I doubt it is as important as where Maharlika lives. In the US, you can get by with a High School Diploma. If you have a college degree, you get paid more for the same job. The higher the degree, the more you get paid, generally. You can also get by a GED(General Education Diploma) but, IIRC, you don't get paid as much as you would if you had a High School Diploma. There is insentive(sp?) to get a good education, but is that enough incentive? *shrugs*Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Maharilika describes that education is the key to success where he lives. I would not say that is true in Sweden, :. What about US?</STRONG>
), which lasts 3-4 years. That is not compulsory, but it's required for university. 
I went through twelve years of school(K-10 with a "special" grade called Transitional 1st between K and 1st), dropped out, passed my GED, then went straight into college at 17. While intellectually ready, I was not emotionally mature enough(and I'm still not), so I'm having a little trouble adapting to college. It's not necessarily the best way, but it's not too difficult to get into college by the age of 17, granting a couple of years headstart. Does this hurt the overall intelligence of the nation? I dunno. Does any of this have relevance? I ain't got a clue 'bout that.Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>@SS: In Sweden we have a different education system than in the US, primary/elementary school last from 6-16 and is compulsory. Then you go to what is called "gymnasium" in Swedish (has nothing to do with gymnastics
90% of Swedish students take those extra 3-4 years, and thus finish school when they are 19-20. It's very common to take one year abroad, often in the UK, US or France. After that, most people can get a decent job, and higher education is absolutely not needed to live a good life. </STRONG>
Well for many people - economical succes equals succes in general, therefore it is often "celebrated" more than other kinds.Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG><snip>
I would question that the US rewards success. It rewards material success: if you make a fortune, you are important, you are more worthwhile than other people--and let's face it: this is by no means either a modern or American attitude. The US simply does in the open what many other cultures, particularly European ones, have done quietly for years. French government scandals, anyone...?
<snip>
</STRONG>
Personally, I don't view you or any other American as "ignorant" just because you come from the US. Quoted from this site: [url="http://www.psc.uc.edu/sh/SH_Racism.htm"]http://www.psc.uc.edu/sh/SH_Racism.htm[/url]Cultural Racism:
Overt Examples: The extermination of Jews in the Holocaust. The enslavement of African Americans.
Covert Example: The unrealistic and stereotypical portrayal of ethnic minorities in the media.
Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>I'll have ye know I talk a bit like the people from Trainspotting! So, um, I guess that's true.
So the Newcastle accent is similar to Glaswegian? (I've only met one Geordie in my life, that was ages ago, and it was on Shetland, so I thought he spoke Queen's English compared to the locals )
I may not be an American , but I think I'm "ignorant" too on a lot of things. Why? Right on the head, CE!Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Exactly
An example, a bit far-fetched, but to illustrate how an image can be based both on "facts" and false prejudice, but still be erranous: Far into the 20th century, Europeans and Americans with African background were viewed as "less intelligent" and "less knowlegable" than white-coloured Europans and Americans. Why was this? Mostly, it was a mix between total unfounded prejudice, pseudosciences like phrenology and the fact that people with African background scored lower on IQ-tests and had lower grades in school at group level. (IQ tests don't measure intelligence, but they measure school-knowledge quite well). So, obviously there was a factual ground for believing African-Europeans/Americans at group level were less knowledgable that the whites about such stuff that the school teaches. Here we see one of the major flaws with statistics - they might describe an actual difference, but they say nothing about how or why the difference came to be. Some people of course made a racist interpretation of these differences, and draw the conclusion that people with African background are inherently, genetically less smart/intelligent/knowledgeble than white people. This we know today is utter crap - the statistical differences were (and still are) because of sociocultural differences, not biological.
So, my personal ideas are something like: If the view of Americans as ignorant have some founding, it may be due to cultural differences (for example: Let's say US schools don't focus as much as European schools on world history, and because of this the average American is less knowledgable about world history than the average European. Americnhey are viewed as less knowledgable in general since Europeans value history a lot and other subjects, that Americans might be better at, are less valued by Europeans.)
Or, the idea of "ignorant" Americans is total crap, it's totally unfounded - then it's IMO even more interesting to examine how and why this image has formed and ultimately - to get rid of.
Again, I'd like to please ask everybody not to express generalised derogative statements about any group of people because of nationality or ethnic background.</STRONG>
Hear you loud and clear.LOLOriginally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>"except for Trainspotting"
I'll have ye know I talk a bit like the people from Trainspotting! So, um, I guess that's true.
LOL!Posted by CE -
@Yshania: About why Brits, and especially the English are viewed as "cultivated" - I agree with you that media has a lot to do with this. Media affects us all a lot, and Brits are certainly often portrayed as intellectual and cultivated. Many UK films that have become popular in Sweden, are portraying a very "romantified" version of the turn of the last century, and also they only portray the upper classes. (For instance the Merchant and Ivory films.) Also, I think the accent spoken by most British actors are connected to "high education" - except for Trainspotting, of course.
and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Vinnie Jones is hardly Hugh Grant or Roger Moore I think media If not the films - what about one of our biggest exports the BBC? I remember growing up thinking the BBC newsreaders were posh and London was a foreign country (maybe it is in it's cultural diversity)Replacing “ignorant” with some other word is not what I have in mind. Please understand that I disagree entirely and completely with this idea that we can somehow describe an entire nation with a word or two – especially a nation as diverse as the United States. I DO understand your intent here, and I DO understand that this stereotype exists. But I will NOT perpetuate this stereotype by throwing more labels at it, nor would I hazard a guess as to its cause.Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG> @Lazarus: Maybe the term "ignorant" is not good to express what I mean - I gladly exchange it for anything better. You say you understand what sterotype about Americans I'm trying to express here - suggestions for a better word than "ignorant"?
(Btw, you pointed out I had put the word "ignorant" within citation marks in my 2nd post, but if you look back at the inital post, I did that there as well
This is off-topic, so I will just clarify my point: it was my understanding that you feel we rich nations should help those nations who are not as rich. Again, that is MY understanding of your idea, correct me if I am wrong. I disagree with this. I do not believe that any one persons (or any one nations) suffering creates a moral obligation for another person (or nation) to help. YOU (individually) may wish to help people around the world – fine. I do not. My government, unfortunately, has other opinions, and continues to ship MY money around the world. I resent this. Please understand the relation here between “bread” and “money.” They are equivalent – and not in the slang use of the term “bread.” Any time the government taxes a person, they have taken bread out of that persons mouth – or taken a new CD, or a new pair of shoes, or a downpayment on a house. I specifically used the term “taking bread from my neighbors mouth,” because it is a more powerful statement that referring to taxes. When I talk of taxes, people simply shrug and say “well everybody has to pay taxes – no big deal.” What they fail to grasp is that the taxes – if not taken from the individual – become real, solid, utile items for that person, like bread. So my statement was an attempt to illustrate the issue. I think your confusion on the issue shows exactly that people do NOT understand that taxes = bread. It is important that this be understood, and that “foreign aid” be seen as what it really is: the taking of bread from one person, the the giving of that bread to another. I might add that this is done under the threat of force: for if I refuse to pay taxes, I can be jailed. This, of course, relates back to our other discussion on “freedom.” When any random thug threatens me for money, I can’t really be said to be free – but if the US government does it every year, well, that is supposed to be entirely different. It is only different to a degree – not in essence.<STRONG>Your reply to me indicates you have misunderstood something in my previous posts.
Where did I say that? I said "according to my personal moral, everybody should care about other people's suffering, especially we in the rich world who has the power to do something about it". Is that the same thing as saying "take bread out of the mouth of Americans and ship it overseas"?
The rich world is not only the US, and everybody in the US is not rich - actually, according to [url="http://www.thehungersite.com"]www.thehungersite.com[/url] 12 million American children live in food insecurity (meaning they are hungry or at risk to be). Since you misread my statement so grossly, I'd better specify:
The rich world = The US, Canada, Europe, Japan, Singapore, Australia, NZ, all other countries living in food surplus and very high material wealth.
We in the rich world = all of us who are enjoying our countries surplus - a French or US homeless would not count as "rich" </STRONG>
ANY attempt to look for “trends” or “values” or “cultural differences” in a society is cultural racism. It is the attempt to gloss over EVERY INDIVIDUAL, and instead attempt to make broad, blanket statements about a people. It does NOT matter whether these apparent “values” or “trends” or “differences” are positive or negative or neutral. My personal definition of racism is the attempt to judge a WHOLE without knowledge of every individual. That is what any stereotype does.<STRONG>Again, I am confused. I thought we agreed that if you and I have a personal interest in world events, fine, if your neighbour has not, fine, it's a question of personal values. I also thought we agreed this is not ignorance, this is a personal choice.
Then I asked you if you think the latter personal values are more common in the US than in other media-societies, since I thought this could be the kind of cultural difference that would create an image of being "ignorant" whereas instead, it's a question of personal choice. And now you reply with saying my question is cultural racism? I must have missed something along the way - please explain? </STRONG>
I did not say that your questions were a barrier to understanding. But this discussion has the potential to be. This subject re-enforces the idea that we can find some “reason” for the stereotypes that exist in the world. I do not believe that this is true, and I believe that asking after opinions and looking for a “basis” to these stereotypes makes people feel like it is OK to have these biases. They read people writing in and saying “well, maybe Americans are seen as ‘ignorant’ because [for example] we watch too much TV and don’t care about the rest of the world” and then they come away with the impression that Americans watch too much TV and don’t care about the rest of the world. Ooops! You have just given people REASON to believe that this stereotype is true. Again, trends mean NOTHING. The average American watches four hours of TV a day (I think I read that in this post), but I myself don’t even own a TV! So what is the use of setting up this idea that all Americans do is sit around and watch the tube?<STRONG>If you think my questions are a barrier against understanding, what factors do you think would improve understanding of this negative image of Americans?</STRONG>
Funny you should mention: another national (US) test came out with more bad news just the other day! Sad. Truthfully, I believe the US educational system is terrible, and I think it is only getting worse. If I had a kid, no way would I let them go to any school in the US. I’d stay home and teach him/her myself if it came down to it. But, again, this does not make Americans more or less “ignorant” than others. Some Americans are ignorant, some aren’t. Some are well-educated, some aren’t. That’s true of every nation on Earth! So please do not allow stereotypes to settle in your thought process based on some test scores.<STRONG>Oh, and about the TIMSS and other international comparisons - please don't assume I had part in conducting these studies!
How did you reply after reading a few posts by me, some time ago? You bracketed me with "leftwing liberals," and disparaged the group--correct me if I'm wrong.Lazarus gravely writes:
ANY attempt to look for “trends” or “values” or “cultural differences” in a society is cultural racism. It is the attempt to gloss over EVERY INDIVIDUAL, and instead attempt to make broad, blanket statements about a people. It does NOT matter whether these apparent “values” or “trends” or “differences” are positive or negative or neutral. My personal definition of racism is the attempt to judge a WHOLE without knowledge of every individual. That is what any stereotype does.
I'm not complaining; we've long since corrected the misunderstanding. But it seems to indicate that you do analyze expressed values of an individual for recognizable cultural patterns, and then bracket those individuals within groups for ease of reference and discussion. How can you express such revulsion of something you, I, and everyone else does, regularly?An excellent point. Let me explain. YOU I had (and have) information about. YOU I can and should attempt to understand and thenn judge. I felt I was on pretty safe ground describing you as "left wing," and was subsequently corrected. BUT judging an entire nation of people? Until and unless I have talked with each person in the US to about the same degree I have talked with you, I think I'll refrain from any judgement. Go ahead and "look for patterns" if you wish - but be careful where you see those "patterns" popping up where they are not applicable. EDIT: Or, as you say, where those patterns "promulgate hatred based on perceived differences" (approximate quote).Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>How did you reply after reading a few posts by me, some time ago? You bracketed me with "leftwing liberals," and disparaged the group--correct me if I'm wrong.
We all seek patterns in our lives, looking for expected forms of behavior among work companions, loved ones, our own society and those of others. Is this intrinsically bad? Could it be that your disgust is intended instead for the abuse of such patterning, as a device that promulgates hatred and anger based on perceived differences?
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: fable ]</STRONG>
Hey, fable, lets also agree to leave the editorials out of the quote brackets: "Lazarus gravely writes" is really, really condescending. I know you are a mod, so I have no recourse to your actions, but come on... Lazarus...grave. You don't get it?Lazarus writes:
Hey, fable, lets also agree to leave the editorials out of the quote brackets: "Lazarus gravely writes" is really, really condescending. I know you are a mod, so I have no recourse to your actions, but come on...
