Happy July 4 (and Dominion Day)!

[Guest American Woman]

Popular media wouldn't be what it is unless it was, well... popular. How else could it be popular if it wasn't paid attention to by the majority of consumers? I realise watching television isn't a PhD thesis on American cultural paradigms, but it is a pretty big window into what the nation is absorbing and, most likely, spitting out again to be absorbed by others, and so on.

I put "popular media" in quotes because it's the term you used. What is the popular media? What does it consist of?

But those questions aside, something can be popular without the consensus of the majority; the numbers just have to be high enough to make it popular. In other words, a popular movie or television series doesn't have to be seen by the majority of the citizens of that nation in order to be deemed popular. What media outlets, what shows on television, do you think are viewed by the "majority" of Americans? Furthermore, how do you know, just because someone is "paying attention" to it that it's representative of them? Evidently you're paying attention-- a lot of attention since you think you've 'learned' enough to know more about Americans than Americans do-- so does that mean it's representative of you? And because you are watching it, are you "spitting it out again to be absorbed by others, and so on?" And what makes you think everyone is "absorbing" all that's being "spit out?"

Your belief that you think you "know" Americans is nothing but ignorance or arrogance on your part.

Hockey and the Trailer Park Boys are popular in the Canadian media. Does that mean I can conclude that Canadians live in a trailer park, aren't too bright, and spend all their time watching hockey while getting high?

Edited July 10, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps that's the problem here, you're making up your own points to the exercise as you go along. Let's start again:

In response to M.Dancer pointing out the election of Spartan kings, you said George III was not subordinate to a written constitution. This begs the question: what does a written constitution have to do with elected monarchs? M.Dancer debunked your statement that an elected monarch is an oxymoron; as does the head of state of Malaysia, the UAE, one of those of Andorra, and the Vatican. Written constiutions has nothing to do with it.

Elected monarch in the present context is an oxymoron.....Dancer self admitted that Juan Carlos was not related to the United Kingdom. The marriage of "election" and "constitution" are fundamental to the American experience. Others are welcomed to ship out for Andorra or the UAE at once.

[g_bambino]

Nonsense....George III served reigned from 1760 until 1820. If it were even possible, the colonists may have prevailed with a different "president". What part of this reprehensible and privileged royalty do you not understand as detested by the "rebels"? Hell, we even modified our Constitution after FDR hung around too long.

Not nonsense at all. Regardless of how the person who headed the British parliament and Cabinet of the 1760s was chosen, if the constitution of the UK was otherwise the same, he would have been bound to follow the advice of his ministers. The colonies would have been treated no differently, and your responses show that you know this. You just don't want to openly admit that the monarchy in Britain had been a constitutional one - wherein power was actually exercised on a day to day basis by ministers responsible to the elected House of Commons, and not by the king - for a good century before the American's revolted. I can imagine how hard it is for you to reconcile between your knowledge of real history and that of the legendary "America invented democracy!" kind.

[g_bambino]

Elected monarch in the present context is an oxymoron.....Dancer self admitted that Juan Carlos was not related to the United Kingdom. The marriage of "election" and "constitution" are fundamental to the American experience. Others are welcomed to ship out for Andorra or the UAE at once.

Perhaps you shouldn't focus so much on the American experience, then, and realise there are others out there. Israel has no written constitution, and last time I checked they elect a president.

[guyser]

Hockey and the Trailer Park Boys are popular in the Canadian media. Does that mean I can conclude that Canadians live in a trailer park, aren't too bright, and spend all their time watching hockey while getting high?

Well....yeah.

But you forgot boinking in a canoe.(the trailer gets hot in the summer)

[bush_cheney2004]

...You just don't want to openly admit that the monarchy in Britain had been a constitutional one - wherein power was actually exercised on a day to day basis by ministers responsible to the elected House of Commons, and not by the king - for a good century before the American's revolted. I can imagine how hard it is for you to reconcile between your knowledge of real history and that of the legendary "America invented democracy!" kind.

Oh great.....now we have come full circle. The Americans (via First Continental Congress) petitioned the king (not Parliament)....and lacking any other course of redress, rebelled. By your own admission, King George stubbornly resisted the counsel of his lords, even in the face of another ass kicking from France and Spain.

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps you shouldn't focus so much on the American experience, then, and realise there are others out there. Israel has no written constitution, and last time I checked they elect a president.

Why not...you sure love to focus on the American experience. Israel has the same custom as the UK.....and this is what distinguishes the United States of America so early on....that is why it is important.

[g_bambino]

something can be popular without the consensus of the majority; the numbers just have to be high enough to make it popular.

Well, there's a contradiction if I've ever seen one. Popular means that it is liked more than the others, as in a popular idol (a "Pop Idol), popular music ("Pop Music"). Therefore, the media that is liked more than the others by the American media consumers is popular media. And it's full of inaccuracies about other countries. It's elemental math to figure out that if the media the errors are being carried in is the popular one, then a large segment of the population will be exposed to the errors of fact. Skwaking about representations and knowing more about Americans than Americans do is nothing more than throwing out red herrings; this is about, and always has been about, a general lack of knowledge on the part of Americans about other countries. Is that so hard to believe when people in the US even lament that the majority doesn't know the right facts about their own country?

Hockey and the Trailer Park Boys are popular in the Canadian media. Does that mean I can conclude that Canadians live in a trailer park, aren't too bright, and spend all their time watching hockey while getting high?

That's not an apt comparison; I never said Americans were living television characters. You could only draw a parallel if you claimed Trailer Park Boys was full of errors about other countries and that Canadians were taking these errors in as fact, which may well be the case.

Your belief that you think you "know" Americans is nothing but ignorance or arrogance on your part.

As you once said you "know" Canadians well enough to say that you would make a good one, do you therefore consider yourself arrogant?

[g_bambino]

Oh great.....now we have come full circle. The Americans (via First Continental Congress) petitioned the king (not Parliament)....and lacking any other course of redress, rebelled. By your own admission, King George stubbornly resisted the counsel of his lords, even in the face of another ass kicking from France and Spain.

Now you're just making stuff up. I never said the King resisted the advice of his ministers. I said the exact opposite.

[g_bambino]

Why not...

Because that's not where we started.

[bush_cheney2004]

Now you're just making stuff up. I never said the King resisted the advice of his ministers. I said the exact opposite.

OK....then you are wrong about that too. I recall that some of George III's "ministers" resigned rather than be associated with his costly adventure and failure.

[g_bambino]

OK....then you are wrong about that too. I recall that some of George III's "ministers" resigned rather than be associated with his costly adventure and failure.

Odd: "[George's] hopes were centred on a political solution, and he always bowed to his cabinet's opinions even when sceptical of their success. The detailed evidence of the years from 1763 to 1775 tends to exonerate George III from any real responsibility for the American Revolution." Thomas, Peter D. G.; "History": George III and the American Revolution; (1985) Vol. 70, Iss. 228; pg. 31.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: something can be popular without the consensus of the majority; the numbers just have to be high enough to make it popular.

Well, there's a contradiction if I've ever seen one. Popular means that it is liked more than the others, as in a popular idol (a "Pop Idol), popular music ("Pop Music").

Nothing contradictory about it. "Popular music" can be liked more than other types and still not have even close to the "majority" of Americans liking it. Furthermore, you are basing your definition of "popular media" on the number of viewers, and as I already said, unlike music, people listen to news outlets even if they don't particularly "like" or agree with what's being said. You can't assume that everyone listening to it 'likes' it, or is represented by it, any more than YOU are, since you are also a listener, by your own admission.

Therefore, the media that is liked more than the others by the American media consumers is popular media.

Again, who says all the listeners "like" it? And where are you getting that "the majority of Americans" listen to anything that is labeled "popular?" Rush Limbaugh likely falls into the "popular" category, yet I can assure you that no where near "the majority of Americans" listen to him. I can't think of one outlet/personality that the majority of Americans "like." That would be quite the accomplishment. Furthermore, there are "popular" outlets/personalities with opposite views/ideas. That means "popularity" alone wouldn't define the nation.

And it's full of inaccuracies about other countries.

Oh yes. Just full of inaccuracies. Because you said so. I hate to break it to you, but I don't see much difference between what's reported in our mainstream media and what's reported in yours.

It's elemental math to figure out that if the media the errors are being carried in is the popular one, then a large segment of the population will be exposed to the errors of fact.

Again, a "large segment" and "the majority" are not synonymous. Furthermore, if you're intelligent enough to realize that their are inaccuracies in the media, the suffice it to say that Americans listening are also intelligent enough to realize it. Try to get this through your blocked thought process-- just because someone is "listening" to something doesn't mean they automatically believe it or that they don't also listen to other media outlets or that they don't question it. I repeat. YOU LISTEN TO IT, so if you're going to judge Americans by it, you have to judge yourself in the same way.

Skwaking about representations and knowing more about Americans than Americans do is nothing more than throwing out red herrings; this is about, and always has been about, a general lack of knowledge on the part of Americans about other countries.

"Squawking" certainly fits what you're all about in that paragraph. I think I'll start making up things about Canada's "general lack of knowledge"-- if I ever turn into an arrogant ignoramus, that is.

Is that so hard to believe when people in the US even lament that the majority doesn't know the right facts about their own country?

Now you're just talking stupid. Seriously.

As you once said you "know" Canadians well enough to say that you would make a good one, do you therefore consider yourself arrogant?

I said no such thing. I said I would make a "damn fine Canadian," which is entirely different from saying anything about "knowing Canadians..." and I can say that because I have a Canadian BF and have spent a lot of time 'living' in Canada, which I consider my second home, these past five years-- and therefore I do know I would fit in just fine. But I would never be arrogant or ignorant enough to say I know Canadians better than a Canadian does, nor would I ever be ignorant enough to make blanket statements about Canadians, especially based on stereotypes and the media-- and then tell Canadians, who actually live their whole lives with other Canadians, that their views about their fellow Canadians are "fantasies" because I know so much more than they do.

Your attitude itself is pure ignorance, and as long as you hold on to that attitude, you are bound to remain ignorant. And something tells me your mind is pretty much closed. I also get the feeling that for some reason or another, you have to have a negative opinion of Americans. Again, says so much about you-- and it ain't good.

Now I'll leave you to carry on in your tiny little world because there's really no point in trying to talk to someone who's mind is closed to anything other than what they want to believe.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: Hockey and the Trailer Park Boys are popular in the Canadian media. Does that mean I can conclude that Canadians live in a trailer park, aren't too bright, and spend all their time watching hockey while getting high? rolleyes.gif

Well....yeah.

But you forgot boinking in a canoe.(the trailer gets hot in the summer)

Boinking in a canoe, eh? I knew I'd make a damn fine Canadian.

But you don't expect me to believe that it gets hot anywhere in Canada, ever, do you? I've heard all the stereotypes about igloos, sled dogs, and snow in July-- so I know better.

[g_bambino]

Nothing contradictory about it. "Popular music" can be liked more than other types and still not have even close to the "majority" of Americans liking it. Furthermore, you are basing your definition of "popular media" on the number of viewers, and as I already said, unlike music, people listen to news outlets even if they don't particularly "like" or agree with what's being said. You can't assume that everyone listening to it 'likes' it, or is represented by it, any more than YOU are, since you are also a listener, by your own admission.

Again, who says all the listeners "like" it? And where are you getting that "the majority of Americans" listen to anything that is labeled "popular?" Rush Limbaugh likely falls into the "popular" category, yet I can assure you that no where near "the majority of Americans" listen to him. I can't think of one outlet/personality that the majority of Americans "like." That would be quite the accomplishment. Furthermore, there are "popular" outlets/personalities with opposite views/ideas. That means "popularity" alone wouldn't define the nation.

Oh yes. Just full of inaccuracies. Because you said so. I hate to break it to you, but I don't see much difference between what's reported in our mainstream media and what's reported in yours.

Again, a "large segment" and "the majority" are not synonymous. Furthermore, if you're intelligent enough to realize that their are inaccuracies in the media, the suffice it to say that Americans listening are also intelligent enough to realize it. Try to get this through your blocked thought process-- just because someone is "listening" to something doesn't mean they automatically believe it or that they don't also listen to other media outlets or that they don't question it. I repeat. YOU LISTEN TO IT, so if you're going to judge Americans by it, you have to judge yourself in the same way.

"Squawking" certainly fits what you're all about in that paragraph. I think I'll start making up things about Canada's "general lack of knowledge"-- if I ever turn into an arrogant ignoramus, that is.

Now you're just talking stupid. Seriously.

I said no such thing. I said I would make a "damn fine Canadian," which is entirely different from saying anything about "knowing Canadians..." and I can say that because I have a Canadian BF and have spent a lot of time 'living' in Canada, which I consider my second home, these past five years-- and therefore I do know I would fit in just fine. But I would never be arrogant or ignorant enough to say I know Canadians better than a Canadian does, nor would I ever be ignorant enough to make blanket statements about Canadians, especially based on stereotypes and the media-- and then tell Canadians, who actually live their whole lives with other Canadians, that their views about their fellow Canadians are "fantasies" because I know so much more than they do.

Your attitude itself is pure ignorance, and as long as you hold on to that attitude, you are bound to remain ignorant. And something tells me your mind is pretty much closed. I also get the feeling that for some reason or another, you have to have a negative opinion of Americans. Again, says so much about you-- and it ain't good.

Now I'll leave you to carry on in your tiny little world because there's really no point in trying to talk to someone who's mind is closed to anything other than what they want to believe.

Oh dear, is that what you're reduced to? Personal attacks are the last refuge of the helpless. And what are you defending yourself from, anyway? I never made one single remark about you personally. What I have done is explained my case, and, though I still believe I have ample grounds for it, I was willing to be proven wrong. However, it doesn't seem that you're going to be the one to do it; you've vested all your energy in derailing the conversation off-topic with subjects that are completely unrelated and motives that just don't exist. That says to me that you're more fearful that your country's external image might embarass and you'd rather deny it outright before even bothering to understand it, whether or not you accept it or dispel it after that. That's a demonstration of willful ignorance.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh dear, is that what you're reduced to? Personal attacks are the last refuge of the helpless.

Speaking of "the last refuge" and "helpless," sniveling accusations are all you can come back with? Why am I not surprised? It's usually a pretty safe bet that those who can dish it out can't take it, or in this case, those who can "observe" can't take the "observations." You see, what you refer to as "personal attacks" are "observations," and to paraphrase an appropriate saying, what's good for the Gander is good for the (Canadian) Goose. So unless you can refute/comment on what I've said, go "squawk" elsewhere. But in the meantime, keep listening to the "American popular media" yourself-- and then negatively judging Americans. Way to educate yourself-- as you criticize Americans' lack of knowledge.

One last thing-- you make me proud to be an American.

Edited July 10, 2008 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

...the structures and intricacies of foreign societies has never been a strong point for Americans.

Young Americans appear to stick close to home, reporting limited contact with other cultures outside the U.S.

o Three-quarters (74%) have traveled to another state in the past year, but seven in ten (70%) have not traveled abroad at all in the past three years.

o Six in ten (62%) cannot speak a second language fluently.

o Nine in ten (89%) do not correspond regularly with anyone outside the U.S.

o Only two in ten (22%) have a passport.

link

I wouldn't thing g_b's statement would be all that controversial.

[guyser]

Boinking in a canoe, eh? I knew I'd make a damn fine Canadian.

You can be if you dont tip. That would be ....well American?

But you don't expect me to believe that it gets hot anywhere in Canada, ever, do you? I've heard all the stereotypes about igloos, sled dogs, and snow in July-- so I know better.

Not too far off.....three out of four

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/...2_metric_e.html

[g_bambino]

Speaking of "the last refuge" and "helpless," sniveling accusations are all you can come back with? Why am I not surprised? It's usually a pretty safe bet that those who can dish it out can't take it, or in this case, those who can "observe" can't take the "observations." You see, what you refer to as "personal attacks" are "observations," and to paraphrase an appropriate saying, what's good for the Gander is good for the (Canadian) Goose. So unless you can refute/comment on what I've said, go "squawk" elsewhere. But in the meantime, keep listening to the "American popular media" yourself-- and then negatively judging Americans. Way to educate yourself-- as you criticize Americans' lack of knowledge.

One last thing-- you make me proud to be an American.

If you had an observation, I'd be willing to listen. Maybe first, though, you need to stop mistaking your rambling irrelevancies and name calling for constructive criticism.

[Guest American Woman]

...the structures and intricacies of foreign societies has never been a strong point for Americans.

Young Americans appear to stick close to home, reporting limited contact with other cultures outside the U.S.

o Three-quarters (74%) have traveled to another state in the past year, but seven in ten (70%) have not traveled abroad at all in the past three years.

o Six in ten (62%) cannot speak a second language “fluently.”

o Nine in ten (89%) do not correspond regularly with anyone outside the U.S.

o Only two in ten (22%) have a passport.

link

I wouldn't thing g_b's statement would be all that controversial.

First of all, I didn't realize that "Americans" and "young Americans" were the same thing. Secondly, would you please point out the part of your quote that says "...the structures and intricacies of foreign societies has never been a strong point for Americans?" Or do you believe those who have not traveled to a country can't understand the "structures and intimacies" of that country? Because I'd say since most people haven't been to most countries, that would translate to their not understanding the vast majority of the structures and intricacies of foreign societies, making it not a strong point for them, either.

But I always get a chuckle out of it when people bring up the 'Americans don't travel outside of their country as much as other people do' thing because it would be pretty difficult to live in a country in Europe, for example, without ever leaving it-- sort of like never leaving one's state. Here we can travel to another state and travel ten times as far as a European who visited another country. Furthermore, the U.S. has more physical diversity than just about any other nation-- glaciers, mountains, oceans, fresh water lakes, rivers, tropical weather, deserts-- just about anything you can name-- meaning we don't have to travel outside of our nation for the diversity that so many others leave their nations for. Canadians, for example, often leave Canada for warm weather, not for the cultural experience. In other words, we find within our country what others often leave their countries for.

Edited July 10, 2008 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: Boinking in a canoe, eh? I knew I'd make a damn fine Canadian.

You can be if you dont tip. That would be ....well American?

!

QUOTE: But you don't expect me to believe that it gets hot anywhere in Canada, ever, do you? I've heard all the stereotypes about igloos, sled dogs, and snow in July-- so I know better.

Not too far off.....three out of four

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/...2_metric_e.html

I can't imagine living where it's so cold year round. It sure would be fun to visit, though-- that would be awesome!

[g_bambino]

link

I wouldn't thing g_b's statement would be all that controversial.

Thank you. AW's reaction is just one of the knee-jerking kind.

Further:

Why are Americans so ignorant of what's going on in the world outside our borders, even when our own government is playing a key role in those events? That's a question that dogged Anne Kelleher, a professor of political science at Pacific Lutheran University in Washington state, while she was lecturing in Ankara, Turkey, last year on a Fulbright scholarship. "I tried to explain to the teachers and students there why, during the U.S. presidential election, foreign policy wasn't front and center. For them, it's unfathomable that the most militarily powerful, the most politically influential country, with the most impact on the global economy, plus a culture that's transformed the world via its media -- how a country with that kind of far-flung influence can choose its leader with no attention to the issues that it faces worldwide." Kelleher cited a January 2000 Gallup poll in which Americans asked to rank the importance of issues in the presidential campaign relegated the U.S. role in world affairs to 20th place.

"For decades we've been reading about how American schoolchildren can't find Mexico or Canada on a map, and yet nothing seems to change," says Ransdell. "These people who don't know the difference between Switzerland and Swaziland then become the main consumers of news. And in poll after poll they tell us that they want less foreign news and more of what I call 'selfish journalism' -- which stocks to buy, sex and beauty tips, 10 steps to a healthier colon and so on. It becomes this horrible feedback loop where people are sent out of our schools in a state of complete ignorance of the rest of the world and then, maybe because they're embarrassed, clamor for even less information on something they know almost nothing about."

Orville Schell, dean of the journalism school at the University of California at Berkeley, says that while "Americans are ever more involved in the world and ever less knowledgeable about it," it's the bosses at U.S. media companies who deserve the blame. "The broadcast media has decided to cut back on foreign news coverage in its infinitely craven efforts to pander to the largest and the lowest common denominator." (emphasis mine)

America the ignorant

And:

Even after the 9/11 Commission, a majority of Americans believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq even after the Commission said there weren't. Only a third of Americans understood that much of the rest of the world opposed our invasion. Another third thought the rest of the world was cheering our invasion, and a third thought the rest of the world was neutral.

The Ignorant American Voter Edited July 11, 2008 by g_bambino

[jbg]

One last thing-- you make me proud to be an American.

Lee Greenwood would just love you.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thank you. AW's reaction is just one of the knee-jerking kind.

No, the reaction is rather straightforward for any national faced with such typical and smug arrogance. It is an insult to millions of Americans with far more diversity than Canada will ever realize in practice, even as it trumpets "multiculturalism".

300,000,000 vs. 35,000,000....voting with their feet.

Monolithic cultures around the world are exempt from such criticism because America bashing is much more fun...especially for some Canadians.

[g_bambino]

No, the reaction is rather straightforward for any national faced with such typical and smug arrogance. It is an insult to millions of Americans with far more diversity than Canada will ever realize in practice, even as it trumpets "multiculturalism".

300,000,000 vs. 35,000,000....voting with their feet.

Monolithic cultures around the world are exempt from such criticism because America bashing is much more fun...especially for some Canadians.

Oh.. I've hurt your feelings.