Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
healthyskeptic, some of your points are sound and some are not.
In my view the USA's introspection has nothing to do with being a superpower. It is partly a function of having a large population, and it's partly cultural. To compare to the Middle Kingdom is kinda hilarious, because it in fact makes the opposite point. The Chinese of that time were inward looking, but had no phones, TV, internet, radio or planes. They literally had no way of knowing that they were not the centre of the world. Modern Americans have no such excuses.
Also, you don't need to tell us about the USA. We know about your geography and culture. That's the way cultural imperialism works - the whole world knows everything about you, but you know almost nothing about us. We even know about the dumb things your beauty queens say!
We know that you are isolationist because we are still annoyed that you were late to WW2. We're grateful for your contribution to winning the war in the Pacific, but kind of pissed off that tens of thousands of Aussies were already dead before you worked out there was a war on. Rightly or wrongly, we would never do that to you (witness our troops in Iraq - we're so loyal that we even show up for really stupid wars), although admittedly you will never need our help in the same way.
And you really don't need to tell us that Australians travel internationally more than Americans. Mate, there are undiscoverd Amazonian tribes that travel internationally more that Americans do.
I've already refuted you. Being trolled by you I don't intend to do. Now you're playing stupid games with straw men and really have nothing to say. Your comments are idiotic. They're not worthy of more.
In my view the USA's introspection has nothing to do with being a superpower.
Then you're simply mistaken.
Prior to WWII we were an isolationist superpower, something of a sleeping elephant. I.e. we were isolationist because we could afford to be, which is testament itself to the wealth and power within our borders as well as the advantages of geographic isolation and weak neighbors. That is after all exactly why the British Empire sought to colonize America, for the wealth and power whoever controlled it would posses. There is hardly anything we can't grow or mine in America, and our military policy is to secure the resources we lack, such as oil. We also have the population and economy to support a vast military. The US outspends militarily the next nine nations combined.
Not that it's a wise policy, and doesn't have serious long term blow back, but that's what it is basically in a nut shell.
To be historically factual without sentimentality, Australia by comparison was a penal colony, and always lacked resources, and does to this day. Which is one Realist explanation why Australia will never be as isolationist, because it simply can't be. In fact, Australia relies on alliance with the US to secure many global resources.
"phones, TV, internet, radio or planes"
That's not the point. Resources and distance are the point. Ancient China like modern America has vast distances and resources within borders.
Also, you're equating distance by sea with distance by land, which is mistaken. Travel by sea is far more efficient which reduces distances. As is manifestly evident by Australia's almost entirely coastal population which relies heavily on trade.
Also you're equating the green rural midlands of America with the nearly barren inland of Australia, which is also mistaken. Australia's entire population is 21M. America is 300M. America has more people living inland in green plains producing rich crops, but hundreds of miles away from major cities, than Australia has in total population.
Australia, despite it's geographic dissimilarity from Europeans, is actually much like European countries around it's inhabited coastal lands. It has a small European size population, and is greatly dependent on trade. Which is why, Australia like Europeans, but unlike America, is more internationally minded.
We're not allowed to laugh at this? Really? I thought it was hilarious and cathartic. This girl is not "a little dumb" or "if not stupid, very ignorant," or whatever. This girl redefines ignorance -- and her appearance on Today wasn't much better. And her confidence that the gibberish she's uttering is satisfactory makes her positively Dubyan.
Is there really a prevalent misogynistic stereotype that women -- especially pretty women -- don't know how to say "Iraq?" Or speak intelligibly in their native tongue? Surely not.
The brain-dead youth culture of "My Super Sweet Sixteen" and "The Real World" is a fucking poison that we've all been breathing for an impossibly long time. When is it going to be okay for us to stigmatize stupidity and ignorance again?
I'm sorry, but after six years of Bush -- all of this oppressive anti-intellectualism -- I'm ready to laugh my bitter ass off at the stupid and ignorant (as they laugh their way to the bank). In the battle for America's brain, the good guys* lost the war a long way back; leave us our gallows humor, at least.
* (I'm sure I'll get called out for "good guys," but what's the alternative? "Good women?" Is that colloquial?)
You did not refute me and just because you want to say so does not make it so. Saying someone is idiotic and ad hominem attacks are not refutation. You did not counter my specific argument that the culture wars and Lynne Cheney and her ilk have influenced to our detriment the teaching of geography and history in the public schools.
You KNOW NOTHING about the issue that I raised and you don't want to admit it. I am not saying there is not validity to your point because in fact your point is not counter to mine. In other words, because you did not provide a counterpoint, you refuted nothing.
You seem to think that there is only one truth: Your truth.
You seem to think that there is only one side to any argument: Your side. You don't seem to realize that there can be many facets to an issue and more than one reason contributing to America's geographical ignorance. In fact there are several reasons. The reason I ask your age is that you seem to be so young or immature that you do not understand this possibility. You display a mind distinctly lacking in nuance.
Furthermore, you want to reserve the right to dish it out but you cannot take it. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Here is your MO. Like the Energizer Bunny you seize a position and begin to beat your incessant drum. You then try refute all ideas to what anyone else offers whether they are counter your point or not. What a waste of ammunition. If your cannot refute their points, you offer what you think are intimidating insults. Sadly this seems to work on some people. It does not work on me.
You can never be an effective rhetorician if you cannot recognize the useful parts of counter arguments. You cannot counter what you choose to ignore and you cannot win your points by your careless and scatter shot method.
Miss South Carolina flubbed a question about people's knowledge of their OWN nation -- not about the rest of the world. Part of the reason that children in the US are ignorant of their own country is connected to the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990 -- which Lynne Cheney was very much involved in. Or do you think she has had no life outside being married to our current vice president?
If you are ignorant of this matter, then you cannot refute my point by talking about Asia. You could only refute my point if you had knowledge of and were willing to discuss said culture wars.
Get it?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
