The law of geographic perspective

In physical perspective objects further away look smaller and closer together and are harder to distinguish. There is an equivalent in cultural geography that seems to follow the same principles. The law of geo-cultural perspective: cultures further away seem to be almost indistinguishable. Many can't quite tell the difference between the Germans and the Dutch, the Hutu and Tutsi, Peru and Ecuador, China and Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia, Australia and New Zealand, Sweden and Norway. Sicily is mistaken as Italian, Bavaria is mistaken as German. In the US, all northern European folklore is mixed up as Polka (see Lawrence Welk). To the rest of the world, the US seems as one country, one culture; internally it seems like a world so diverse and complex as to eclipse the importance of the rest of the world.

Internal complexity distracts people from curiosity about the rest of the world. External complexity is considered irritating. Lack of curiosity about and irritation concerning other countries is externally labeled as ignorance.

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".

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 another, 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 by 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.

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

Geographic anomalies

Tijuana, Mexico is farther north than Savannah, Georgia.

New York City is farther south than Barcelona, Spain and Rome, Italy.

Toronto, Canada is farther south than Milan, Italy.

Both Cuzco, Peru and Santiago, Chile are farther east than New York City

Rio de Janeiro's and Buenos Aires's time zone is only two hours west of London's (in the winter, in summer the time zones are 4 hours apart).

In Panama, the Atlantic is north of the Pacific. The Panama Canal runs south-east from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

Halifax, Canada has the same time zone as Santiago, Chile (in winter).

In New York City, Central Park is farther east than Brooklyn Heights (Brooklyners feel east of Manhattan).

Europe used to copy itself across the world, via colonialism. Now it copies its colonies, via tourism.