I totally agree that US news coverage is lacking when it comes to foreign coverage. It is amazing to me how the focus in news is always towards the immediate both chronologically and physically. And how little information we get about politics in other countires or other news at all. Hard to know what is going on in the rest of the world that way.

You bring up a good point about the vastness of the US. I think the natural isolation of the country has shaped the national counsciounsness in ways a lot of people don’t even see. Not having to worry about the encrouchment of ones borders grants a lot of freedom. I think that is why the two major attacks on American soil (Pearl Harbor and 9/11) were so devistating to people. It is simply beyond the realm of average though that we could be physically threatned.

There is a plus side to globilization. The spread of ideas and understanding through experience happens faster with the type of global communications that are circling the planet. Hopefully that exposure 9if it is a two way street) will help folks come to have a better understanding of ‘the other’.

I think there are aspects of this that are obviously universal, but I (personally) think it’s particularly problematic in the U.S. Most of the world has to acknowledge the existence of “other” simply because they’re surrounded by it. They may not understand or like it, but can’t ignore or forget it. In a vast country like ours where for many people “difference” is Minnesotans telling Iowa jokes, and where McDonald’s and Wal-Mart and working feverishly to ensure you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the two, too many people seem truly oblivious to the presence of pretty much the rest of the planet.

As another example, we were in the UK on sabbatical during the 2000 presidential election. More than a few people asked us if we were able to get any good news coverage of the election, and some even (very kindly) offered to send us newspapers from the States. This is quite reasonable from an American standpoint because the coverage of foreign elections in our country sucks!. In Britain (and probably most of the rest of the world), they actually pay attention to other people’s elections because they realize it makes a difference to their lives. The U.S. elections are obviously particularly important (and the coverage there was arguably better in many ways than what we would have gotten here), but international news coverage is in general much better in much of the rest of the world.

But, as you say, these sorts of problems are at some level endemic in human nature at all scales. At an institution like UMM, for example, the health of every unit/department/division affects the health of the whole, yet it’s all too easy to simply focus on your little patch and not worry about what’s happening elsewhere.

It seems crucial that we continue to struggle to find bigger pictures, though. Without a larger vision, for example, it’s almost certainly impossible to make real progress of key issues like climate change. And that’s more than sad – it’s seriously dangerous.

I’ll go rummage for my old cassette copy of “Englishman”, but feel free to start without me :-).

Do you think this is an American trait, or a trait of every culture? I think that each culture has this same ‘my way is the right way’ leaning in some degree. History is dotted with examples of emprires formed by that attitude. I think what helps really highlight the American Way as an ugly attitude is two fold. We are the only ‘super power’ at the moment and that brings a whole tanlge of ‘police man’ problems. I also think the globalization of marketplace and communications has increased the stressful interaction between cultures. Either way, it is a lot of food for thought.

And I want to start singing “Englishman in New York” by Sting. :)