Politics in a vacuum

[Swart]

I recently spent close to a month in the US. Although this was my first trip there I am actually fairly widely travelled having visited eleven different countries through South East Asia and the Pacific.

In each country I visit, I find it interesting to watch the news on TV to see the local perspective on events. I find it entertaining - fascinating even. I don't miss out on the news and there is always a good deal of international news even if it is from BBC World News, ITN or Sky news. At home I watch SBS world news and I also watch ITN when I'm up early and read the BBC world website, the Guardian and even Al Jazeera (which, I might add is actually surprisingly balanced).

Once in the US, however, I felt as if I'd entered a media blackout. Unless I checked internet sources (of which opportunities I had few) there was virtually zero world news of any significant content unless it directly affected the US. In addition, I found this strange polarisation of political opinion I had never before experienced. With nearly every political opinion there were two choices only - that's it! If you had an opinion any different from the prevailing then you were looked at blankly. There was virtually no ability to understand or comprehend a POV different than what they had experienced.

It was seriously like I had visited Mars. Issues that would have passed without comment in Australia were hot button topics. Social services taken for granted as a fixed part of Australian life by all sides of Australian politics were considered evil communist plots. Basic OECD standards of life expectancy and health were unheard of in discussions I had. In fact, there seem to be this pervasive "fear" of the rest of the world, that Europe and the rest of world was somehow against the US in some way. It was almost a fortress mentality.

In countries where world news actually exists, there does seem to be a flow of knowledge and opinion from one country to another. There are variations, yes, and local politics plays a part. However, there isn't the kind of isolation that I found in the US. The issues in one country correlate relatively closely to the issues in another. By contrast, it seemed that politics outside of the US didn't seem to exist as far as the US was concerned and that International politics mattered only insofar as it affected US domestic politics.

It seemed very much like the US existed in a "bubble" or vacuum, isolated from the rest of the world.

[Teshi]

Tell me about it. I used to work for a newspaper in Russia. Russia is an insanely egocentric country, with a lot of government control of the media. Our coverage still wasn't as jingoistic or skewed as most US mainstream media news coverage is. Frankly, a lot of US news gives me the heebie-jeebies.

[Joykins]

It is horrible isn't it? Sometimes I watch the international news shows on PBS to find out what is happening in the world. Our news journals aren't too bad, either, but you have to sort of actively seek out the information.

[benjdm]

Yup. There's a reason I listen to BBC news.

[seebs]

I have heard about this in relation to foreign exchange students from countries that don't have very harmonious relations with the US. They come here expecting to find that Americans are hostile to their way of life. Instead, it turns out that Americans can't remember the name of the student's country, and ask questions like "Is that in Europe? I've always wanted to see the pyramids."

Part of this is a question of scale; it's very hard for people to get used to the fact that the US is, in some ways, a conglomeration of 50 smallish countries with very good trade relations. One of my friends had relatives from Scotland visiting, and they wanted to drive to California for the weekend; they had no concept that this was substantially further than, say, Copenhagen to Madrid.

[Swart]

I have heard about this in relation to foreign exchange students from countries that don't have very harmonious relations with the US. They come here expecting to find that Americans are hostile to their way of life. Instead, it turns out that Americans can't remember the name of the student's country, and ask questions like "Is that in Europe? I've always wanted to see the pyramids."

This is part of the problem I am referring to. There is very little knowledge of the "outside" world. This is where it gets worse. Whilst for internal politics there are only two acceptable points of view, for external politics there is only one!

For example, the war of 1812 is barely understood inside of the US. It is one of my favourite topics of history. What's so fascinating about it is there are literally dozens of different ways to look at it. For the rare person in the US that is even aware of it there's only one POV.

For a brief period of time, US ABC news was available on Australian TV at 10:30am. When there was an attempted SOviet coup against Gorbachev's reforms, I was interested in watching the US news to see what the US reaction would be. The news came on with the tickers and sound bites, one of the said "Coup in Soviet Russia". Then the news anchor came on and said "And now for today's top story: Flooded basements in Long Island!"

I turned it off in disgust.


Part of this is a question of scale; it's very hard for people to get used to the fact that the US is, in some ways, a conglomeration of 50 smallish countries with very good trade relations.

It's not really the same. In one sense, I experienced what you describe. Travel to another state and the people are different, they use different terminology have different accents etc. In Australia, there are only two accents: teeth-in and teeth-out.

However, In Britain you do have separate countries within the same country. Try telling a Welshman or a Scottsman that he's English and see what response you get. ;) Yet the British are very aware of the world around them.

One of my friends had relatives from Scotland visiting, and they wanted to drive to California for the weekend; they had no concept that this was substantially further than, say, Copenhagen to Madrid.
We get that here as well. People wanting to drive to places on the map that really shouldn't be there.

For some reason map makers in Australia don't like the idea of having blank bits of map, so they put in place names and roads in outback areas. The trouble is the place name might be a single abandoned homestead and the road might be a little known track through the desert with no markings and might even be under water for six months of the year.

One visitor we had showed me his travel plans which including driving on one of these tracks (http://www.landroverclub.net/Club/HTML/Australia_Birdsville.htm). I pointed out that there was a little note on the track that said those using it needed to contact the police before and after the trip and it should not be attempted without a few days supply of food and water, a short wave radio and a complete kit of spare parts for the 4WD.

[Joykins]

It's not really the same. In one sense, I experienced what you describe. Travel to another state and the people are different, they use different terminology have different accents etc. In Australia, there are only two accents: teeth-in and teeth-out.

However, In Britain you do have separate countries within the same country. Try telling a Welshman or a Scottsman that he's English and see what response you get. ;) Yet the British are very aware of the world around them.

Try calling a Southerner a Yankee --the response will probably be similar. And Texas is still another country ;)

[Texas Lynn]

Part of it is of course the nature of our corporate media, and how they reflect divisions within the country. The right will try to tell us the media is "liberal" but nothing is further than the truth. Al Franken deconstructed this saying "research has shown most reporters are somewhat less likely to know someone who has bombed an abortion clinic than members of right-wing groups are, but that's about it."

The corpate media cowers before right-wing critics. CBS reversing the reports of George W. Bush's having been more of less excused from showing up for Guard service was cowardly to the nth degree.

There's also the concept what happens in the U.S. supercedes what happens elsewhere. Part of that is our own chauvenism. Part of it is our cowardly media.

[chaoschristian]

This is part of the problem I am referring to. There is very little knowledge of the "outside" world. This is where it gets worse. Whilst for internal politics there are only two acceptable points of view, for external politics there is only one!

I understand your frustration. I had a very good friend move to Austria for two years and all my mail was delivered to your neck of the world by the USPS!

For what it's worth, I watch BBC and DW and avoid US network news that long ago became worthless as a source of information.

I would suggest that there is actually only one primary point of view in the US: the myth of upward mobility and material achievement. There are generally two different ways of presenting that myth, but only one myth to present. International affairs, as you point out, are a sub-set of interest to the presentation of that myth in as much as the ease at which we obtain what we want vis-a-vis other countries and people.

For example, the war of 1812 is barely understood inside of the US. It is one of my favourite topics of history. What's so fascinating about it is there are literally dozens of different ways to look at it. For the rare person in the US that is even aware of it there's only one POV.

*Hums The Battle of New Orleans*

I've never once seen the War of 1812 ever presented in the greater context of the world war that was raging at the time, but only as a result of a British afront to American independence, with a hasty mention of the burning of DC and a long review of Jackson's performance at New Orleans, oh and something about a Star Bangled Banner as well.

I'd love to read your perspective.

[Swart]

I've never once seen the War of 1812 ever presented in the greater context of the world war that was raging at the time, but only as a result of a British afront to American independence, with a hasty mention of the burning of DC and a long review of Jackson's performance at New Orleans, oh and something about a Star Bangled Banner as well.

I'd love to read your perspective.

The war of 1812 was a small part of the tapestry of the Napoleonic wars. They spilled over into trade and England began seizing ships bound for France flying under American colours.

The United States declared war on Britain. This surprised Britain who really didn't want yet another war on another front. Britain blockaded the United States and sent military advisors to Canada, enlisting Canada's support against the US. To the surprise of the US, Canadian troops invaded the US and conquered the capital, burning it to the ground. They also occupied vast amounts of territory. By the standards of war at the time, the United States had been defeated. This was military victory!

The US sued for peace, but the British demands were onerous. They wanted Oregon territory, war reparations and a buffer zone. They also demanded the demobilisation of the US navy. The US refused, so to teach the Americans a lesson, 10,000 British troops were diverted from the Napoleonic wars to secure the Mississppi river which was a strategic waterway. The goal was to force the Americans back to the negotiating table.

After a very brief naval battle (which the British decisively won) the troops landed near New Orleans. British General John Keane marched his force to the east bank of the Mississippi just six miles from New Orleans. Andrew Jackson lead a failed attack on the British encampment and retreated to New Orleans. The attack, however, caused the British to delay the attack on New Orleans. This was the fatal error as it allowed time for artillery and reinforcements to be brought up and fortifications to be made.

With fortifications in place, the British and American forces exchanged artillery. The Ameriican artillery was effectively knocked out, however the British ran out of ammunition and could not press the advantage. The US forces still had some artillery so the infantry attack could not be pressed without exposing the troops to a barrage. On Jan 8 there was heavy fog and the British advanced. Halfway across the field, the fog suddenly lifted exposing the British troops. The American artillery opened fire...

At the time, the troop ratio was 4:1 in favour of the British. After the battle, the British withdrew having suffered over two thousand casualties including three generals whilst the American losses were under one hundred. The British retreated and took Fort Bowyer and made plans to attack Mobile. If they had pressed the advantage gained from there they could have isolated New Orleans and the Mississippi thus achieving their objectives. However, news of the shocking defeat at New Orleans reached the negotiators who modified their terms to simply the cease of maritime trade with France. America agreed to the Treaty of Ghent which restored prewar boundaries and returned prisoners of war. If the US had not signed the treaty, it is most likely that much of the South would have fallen into British hands.

The war of 1812 was almost unheard of in England. It occurred against the backdrop of the Napoeonic wars that were ravaging Europe and Britain spared only a small portion of its forces to America. It was the same year that Napoleon attempted his invasion of Russia. By the time of the signing of the Treaty of Ghent , however, Napoleon was in exile and Britain would have been free to turn its attention to the problem of the United States.

In short, Britain defeated the United States quite decisively with the exception of one battle. The British were simply too occupied in Europe and had little interest in America anymore other than in protecting Canada and freeing slaves.

Canada lays claim to the being the only country in the world that has invaded the United States and burnt its capital to the ground.

The message to me is a confirmation of the prophecies concerning the United States found in the Book of Mormon. Any time the United States is involved in a war of aggression, it will lose. ANytime the United States is attacked, God will fight her battles for her. Thus, we have poorly trained Canadian recruits gaining incredible victories in the North, yet a battle hardened force of British veterans with superior numbers fail to succeed in the South.

[seebs]

I have always wondered how much we'd have to pay the Canadians to get them to burn Washington to the ground again. Do you think we could pay them in Canadian Tire money?

[Swart]

Rotfl!

[gomichan]

I don't read or watch American news. It's just masturbatory nonsense. I read the BBC website and The Economist, pretty much.