I, a Canadian, am still reasonably fond of Americans.
That fondness is not affected in the least by whatever shlub is in the White House at any given moment.
Oddly, sentiments talking about how the Americans know nothing about other countries seem to come from people who think President = U.S., which is ridiculously untrue.
In fact, Andy, he’s already pointed out that the few Americans he knows personally are really great people. But we’re talking about the IMAGE presented here by a country, by its actions on the world stage and the events occuring within its borders. Reputation. The assimilation of all information into a coherant whole.
Actually I’m not saying any other country does a better job of presenting itself, but at least they aren’t going to war with countrys in other continents because they might possibly present a thread that they’ve given no solid evidence for.
Hey ! So the guy liked a little sauerkraut with his schinkenwurst. Not sure that’s a reason (good or bad)…maybe if you went back a few more years…
Well, that is my point exactly. Why cling on to stereotypes when all the real information you have suggests otherwise?
Of course the media influences people, but we really are in trouble if we’ve reached the stage where we can’t distinguish between media opinion and facts, and, more worryingly, allow the fictitious to colour our attitudes more greatly than the truth!
I suspect one difference between what many of us think we “know” about the US based on the way it is presented in our media and what we think we “know” about other nations is that we are simply exposed to a whole lot more US culture through television, newspapers, music, cinema etc than we are to the culture of other nations.
While we may intellectually reject the role the media plays in shaping our perceptions of foreign cultures, I suspect that few of us know enough about many nations currently in the global spotlight (Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan) to not be substantially influenced by the way they are presented to us in our own media.
Quite frankly, we hear an awful lot more here about what Bush is saying and the US is doing than we do about what’s happening in other nations so it’s hardly surprising that we acquire opinions about issues which involve the US even when those issues do not directly affect our own nations.
The US - probably above all other nations, due to the sheer pervasiveness of its media - plays to a global audience whether it cares to or not. Inevitably, the presentation of US government policies and actions in 60 second soundbites exposes it to more criticism than nations whose actions are less public. In that respect, the media has become a double-edged sword for the US government and one which it probably isn’t quite sure how to wield at the moment.
I don’t think any other nation has really come to grips with the age of instant global scrutiny of its actions either - most are just less visible than the US and so their actions attract less attention and are less likely to be “judged” on the world stage.
Kyoto and the big land mine ban didn’t go anywhere under the Clinton administration. Did Clinton help kill the reputation of the United States in the international community or is this all Bush’s fault? For your information Bush isn’t ignoring the Kyoto treaty. Our Senate never ratified it and therefore we are not bound by it.
Marc
I understand that. My point is that nearly every country has negative stereotypes associated with it. The difference seems to be that people think the American stereotypes actually represent all Americans.
Jerry Springer is hardly a representitive view of the America I know in real life.
Another thing. I’m sick of Europeans saying that Americans are not as aware of other countries. European countries are as small as our states. Traveling through 5 countries in Europe is like me driving from New York to Maine. Other than Canada and Mexico, its a friggin 10 hour flight for us to get to the next country. Even so, a lot of Americans travel extensively outside the USA.
I recently read an article that has really made me rethink things about our “president”.
http://www.bvalphaserver.com/modules.php?name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=9374
The thing is that outside of the US where the Rep/Dem doesn’t really matter, Clinton was from my experience way more respected that Bush Jnr. Even forgetting about actual politics for a second Bush Jnr. is from what I can see almost a laughing stock in Europe. He doesn’t carry the post very well. His tone is condescending, the pause for effect every sentence makes it seem like he’s stupid (or is that the reason 
). He just doesn’t have it.
Even Pres’s who politically would have had a hard time in Europe didn’t get it as hard as Bush. Regan who I remember got a lot of abuse over here due to his apparent forgetfulness and the whole cowboy thing wasn’t looked at with the same scorn as Bush Jnr. is.
It’s not just about politics, which he’d have a hard time selling in most of Europe anyway due to the stronger right-wing here, it’s the man himself.
Reagan. 
I’m afraid to say that I don’t know a single non-Merkin who doesn’t think Bush is a know-nothing, scary little bozo. Even my most conservative, right-wing, Thatcher-loving friend thinks the same way. I agree with yojimbo that it’s down to personality. Facile, but true.
I believe most thinking people do not believe this rubs off too badly on the American people - the Gore/Bush result was clearly so damn close.
Make of this information what you wish. You can tell us it’s none of our business, but we’re still going to comment, because he’s the leader of the most influential power on earth, and his internal and external policies have an effect on us. When America sneezes, the World catches a cold.
Why the defensiveness though? It’s not like you guys have anything to prove - you’ve won. You’re the only superpower left; the richest, most powerful nation ever, with the largest military machine in the history of humanity. Turning it round, if you were to tell me that Tony Blair is an egotistical sleazeball with his nose planted firmly in GWB’s heiny, I couldn’t help but agree with you.
And the point of that is? Does the size of one’s country justify ignorance about other countries? I don’t travel much. In fact I’ve only been to three different countries myself. But still I claim to know more about other countries in Europe, Asia, Latin America and also North America than I think the average American does.
Most European countries also teach both European and American history, whereas the US focus (only?) on American history.
I know most stuff is stereotypical. But I also don’t get the impression that the US wants to prove it wrong by the was they present themselves in the media.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Sephic, do not use the quote feature to misrepresent a poster as saying something s/he did not. Please read the FAQ on posting quidelines and take it to heart.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Moderator’s Note: Sephic, do NOT attribute to other posters things they have not actually said, even as a rhetorical device. Please see the announcement Don’t falsely attribute quotes to other SDMB members, located at the top of each forum, including this one.
My apologies, on none of the other message boards I’ve ever posted at has altering quotes been a problem - I find it irritating when people quote long segments of another person’s post, it lengthens threads unnecessarily. I think it was pretty obvious I was being sarcastic anyway, but point noted.
I’ve already said all countries have negative stereotypes, AND that they don’t represent all people in a country, as stereotyping inherantly lends itself to making blind generalities. MY point is that other countries aren’t invading countries posing no obvious direct threat, just because they can.
Is the way the current Bush administration is behaving representing America badly to the rest of the world? Looking at this thread, I’d have to say yes.
On a side note: Was this Poster B mentioned in the announcement an American? Or is that just another stereotypical oddity that Americans seem to sue over anything?
Note: a regular customer in the shop where I work is planning to sue the company for selling him a cheap camera which wrecked a film. I know its not just Americans who sue over silly things. But I’m curious.
Good for you. What are you basing that opinion on? I have arbitrarily decided that I know more about everything than the average European. Does that make it true?
No, unless the things have changed, we still learn about the history of other countries in school.
We did not get to be the richest most powerful country in the world by being a nation of ignorent rednecks.
Hey! I want to see what Sephic wrote!
As far as I can see, none of my posts have been edited.
Anytime a group of people are discussing a national leader, and someone works in a quote from the Simpsons, you know you live in the best country in the world. 
Under Bush’s leadership, the US overthrew the awful Taleban/al Qaeda regime in Afghanistan. Rather than “shooting from the hip” or behaving like a “cowboy,” there was careful, methodical planning and effective execution. As a result, the war was won quicker than most people expected.
As a result, thousands of Afghans were saved from starvation. (Since the Talibvan was interfering with relief shipments of food.) Also, it ended a regime that was killing thousands of Afgan citizens. Europeans are safer, because al Qaeda was weakened.
What credit do Bush and the US get for this effort?