What I always find interesting about "look at how ignorant Americans are" type articles is that they never bother to compare against any other nationality and see if the ignorance is in any way abnormal in a broader context.
Is a "look at how ignorant non-Europeans are about world geography?" going to have a different result? (And I would be quite curious to know how many, say, British or Spaniards can accurately place Ukraine on a map. I have a sneaking suspicion that the number is surprisingly low).
Yep. It seems that most people were actually quite close (with the majority at least pointing at other Eastern European countries) and, like you pointed out: most people from Europe wouldn't do much better. An even better comparison would be to ask Europeans about the location of different US states, I'm pretty sure the results would be very poor, if not worse.
Assuming ignorance would fall in the same spectrum compared to other nationalities, you don't hear other nationalities confidently stating their opinions about things they know nothing about.
To be fair, I don't have data to back that up, but I can tell you from my personal observations that people usually refrain from commenting or are reasonably educated about the topic.
Why this is important in this case is because it's largely a matter of geo-politics, and if you don't even know where the damn country is, you should not seriously suggest a certain course of action.
To be fair, these people were asked for their opinion--it was an opinion survey; it's not like they're walking around volunteering it. Saying they shouldn't say anything when asked is a bit odd.
99.9% of the Americans I talk to every day are refraining from commenting about whether the US should intervene in the Ukraine. But, then, I'm not asking.
I didn't think about the "pressure" of the survey, I must admit. Fair point.
However, does the fact that if you don't know where the country in question is located, and out of war|no war, you choose war, not strike you as somewhat weird?
I'd like to think most people would always choose no war over war ESPECIALLY if they're uneducated about the situation.
I think when you're 6'6" and 250 lbs of muscle you may be more inclined to step in when someone is threatening a defenseless innocent.
Not that that's what's going on here, but I think that's the image that many Americans have of America's place in the world. It's not especially enlightened, but I don't think the people are warmongers, they probably honestly think it's just the right thing to do and that it would have very little in the way of consequences for anyone. It's the latter part that probably correlates with not knowing much about the world outside America's borders.
> you don't hear other nationalities confidently stating their opinions about things they know nothing about [...] I can tell you from my personal observations
That is not the point of the article. The reason why Americans are the subject here is that the news agency is American. It is an artifact. What is the interest to an American that people from Botswana want intervention in the Crimean peninsula? That is useless to you. You want to know what your fellow citizens are thinking and why first. That gives you more actionable information.
Here the article claims that a desire to intervene is correlated with a lack of geographical knowledge. _That_ is the point.
Your comment, whether you meant it to or not, comes off as the sort of defensive reaction that is so very common when any article on the Internet claims something that can be interpreted as putting down Americans.
And what do I gain from it?