a more culturally diverse population. Now, as to whether we have a larger degree of global awareness because of it is another matter completely. The United States is still largely a Caucasian nation and this is reflected in our political alliances (NATO) and a Euro-centric bias in news reporting. Some of this Euro-centrism in our news reporting can be traced back to the substantial influx of immigrants therefrom. However, I feel there is also an overly comfortable aspect found in the congruent and homogeneous components that western European and American culture have in common. While this is slowly changing, I am not so sure it is really transforming the typical mindset of average individuals in the United States.
America’s technical and resource based self sufficiency has lent it another far less becoming trait, one of insularity. Less dependent upon outside supply and knowledge based systems, we have become inbred about ethnic and cultural norms. Absorbing a wide spectrum of European immigrants, while a challange in some respects, was child’s play compared to the new wave of Vietnamese, Nigerian, Russian and other more far flung cultures currently arriving on our shores. It has long been a sticking point for myself that America seems to be reverting back to an “enclave” mentality.
During the first massive wave of immigration into the United States around the last century’s turn, discrimination was so outright that “Irishtown” was just as prevalent as “Chinatown” or “little Italy.” The first half of the twentieth century saw a lot of such divisiveness erode through homogenization, intermarriage and simple everyday exposure. I find that there has been a return to this “enclave” mentality in recent times. Silicon Valley has extremely distinct population centers with high concentrations of Vietnamese, Hispanic, Indian and Arabic immigrants. I feel this tends to thwart to proper course of assimilation that has made America so great. Similarly, there are individual foreign language publications and periodicals that directly pander to this sort of partitioned “diversity.”
This is anathema to what America represents and I look forward to when these newly constructed walls again begin to crumble. In some places, middle America has adopted a “circle-the-wagons” sort of xenophobic mentality against the constant influx of foreigners. I am routinely obliged to laugh out loud at white coworkers who parrot the “go-back-to-where-you-came-from” slogans they pick up from reactionary sources. I calmly point out to them that they need to leave as well if that is the case. America is a nation of immigrants.
And this is where my Frink-o-matic irony meter begins to smoke a bit. America’s greatness is a direct and easily traced result of cultural diversity and little else. Our continued technological excellence has derived from being a “brain drain” to the rest of the world by offering economic opportunity here that is second to none. How is it that so much of our population has willingly blinded themselves to any awareness of this diversity’s source? By this, I refer to any cognizance of the global community that is represented in such superb cross-section within our borders. I think it is a national disgrace.
America showed its might to great and good effect in both World Wars. Perhaps less so in the decades thereafter, but still with some decency. I’d like to think that recent conflicts we have engaged in were not so tainted by narrow national interests. Sadly, that sort of unenlightened self interest has begun to be an inescapable feature of recent interventions. America’s political power structure has begun to subvert its own ideals in a roughshod ride towards world domination. This had bred a concomitant complacency into a large portion of our population that if it isn’t American it doesn’t mean spit. I feel this to be both irresponsible and just plain wrong.
Without a functioning world view, America stands at risk of losing its moral compass. Recent talk about “negation” of low earth orbits and other such isolationist drivel directly reflect this trend. A virulent poison is being pumped into our national consciousness by those incapable of accepting diversity. The persistent lack of global awareness here at home is a direct manifestation of this. Somehow this must be reversed if America is to have any continued hope of lifting the lamp at freedom’s door.
This is an interesting topic, because it touches both how interested we are in world events, and what kind of information we actually receive through national media.
Answering the OP, yes, it’s my experience that the regular American Joe is less aware of world events, history and distant cultures, than his European counterpart. But I also think that the subject is much more complex than this. As this board and others has proven, there are great many Americans who are very interested and knowledgeable - and, counterwise, in European countries there are a substantial group of people completely ignorant even of basic mechanisms inside their own society.
I disagree however with the notion that Europe is more “culturally diverse” (politically yes) than America. Peeling off the European outskirts, I find Europeans pretty uniformed (and more so than America), even though they are living in a vast number of countries with different languages and different laws. Whether Europeans have a King or a President isn’t the issue. Rather it is a strong public school system, a common semi-Christian moral standard, and the lack of strong class distinctions as a result of social democracy politics that binds Europeans together. This is changing however.
I would think that some of the things that influence awareness is:
Media headlines: As others have mentioned, while American media (at least those I follow) usually do stories from America, or occasionally about an American abroad, European media usually have local, national and international stories in every issue. When I was growing up 15-20 years ago, right before the commercial radio boom, Norwegian regional papers were diveded into sections of local news, sports, and national news, followed by some pages called “The World” (or something similar) with several stories from around the globe.
Journalism “style”: This has not been mentioned here yet I think, but a few American scholars has written pieces about this lately. Basically, American journalism changed with Watergate, going from objective just-report-the-events to Investigative Journalism. They (the scholars) claim this was partly due to the public’s lack of trust in the government at that point in time. However, 10-15 years ago it changed back to just-report-the events. Investigative journalism also spread to Europe, but here it never reverted back, instead it evolved into analytic what-does-this mean journalism, as well as an increase of background and feature stories.
History: Some claim that Americans are not so concerned about the past, while Europeans often look to the past to determine their future. I don’t know how much thruth there is in this. But I have sometimes noticed that Americans are not well informed, or even misinformed, about many past events, WWII being one recurring issue.
Travel: A couple of decades ago, one popular thing to do among the young was to a buy an InterRail ticket, which was valid on every train in Europe for an entire month (ala backpacking). Today travelling has become so cheap that most of my friends travel abroad 2-5 times each year. These are typically short trips (Thursday through Sunday), instead of a single long trip during the summer. Americans don’t have to travel abroad to travel the same distanse as Europeans.
Travel in the media: Following the increasing popularity of travel, most papers and magazines today has a “Cool places to go to” section. These articles also comes with background on culture and people.
Education: I don’t know much about the educations systems in America nor in other European nations. I suspect there is huge differences in Europe. But I do know that when I finished school, I had been taught the story of the world starting with the ancient times, and I could categorize every major event or war from 1800 up until present by year or name, - including what political, social and economical impact those event had on society. And today, most are forgotten.
These days one of the most popular things to do as a student is to study abroad for a year or more, and it’s regarded as a very nice thing to have on ones CV. I never did this myself, but my brother went to Spain, then to Central America for a year, followed by a year in Germany and Poland. Australia is also a popular place to study.
This question deserves a topic of it’s own. I have often said that while the hyprocrisy of America is its shady human rights standards (its executions, justice system), its tendency to ignore the very same international law they impose on others, as well as its desire to overthrow (sometimes democratically elected) governments they see as enemies and support dictators they see as allies (which I get slammed for by many Americans), the hyprocrisy of Europe is the way immigrants are welcomed by some, and to some extent also the way they are treated by the governments (which I get slammed for by some Europeans).
The bottom line is that the last couple of decades many Europeans have increasingly felt unrest and insecurity in their lives. Earlier it was quite common for a man to work for only one employer his entire life, - and the government always provided for basic needs. Today, privatization is everywhere, and companies come and go every day. At the same time the very same media which should bring the people closer to its leaders, instead have amplified the distance between ruler and follower.
The rightwing parties ceased the opportunity stemming from this dissatisfaction. Their pitch lines to the voters are: a) immigrants live on social security which you are paying for with your tax money, b) in the cases where immigrants actually work they have taken the job from someone like you, and c) the mainstream government doesn’t do enough to stop criminals.
A recent study from France revealed that many of those who voted far rightwing in the latest presidential election, actually had voted far leftwing in some previous election. These voters are simply protest voters, dissatisfied with their own situation, and feeling alienated by the mainstream parties. Quite coincidently these voters are the same people that are less educated and more ignorant of world events.
Some of these far rightwing parties have come from nothing to instant bloom (Sweden, the Netherlands), then they have disappeared just as quickly. Others have been around for some years now (especially Le Pen in France), and they are usually supported by 5%-15% of the population.
The good news is that the majority of Europeans are very aware of what they stand for, and they do take to the streets whenever these parties go too far. So I’m not worried that any of these parties would gain significant political power in the future. As far as I know the only Western European country where racism is rooted beyond abnormality today is Austria, but of course, I might be wrong.
Welcome aboard(s) Alien, and thank you for an excellent post.