@ C Elegens;
Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>...<snip>...@Lazarus: I hope you do not see any need to take offense. No, would never have considered posting an "ignorant Africans/Mexicans/Russians"-thread, since to my knowledge, no such expression or image exists, instead, people from various coutries in Africa, Mexico or Russia are targets for other generalised epithomes. It's also pretty obvious that most countries in Africa are very poor and don't have a school system that includes the majority of children.</STRONG>
I understand. Perhaps it is the term "ignorant" which is particularly provocative. I understand the stereotype you are trying to express about Americans, but the term "ignorant" has some very specific and rather unpleasant connotations. It is a very belittling term - very condescending. My questioning the use vis-a-vis another nationality was an attempt not to bring up new stereotypes (whether they exist or not), but to show THAT word next to other nations titles. I think the mere intimation that we would have a discussion about "ignorant Mexicans/Russians/Africans" would be grounds for banning - but when dealing with the "ignorant Americans," no one is supposed to take offense. Again, I guestion whether this is right. ANY stereotype is just a petty form of racism. It is developing an opinion of people without any knowledge of individuals, but somehow letting race or nationality determine your thoughts on the subject.
Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>However, many ethnic groups/nationalities are labelled with generalised epithomes, and IMO it would be equally interesting to examine the concept of "cultivated Englishmen" (why are Brits, mainly the English, often viewed as highly cultivated?)</STRONG>
See above. I do not know why people possess the foolish prejudices that they do. It is simply an evasion of the responsibility of actually taking the time to learn and understand. As such, I don't know that much "debate" on the subject is worthwhile.
Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Sure I remember Weasel's list, but I don't fully understand the connection between successful minority groups, freedom and my questions about the image of American "ignorance". Do you mean freedom causes people to behave in such a way so that other cultures might view this as ignorance?</STRONG>
My reference to Weasel's post was specifically aimed at a larger point: the US rewards success, and that is a central aspect of our nation. We (as I stated) wish to live, be free, and be happy. Whether fortunately or unfortunately, however, we happen to be a "superpower," and this forces certain international issues into our national government. It may be that the average American would really rather just let the world move on by and not have to worry about what is happening in the middle east. I don't know that that is a BAD thing. And I certainly don't think it indicates "ignorance."
Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Aside from this discussion, another question: You say the US is the most free nation on earth. In what respects are the US more free than for instance France, Holland or Sweden? What variables are you using when you compare different countries?</STRONG>
You are correct this is defintely a side issue. I do believe that you and I have skirted this issue a couple of times - perhaps it is worth a PM? In essence, I view freedom as inherently bound up with governmental oversight and size. The more government a nation has, the less free they become. The US is moving away from small government, but it is still the smallest that I am aware of in a modern and industrialized nation.
Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>You neighbour might be "ignorant" about Kosovo, but IMO the issue in your example would not boil down to "ignorance", it would boil down to personal moral and values. What we feel "has to do with us" in highly individual, and differences in politics and culture affects us a lot here.</STRONG>
Exactly. See, now you are putting quotation marks around the term ignorant as well!
Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>According to my personal moral and values, everybody should care about other people's suffering and especially we in the rich world who has the power to do anything about it. I could present a lot of arguments why I think we should care about world events in general, but that's beside the point. Your example points out something that might be relevant to my questions: Do you think Americans feel less concerned about "world events" than other people in the industrialised world? (I obviusly don't count people who have limited or no access to media.) Sure there are people like your example neighbour everywhere, but do you think such values are more common in the US than elsewhere? If so, then the alleged "ignorance" might simply be a cultural difference in values.</STRONG>
This paragraph has a lot of fun points! First: other people suffering in the world may or may not be of concern to me. They are to you, and that is fine. My neighbor? Why the heck should a starving man in Afghanistan be of any concern to him? Why should that starving man have the right to take the bread from my neighbors mouth? Because THAT is what you indicate with your statement that the US "has the power" to do something about it. You are saying that the US should take money from its citizens, and ship it overseas to starving and homeless people. My neighbor does NOT understand this at all! He is of the opinion that if he WANTED to help people, he could DONATE money to the Red Cross or UNICEF or Doctors without Frontiers; but he'll be damned if he is going to be happy about having his tax money to to helping people that he has never met, never will meet, and has no interest in whatsoever.
Kosovo is a particularly interesting case in point. My neighbor doesn't care one bit about Kosovo. But maybe Greek citizens would have more interest in the subject since it is closer to home: they are dealing with refugees, etc. So the average Greek citizen may be more aware of the situation on Kosovo, and may be more interested in seeing it resolved. Does this make my neighbor more "ignorant" than the Greeks? No, it means that he simply has a different perspective on the situation.
And, to answer your other point: do I think my neighbor is typical of the US? Maybe. I don't know, and I wouldn't care to guess. To imply, however, that this is a "cultural difference" is, as far as I can tell, exactly this idea of culture racism that you are concerned about. The entire concept of a stereotype, as I have said, is a form of racism. As such, it has no place in anyones thought process. To those who persist in such stereotypes, I say: get over it. It is a barrier to understanding.
Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>The international and national comparisons I know of are aimed at comparing the educational systems, not the people. I think the idea is that all students in all nations the same opportunites to learn skills that are of importance worldwide for both society and the indivudual, so I guess the comparison is like checking what contries need to improve, and perhaps also give an opportunity to learn from educations systems that manage to transfer a higher degree of knowledge to students.</STRONG>
Hmmm. I understand your point, but I am not entirely sure I agree. I guess my main difficulty is in believing that any test which is supposed to be standardized and fair for the entire world is even a possibility. It may serve to indicate trends, but more than that ... I think it just serves to perpetuate stereotypes. Again, I find that counter-productive.
You are getting a lot of flak for this subject. As I stated, I understand your overall interest in the idea of stereotypes, and I do not question your scholarly intent. However, I do question the use of the term "ignorant," and I do question the utility of discussing peoples stereotypes.
But I can't resist a good debate!
Edit: for clarity
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Lazarus ]
