Vernacular architecture, southern zone and northern zone compared
You see it most clearly in Italy, but also in any areas south of the Alps in Europe and eastward, along the Mediterranean to the Middle East and onwards to South Asia. You also see it south of the US border in the Americas: a continuous positive development in urban, vernacular architecture. Let's call this architectural area, the "southern zone" for the sake of brevity. I'd like to compare it to the "northern zone" using central Germany for that, and central Italy for the southern zone, as examples.
In the northern half of this divide, vernacular architecture has suffered a severe break as a result of the general influences of modernism and specifically the ideas of Bauhaus and its relatives, imitators, and inadvertent followers. There, building has become angular, industrial, grey and cold. The general reputation of "modern architecture" is that of emotional and functional sterility, mainly because of its northern zone incarnations. There, because of war or "urban renewal" or rampant development destroyed enough of the old to build the new in massive quantities. This sterility is most acute with official, industrial, and corporate building but also in residential urban, even suburban building.
In Northern (Anglo) America this sterility in the vernacular style is coupled with a kind of chintziness, a cheapness of construction, intended for short term existence or quick turnaround within the real estate market. In Anglo America, the industrial aspect of modernism has been completely and uncritically absorbed, without the original revolutionary and aesthetic ideas, in part because it fit an already persistent no-frills, short-term, earth-is-merely-a-steppingstone mentality. In the US, place (and earthly life) is something you merely move through. Vernacular architecture is on the level of military barrack, a temporary station. Churches, farms, stores, homes are built as temporary warehouses, sometimes patched up a little with mass produced classicist decorations to add "class" or cozyness.
In Northern (Anglo) America this sterility in the vernacular style is coupled with a kind of chintziness, a cheapness of construction, intended for short term existence or quick turnaround within the real estate market. In Anglo America, the industrial aspect of modernism has been completely and uncritically absorbed, without the original revolutionary and aesthetic ideas, in part because it fit an already persistent no-frills, short-term, earth-is-merely-a-steppingstone mentality. In the US, place (and earthly life) is something you merely move through. Vernacular architecture is on the level of military barrack, a temporary station. Churches, farms, stores, homes are built as temporary warehouses, sometimes patched up a little with mass produced classicist decorations to add "class" or cozyness.
In the southern zone, too, there is some non-vernacular building which is horribly cold and detached, mostly because it involved architects who probably had their eye on high modernism, or because some state agency without public input. But the general landscape is not shaped by a few official buildings, but by the general trends in vernacular construction, which could range from completely self-built, to moderately professional building involving architects.
To put it very bluntly, the southern zone is much more beautiful, because humanity creates beauty there. In the north (with plenty of exceptions of course) the vernacular tends towards hideousness, enthusiastically. If you don't agree, go and compare central Mexico with the US Mid-west, or Havana with Jacksonville, or Naples with Duisburg. Latin America and latin Europe are much more beautiful than Anglo America and Northern Europe; that's a subjective assessment, of course, but I'm willing to defend it. If cleanliness and order are an important of your aesthetic, then this relation would be reversed. I recently talked to someone in my home town, who advocated more organized intervention and rebuilding in some of the most delapidated but romantic aspects of the town. I mentioned my appreciation for Naples, where a certain casualness and collaborative aesthetic makes for overwhelming beauty, and my disdain for Germany's overly anxious modernization. He countered that Naples is a terrible example, because there the beaches are dirty and shameful. He sees things in terms of order and cleanliness, places in terms of economic activities (tourists bathing, for example), which to him signify responsibility and pride. He must have completely missed the Naples I enjoyed.
To put it very bluntly, the southern zone is much more beautiful, because humanity creates beauty there. In the north (with plenty of exceptions of course) the vernacular tends towards hideousness, enthusiastically. If you don't agree, go and compare central Mexico with the US Mid-west, or Havana with Jacksonville, or Naples with Duisburg. Latin America and latin Europe are much more beautiful than Anglo America and Northern Europe; that's a subjective assessment, of course, but I'm willing to defend it. If cleanliness and order are an important of your aesthetic, then this relation would be reversed. I recently talked to someone in my home town, who advocated more organized intervention and rebuilding in some of the most delapidated but romantic aspects of the town. I mentioned my appreciation for Naples, where a certain casualness and collaborative aesthetic makes for overwhelming beauty, and my disdain for Germany's overly anxious modernization. He countered that Naples is a terrible example, because there the beaches are dirty and shameful. He sees things in terms of order and cleanliness, places in terms of economic activities (tourists bathing, for example), which to him signify responsibility and pride. He must have completely missed the Naples I enjoyed.
The built landscapes of the southern zone are mostly beautiful, joyous, rich in detail, full of life. Usually there is also grit (various layers of dirt due to less than perfect maintenance). In places like southern Italy you may add hanging laundry to the picture (a.k.a "life"). There is harmony between the individual building and the mass of buildings. Most importantly, there is harmony within the full range of historical periods. A 20th century building next to a 16th century building, despite stylistic differences, may look perfectly harmonious, as if the basics of human needs and collective taste have remained consistent.
In trying to understand this break – between the pre-modern and modern in the North and the lack of it in the South – I've looked at several possible culprits.
Protestantism's visual severity
The notion that protestants are against fun is an old cliché, so I won't dwell too much on it. The basic theory is that when protestants (Germans, Swiss, French, English, Dutch) protested the hegemony and decadence of the Catholic church they did away with imagery (iconoclasm) and decoration in their churches and buildings. The church responded with the counter reformation, making their churches even more fun and lascivious (the Baroque). Church buildings and the religions of rulers of course influence the culture of building greatly, so it makes sense that in protestant areas, the built environment is less joyous, indicating seriousness and solemnity. There have been many references to modernism being an extension of protestantism. So, it could be that the northern tendency to make the built environment look dreary is a subconscious imperative to be solemn, serious, but also in line with modernist fashion. The words to be feared in the north are "decorative" and "frivolous" (unseriös - in German - literally un-serious) and superficial (being only on the surface, instead of being visibly structural – an essential modernist notion).
The north's greater degree of industrialization.
Northern England, Belgium, Northern France, Central Germany — these are the (European) areas of the industrial revolution. The built environment there is accustomed to being dominated by progress, instead of romanticism. In Northern Italy, the Po region is heavily industrialized as well, and is less pretty than the areas further south. It could be that the collective aesthetic is formed by whatever dominates politically and economically, in this case industry. As a result, vernacular structures end up as dreary as industrial ones. Maybe, the art of making things beautiful simply gets lost in the face of overwhelming context. An additional element is that industrial areas are often newer, historically, and so less layered in terms of human habitation, showing a shorter spectrum of architectural creativity, which in turn affects the creativity of the vernacular. Or is it that the same tendency to industrialize, to prioritize work and functionality, also lowers the emphasis on fun and frivolity?
World War II and the "break with the past".
The notion here is that any kind of pedestrian, non-academic architectural beauty is associated with the past and thus rejected. Even though the Hitler era lasted only 12 years, it is associated with all previous fraudulent nativism and local folklore, with the bourgeoisie, with conformism and primitive hierarchy and only gradual advances. Modernism advocated a rupture, a revolution, and resulted in "throwing out the baby with the bathwater", that is the traditions of the vernacular, popular, bottom-to-top approach. Architecture, as currently taught, and even the vernacular kind, is managed from the top of the hierarchy, from the architect or "builder," the craftsman merely executing the concept (see Mies van der Rohe). Any evidence of visual warmth or errant crafted detail became taboo in the North. Craftsmen have to pretend to be industrial, to be the tip of the pen. This didn't seem to have happened as much in areas less destroyed by and feeling less guilty about world war II (Italy has a less radical rejection of Mussolini, Spain an even less radical rejection of Franco). In the south, the entire building seems to be formed by its surrounding culture, not some trendy builder looking for attention through rupture, and conforms to the whole while also expressing an individuality.
Climate and color harmony: the use of warm "impure" colors.
Color preferences in Germany and Italy, and in the "northern zone" and the "southern zone" are completely different. In the northern zone, things are either too grey or too vibrant. Greyish hues are very mixed: there are all kinds of dreary reds and browns. Whites are pure white, colors are very bright, such as green, which is usually a weird lime green, reflecting the color of grass in all seasons. In northern Europe there is a lot of rain, and winters are mild, so grass and tree trunks remain green all year. In the south, grass ranges from olive to beige. When Germans think of color, they think of bright, pure colors, like those of flowers and fruit and grass. In the south, colors are part of an immense spectrum, and rarely "pure". Grey is simply another color on this spectrum. Or, to put it very simply: In the built environment of the south, colors are always part white and part black. A typical row of buildings will have hundreds of shades of red, yellow, blue, green, but always pastel with some patina. Colors are held back and mixed, and become completely compatible with each other. The southern color palette allows freedom of collage, because the colors are not pure (unlike a Mondrian painting, the epitome of modernism and protestantism). They stick to the rule: hues of equal value (intensity) and sufficient impurity (patina) can be mixed infinitely. Everyone involved seems to understand this principle in Italy, also in nearby countries, with decreasing consistency westward and eastward (countries of the Caribbean region have their own harmonic rules, using very bright colors). I am sympathetic to the argument that climate is very important here, that the color of the sea, the land, the air influence the collective aesthetic. Italy is sunny and hazy (colorful but muted), Germany is grey and bright (and evenly lit). The caribbean is colorful and clear (not hazy), etc. So, the climate creates a color context which is more or less subconsciously "matched" by human creations.
Modernism as a mask for fascism
A recent, excellent article in Der Spiegel discusses the intricacies of postwar construction in Germany, and makes the point that in West Germany Nazi architects were re-integrated into the work force and continued their rather cold aesthetic under the label of modernism and Bauhaus. This doesn't explain the ugliness in the rest of the northern zones, but makes an important link between fascism and modernism, which are usually presented as opposite directions. The standard notion of fascism as retrograde (traditional) and modernism as progressive is undermined by the point that modernism, mostly in architecture, has a fascist component. I prefer to think that architecture, as a client-financed or applied art which requires significant up-front monies is simply much more likely to aestheticize power, than other "freer" arts such as literature and the visual arts, which can afford to be more personal and counter-cultural.
Which if of these factors is more important, and are there more to consider? Below are some images taken in Naples, italy, and Duisburg, Germany. Both are busy working class cities, although Naples is not as industrial and Duisburg is much smaller. Duisburg, as part of the Ruhr District, is typical (maybe a caricature) of the dreariness that is common in Northern Europe, despite the fact that residents are so often immigrants from more southern parts of the world. Naples is typical of southern Italy's grit and beauty. The comparison isn't meant to be fair, rather I am trying to contrast representative examples of the difference between the North and South. Below are some snapshots I took on walks and from the car.
Modernism as a mask for fascism
A recent, excellent article in Der Spiegel discusses the intricacies of postwar construction in Germany, and makes the point that in West Germany Nazi architects were re-integrated into the work force and continued their rather cold aesthetic under the label of modernism and Bauhaus. This doesn't explain the ugliness in the rest of the northern zones, but makes an important link between fascism and modernism, which are usually presented as opposite directions. The standard notion of fascism as retrograde (traditional) and modernism as progressive is undermined by the point that modernism, mostly in architecture, has a fascist component. I prefer to think that architecture, as a client-financed or applied art which requires significant up-front monies is simply much more likely to aestheticize power, than other "freer" arts such as literature and the visual arts, which can afford to be more personal and counter-cultural.
"These architects were quick to pretend [deny] that they had absolutely anything to do with the bombastic architecture of the Nazis and their megalomaniacal ideology. After the war, Speer's architects hid behind Bauhaus, the modernist style initially developed by Walter Gropius and others before 1933. Because the Nazis had persecuted its followers, being associated with Bauhaus was good for one's career after the war -- and it allowed them to actively promote modernism free from historical ballast."
Which if of these factors is more important, and are there more to consider? Below are some images taken in Naples, italy, and Duisburg, Germany. Both are busy working class cities, although Naples is not as industrial and Duisburg is much smaller. Duisburg, as part of the Ruhr District, is typical (maybe a caricature) of the dreariness that is common in Northern Europe, despite the fact that residents are so often immigrants from more southern parts of the world. Naples is typical of southern Italy's grit and beauty. The comparison isn't meant to be fair, rather I am trying to contrast representative examples of the difference between the North and South. Below are some snapshots I took on walks and from the car.
 |
| Far view of Naples. All colors fit together. None are too intense. All contain some white and black (or brown). |
 |
| Naples street view: A modernist/internationalist building, (a building Darth Vader might love) on far right, dreary and hideous, but rare in Italy. Vernacular 20th century buildings in the center, full of life and warmth, and the usual 19th century building on the left, equally lively and warm. If you squint at both of the warm buildings you could notice that they average out to the same color, which is a muted yellow with both white and black infused.The newer building is just a little bolder in how the elemental colors are presented. |
 |
| A very similar situation, only reversed left to right. Internationalist, 20th century, 19th century. |
 |
| Another Naples street view. All are 20th century buildings, without the dreariness. Even the cars seem an integral part of the color composition. |
 |
| Duisburg, Germany. Are they TRYING to be depressing? Are they trying to conform to the weather? What causes this? |
 |
| More Duisburg. All colors are cold, all shapes are blocky. |
 |
| Duisburg again. These are pre-modern, so there's at least some curvature allowed. Here they are trying to not be depressing in their choices of color, but they go to far. It's what's called "Farbenfroh", meaning "color happy". The colors are way to intense and primary, and there's no patina (exceptions are the light yellow and the brownish ones in the back). The buildings don't fit together, in terms of color, they need muting. |
 |
| Duisburg; what I call provincial postmodern. Dreary, angular, psychopathic, non-functional. There is a lot of this in Germany (and in the Northern Zone) and it's baffling. |
Dreams are vacations from logic.
Waking life is a constant checking on the compatibility between projection and reality, between desires and principles, between thoughts and their logical sense. Dreaming turns off that checking, though unevenly, and gives those tense logic muscles some relief. The maintenance of reality is exhausting. Surreality is a form of rest, massage, and stretching for the tired brain.
European and American population scales in relation to economic diversity
I wonder if there is a connection between the fact that Europe has countries with more similar population sizes and more equitable distribution of wealth within and between countries (than in the New World). In the Americas, there's "America," powerful and confident enough to call itself by the name of both continents, and there's all the others with far fewer population sizes, and much weaker economies. Within these countries, as well, there's more disparity of wealth. Is the greater economic equality of Europe contributing to a psychological acceptance of or demand for equality? Has the inequality between the Americas normalized internal inequalities? Has the exceptional wealth of the US simply attracted more people, contributing to its large population size, independently of internal politics? Are all the American economies based on resources and immigration first and foremost, and long-term economics second?
Has anybody noticed that the word "equality" has almost vanished from public discourse? It's more taboo than the word "liberal".
Has anybody noticed that the word "equality" has almost vanished from public discourse? It's more taboo than the word "liberal".
God, guns, and gold
A few decades ago it first occurred to me that American conservatism can be boiled down to an obsession with god, guns, and money (or to complete the alliteration, god, guns, and gold). When it came to joining church and state as in "prayer in schools," for example, they were for it. When it came to enlarging the military budget or "using force," or the death penalty, or anything having to do with the satisfaction of death, they were for it. And when it came to any issue where profits were in conflict with people or the environment, they usually sided with profits.
Let's break it down:
God: For conservatives, it seems, this word has unambiguously positive meanings. It implies morality, humility, dedication, principled living, respect for a higher authority. But for many others it could also imply medieval, pre-enlightenment world views, narrow-mindedness, blind adherence to oppressive traditions, institutional corruption due to lack of checks and balances and critical thinking, intolerance of other belief systems, violence in god's name.
Guns: For conservatives this word stands for the right to bear arms in the defense of liberty and personal safety, and for the official mission of the military which is to defend the country. All that seems reasonable. But the word guns also conjures up violence, killing, war, destruction. The US military used to be called the war department. Now that it is much more war-oriented, it is called the defense department, and is the largest in the world and in history. Guns (meaning weapons) are also a huge industry with a long history of illegality and corruption. Guns are a form of power, and power corrupts. Not good, not christian, right?
Gold: I assume what is meant here is economic survival, self realization, productivity, prosperity, entrepreneurship, providing for your family, independence, personal fiscal responsibility as opposed to being taxed or receiving welfare. (I think gold also addresses a preference for the harder gold standard, as opposed to the fluctuating paper we use now.) But the word gold also connotes greed, selfishness, corruption, materialism, shallowness.
What I didn't realize is that many conservatives are proud to declare this obsession, which implies a different, curtailed usage of certain words and symbols, (or a profound cynicism maybe.). If you grew up with the combination of religion and guns in the home and with making a living, then "god, guns, and money" seems like a good representation of an honest, well-intentioned, and totally ethical philosphy. But these words have other meanings in different contexts. My main question is whether conservatives are aware that these words have additional meanings to other people in their own country and on the planet. Do they know what they are communicating to others? Do they have any empathy regarding their terminology?
from http://www.patriotdepot.com/ggag.aspx
God: For conservatives, it seems, this word has unambiguously positive meanings. It implies morality, humility, dedication, principled living, respect for a higher authority. But for many others it could also imply medieval, pre-enlightenment world views, narrow-mindedness, blind adherence to oppressive traditions, institutional corruption due to lack of checks and balances and critical thinking, intolerance of other belief systems, violence in god's name.
Guns: For conservatives this word stands for the right to bear arms in the defense of liberty and personal safety, and for the official mission of the military which is to defend the country. All that seems reasonable. But the word guns also conjures up violence, killing, war, destruction. The US military used to be called the war department. Now that it is much more war-oriented, it is called the defense department, and is the largest in the world and in history. Guns (meaning weapons) are also a huge industry with a long history of illegality and corruption. Guns are a form of power, and power corrupts. Not good, not christian, right?
Gold: I assume what is meant here is economic survival, self realization, productivity, prosperity, entrepreneurship, providing for your family, independence, personal fiscal responsibility as opposed to being taxed or receiving welfare. (I think gold also addresses a preference for the harder gold standard, as opposed to the fluctuating paper we use now.) But the word gold also connotes greed, selfishness, corruption, materialism, shallowness.
In short, the three words could easily be misread as intolerance, violence, and greed.
An additional question: do the promoters of this verbal trinity know that it could come across as essentially anti-democratic? Granted, the words are intended to promote rights: the right to worship, the right to bear arms, and the right to the pursuit of happiness. But, conservatism is usually very protective of existing institutions. Politically we have three institutions here: the church (god), the military (guns), and the corporation (gold). All three are basically undemocratic. To be sure, many religious denominations have democratic traditions - protestantism is certainly more democratic than catholicism. But the language and the basic relation between humanity and the supernatural is that of the vertical aristocratic state: higher authority, to serve god, glory, lord, king, kingdom. The military, also, is explicitly hierarchical, with higher level members sporting their decorations like the royalty of old Europe. It doesn't use a system of one-soldier/one-vote to promote each person to the next level. And of course its culture is very much about obedience, service, loyalty, honor, uniformity, etc. The corporation, as well, is hierarchical. Yes, there are voting stockholders among "public" corporations, and some companies have worker input or some internal redress system, but generally corporations are run on a top-down model, with appointed positions, resembling the vatican and the defense department much more than the American democratic system. God, guns, and gold, although intended as a philosophy which values the individual over the government, politically prioritizes democracy's more undemocratic institutions. God, guns and gold, sounds to me like a call for everything that the ancestors of most current Americans escaped from.
Besides the assumed absence of god, guns, and gold's negative connotations, there is the greater problem of how the symbols contradict each other. If the first principle is god, which in the American context usually implies christianity, then the other principles need to be viewed according the bible. The new testament makes many diverse arguments, but its ultimate message, by shear repetition, is compassion for the less fortunate, i.e. peace and selflessness. Guns and gold, I would say, represent the exact opposite of peace and selflessness. In this internal contradiction of principles lies the ultimate creepiness of god, guns, and gold.
A philosphy that mixes religion with weaponry and currency seems not only hypocritical, but eager to repeat history. It reminds one of the horrors of history, in which religion, despite its official messages of peace and selflessness, has been used in violent campaigns for very materialistic goals — think crusades, feudal wars, imperialism, colonialism.
In other words, do its promoters really want to call for a repeat of god using guns for gold?
In other words, do its promoters really want to call for a repeat of god using guns for gold?
The new world is different from the old world, differently.
The new world is not different from the old world in the sense that places differ from each other only within the framework of a general culture. Usually with distance comes difference, even within small countries. But, countries of the new world, especially in northern Anglo America, differ from the old world differently. They are not merely the same culture continued, with gradual differences appearing as a result of differences in geography and the accumulation of history. They are different in the way they have accumulated (by immigration, mostly), and via the violent overlays of very different theretofore barely related cultures (Europe, Africa, indigenous America). Although the old world is also a composted overlaying of empires and different peoples, the time frame was different longer. In the new world, mixtures of places and cultures happened so rapidly that a permanent rift between the different components has been maintained in memory, and the links to the old world have become abstracted, idealized.
There are parts of Latin America, for example, where cultural difference to Spain seems proportional to the distance involved (and the ocean in between, which in some ways can act as a preserver of culture rather than a diluter), where it feels as if Spain continues with a slight hick up, as if on the other side of a mountain range. But in most areas of the Anglo America, the umbilical cord of the "mother country" has been severed, it seems. Or, put differently, the newer region is not a continuation of the mother country, but an offspring of it, it is different in some fundamental way. The Anglo Americas relate to Europe (and other relatives) on the basis of rupture, not continuation, nostalgia as opposed to habit.
The Anglo American fascination with science fiction is more a documentation of this ruptured colonial/parental relationship, than a coded cold-war narrative. The US and Canada are more like extra-planetary outposts, than intra-planetary extensions. In Latin America, on the other hand, the dominance of catholic iconography (taking the place of the north's science fiction obsession) comes across as less a link to god than to Europe and the past. It seems, that in the northern hemisphere the distance of the ocean acts as an insulator, in the southern hemisphere it acts as a conductor.
There are parts of Latin America, for example, where cultural difference to Spain seems proportional to the distance involved (and the ocean in between, which in some ways can act as a preserver of culture rather than a diluter), where it feels as if Spain continues with a slight hick up, as if on the other side of a mountain range. But in most areas of the Anglo America, the umbilical cord of the "mother country" has been severed, it seems. Or, put differently, the newer region is not a continuation of the mother country, but an offspring of it, it is different in some fundamental way. The Anglo Americas relate to Europe (and other relatives) on the basis of rupture, not continuation, nostalgia as opposed to habit.
The Anglo American fascination with science fiction is more a documentation of this ruptured colonial/parental relationship, than a coded cold-war narrative. The US and Canada are more like extra-planetary outposts, than intra-planetary extensions. In Latin America, on the other hand, the dominance of catholic iconography (taking the place of the north's science fiction obsession) comes across as less a link to god than to Europe and the past. It seems, that in the northern hemisphere the distance of the ocean acts as an insulator, in the southern hemisphere it acts as a conductor.
Americans' knowledge of geography is inversely proportional to their influence on it.
Or, more precise but longer: The influence of the American economy and foreign policy on the world is inversely proportional to the American public's knowledge of the world.
No other country affects the rest of the world as much as the United States, through product and cultural exports, financial policies, and military interventions. Yet, the average American citizen, and especially younger Americans, are comparatively ill informed about world geography. There is a general world trend among youth away from geographic knowledge, but it seems particularly troublesome in the States. It is as if the US, in its educational institutions as well as through its media, presents itself as an island, as an independent universe, a world unto itself, with a few other nations somewhere else with far less significance. The cliché "America is the greatest country in the world" is often repeated, though rarely challenged or tested. "Greatest" implies not only "best" but also "most significant" and "largest."It is a personal opinion, presented as a fact.
I actually agree that the US is the greatest country in some ways— it has been for me, for my kind of needs and interests and emotions. There are many countries that I love, but none of them have such a broad range of aspects to appreciate. I would never claim American greatness as a general fact, as if the word "greatest" could ever be a purely factual statement. I think it would surprise many Americans that the US is not the greatest in these areas:
The US is not:
The most populous (China)
The largest (Russia)
The country with the highest standard of living (Norway)
The wealthiest per capita (Liechtenstein)
The country with the greatest upward mobility, a.k.a "opportunity" (Canada and all nordic European states have higher upward mobility).
This list could go on, and I'll spare you the "best" and "worst" lists where the US is on top. The point is that certain popular assumptions which primitively claim the US as greatest are ill informed. Feeling is not the same as fact. Belief is not the same as truth.
However, considering its size (though not the largest), its large population (though not the most populous), the US is remarkably well off and educated and well-run and democratic and peaceful (internally at least, notwithstanding the crime rate, police brutality, gun paranoia). So, I think this is where the US is truly "great." Countries of similar population size and land mass tend to be much more chaotic and less democratic, mainly because of the difficulty of management, but also because of the absence of a smart democratic system.
But when it comes to the US influence on the world, it does seem suspicious that Americans are not well informed on geography and statistics. Is it intentional (keep the population insular and distracted, while we use them to serve our interests abroad militarily)? It seems that way, but I haven't found any proof it this. Whether this is planned or not, the US underfunds education and overfunds the military, and the effects are not surprising.
Or is it a function of the country itself being so large and diverse, with a kind of "world replication" contained within? I assume this is at least part of it. The US has within it aspects of Latin America (the southwest and south Florida), northern Europe (the northeast and the midwest), the tropics (the Louisiana Bayou and the Florida Everglades), the steppes of Asia (the midwest), the Alps (the rocky Mountains), the deserts of Africa and Spain (in the southwest). The US has Chinatowns and Little Italy's, Korea towns and Little Switzerlands. So, whatever it is that propels people to travel, can be found, in diluted or partial form, within the US, for less. And, the only two borders you can drive to are Mexico and Canada. In most other countries of the world, cars and trains get you to a much larger number of countries cheaply.
There are numerous, well intentioned efforts underway to improve knowledge of geography, so lets keep our fingers crossed.
Link from National Geographic/Roper poll re: geography knowledge:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/findings.html
No other country affects the rest of the world as much as the United States, through product and cultural exports, financial policies, and military interventions. Yet, the average American citizen, and especially younger Americans, are comparatively ill informed about world geography. There is a general world trend among youth away from geographic knowledge, but it seems particularly troublesome in the States. It is as if the US, in its educational institutions as well as through its media, presents itself as an island, as an independent universe, a world unto itself, with a few other nations somewhere else with far less significance. The cliché "America is the greatest country in the world" is often repeated, though rarely challenged or tested. "Greatest" implies not only "best" but also "most significant" and "largest."It is a personal opinion, presented as a fact.
I actually agree that the US is the greatest country in some ways— it has been for me, for my kind of needs and interests and emotions. There are many countries that I love, but none of them have such a broad range of aspects to appreciate. I would never claim American greatness as a general fact, as if the word "greatest" could ever be a purely factual statement. I think it would surprise many Americans that the US is not the greatest in these areas:
The US is not:
The most populous (China)
The largest (Russia)
The country with the highest standard of living (Norway)
The wealthiest per capita (Liechtenstein)
The country with the greatest upward mobility, a.k.a "opportunity" (Canada and all nordic European states have higher upward mobility).
This list could go on, and I'll spare you the "best" and "worst" lists where the US is on top. The point is that certain popular assumptions which primitively claim the US as greatest are ill informed. Feeling is not the same as fact. Belief is not the same as truth.
However, considering its size (though not the largest), its large population (though not the most populous), the US is remarkably well off and educated and well-run and democratic and peaceful (internally at least, notwithstanding the crime rate, police brutality, gun paranoia). So, I think this is where the US is truly "great." Countries of similar population size and land mass tend to be much more chaotic and less democratic, mainly because of the difficulty of management, but also because of the absence of a smart democratic system.
But when it comes to the US influence on the world, it does seem suspicious that Americans are not well informed on geography and statistics. Is it intentional (keep the population insular and distracted, while we use them to serve our interests abroad militarily)? It seems that way, but I haven't found any proof it this. Whether this is planned or not, the US underfunds education and overfunds the military, and the effects are not surprising.
Or is it a function of the country itself being so large and diverse, with a kind of "world replication" contained within? I assume this is at least part of it. The US has within it aspects of Latin America (the southwest and south Florida), northern Europe (the northeast and the midwest), the tropics (the Louisiana Bayou and the Florida Everglades), the steppes of Asia (the midwest), the Alps (the rocky Mountains), the deserts of Africa and Spain (in the southwest). The US has Chinatowns and Little Italy's, Korea towns and Little Switzerlands. So, whatever it is that propels people to travel, can be found, in diluted or partial form, within the US, for less. And, the only two borders you can drive to are Mexico and Canada. In most other countries of the world, cars and trains get you to a much larger number of countries cheaply.
There are numerous, well intentioned efforts underway to improve knowledge of geography, so lets keep our fingers crossed.
Link from National Geographic/Roper poll re: geography knowledge:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/findings.html
Cars create an environment which demands cars.
Cars create an environment in which the pedestrian seems lost, inefficient, backwards, derelict. In the US, pedestrians on the side of the road seem in need of transportation. Just as a person who sleeps outside is homeless, a person who walks outside is "carless." In most of the rest of the world, where public spaces are older and thus planned without cars in mind, the car and pedestrian environments often have mixed without negating the role of the pedestrian. There, cars still seem to be the intruders, not the rulers. In North America, cars have defined place for over a century, and have almost completely edged out and demoralized pedestrian culture.
The short term reaction to pedestrian anxiety is to join the culture and use a car. The long term solution does not appear on the horizon. Perhaps overpopulation (resulting in density) or exploding gas prices will ameliorate this strange condition.
The short term reaction to pedestrian anxiety is to join the culture and use a car. The long term solution does not appear on the horizon. Perhaps overpopulation (resulting in density) or exploding gas prices will ameliorate this strange condition.
The power of lying honestly.
Do inspiring schemers like the pope, Hitler, L. Ron Hubbard, George Bush 1&2, Limbaugh, know they are duping people? Or do they believe their own lies?
I am convinced they believe, at least to some extent, their own nonsense. They have artfully managed to close the circle of manipulation and guilt. To manipulate others you have to lie (or let's say that's the easier way to do it); to not feel guilt about lying, you have to lie to yourself. If the lies you tell others are consistent with those you tell yourself, you become free from the truth, and gain a formidable advantage.
I am convinced they believe, at least to some extent, their own nonsense. They have artfully managed to close the circle of manipulation and guilt. To manipulate others you have to lie (or let's say that's the easier way to do it); to not feel guilt about lying, you have to lie to yourself. If the lies you tell others are consistent with those you tell yourself, you become free from the truth, and gain a formidable advantage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)