Do you know where Alabama is?

[Reverent-One]

I think you're the only person considering it from a purely physical geographic standpoint.

Traab is too.

[Serpentine]

Check your atlas. Does it have Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein and the Vatican State? Most maps I've seen of Europe don't.

Vatican City is part of Rome, which is on the world map. European microstates don't appear to be on the world map, but most are on the map of Europe and they're all on the map of southern Europe.
This is just a high school atlas, mind you.

So are you saying that knowledge of the where the US is and where Slovenia is are equivalent from a geographical standpoint? Because you still haven't given a non-political reason why the US and Slovenia are equivalent in this regard. A country is not a physical structure, but a legal one.

I'm saying that if he wanted to be really successful in his point of trying to bust this stereotype, comparing the country with a state was a terrible way of going about it. And I haven't done that because that's the one I think matters in this case, when it comes to the message this guy is sending.
Like I said, Western Australia is several times larger, geographically, than Alabama. And yet the only reason anyone randomly asked would know where it is is because it literally says so in its name, and if it wasn't I wouldn't expect them to know that just because it's big, because to everywhere else in the world it doesn't matter, because it's just one of our states, that's it. Oh, I could bang on about how it's second-largest country subdivision in the world, or that it produces 46% of Australia's exports and is the second largest producer of iron ore in the world, but none of you will care. Because it's just a bit of Australia to you. And that's okay.

Again, I think it was a terrible question and I certainly don't judge the athlete for not knowing the answer, nor particularly for not being able to come up with a completely perfect comeback on the spot. But I also don't think it was the wonderful stereotype-busting masterpiece it's being made out to be because, again, it's putting a state on the same level of international significance as a country.

[Reverent-One]

\I'm saying that if he wanted to be really successful in his point of trying to bust this stereotype, comparing the country with a state was a terrible way of going about it. And I haven't done that because that's the one I think matters in this case, when it comes to the message this guy is sending.
Like I said, Western Australia is several times larger, geographically, than Alabama. And yet the only reason anyone randomly asked would know where it is is because it literally says so in its name, and if it wasn't I wouldn't expect them to know that just because it's big, because to everywhere else in the world it doesn't matter, because it's just one of our states, that's it.

Given the Western Australia comparison, you seem to be thinking that Cousin's was actually thinking the reporter should know where it is. Where are you getting that from? It makes more sense for him to ask that if he thinks the reporter doesn't know it, otherwise it just backfires. The point isn't too shame the reporter for not knowing where Alabama is, but pointing out through example that not knowing where a relatively small area of a crowded landmass isn't a big deal or uncommon.

Again, I think it was a terrible question and I certainly don't judge the athlete for not knowing the answer, nor particularly for not being able to come up with a completely perfect comeback on the spot. But I also don't think it was the wonderful stereotype-busting masterpiece it's being made out to be because, again, it's putting a state on the same level of international significance as a country.

Again, at no point does Cousins put Alabama at the same international significance as Slovenia.

[Traab]

I certainly wouldnt call it a majestic piece of humor that was perfectly delivered, perfectly formed, and perfectly burned the reporter in the anguish of his humiliation. Im just saying it was a good comeback that made the players point well enough to not be nitpicked. He picked a location he presumably knows about that the reporter probably wouldnt, and used that against the reporter. I mentioned Liechtenstein briefly, but that wouldnt have worked, because its doubtful the player would have known where that was either and that too would have ruined the joke.

[Serpentine]

Again, at no point does Cousins put Alabama at the same international significance as Slovenia.

He does it as soon as he puts them on the same level and suggests that it would be just as shameful to not know where a state is as where a whole country is. I don't think either is shameful, but he's still putting them on the same level.

[Reverent-One]

He does it as soon as he puts them on the same level and suggests that it would be just as shameful to not know where a state is as where a whole country is. I don't think either is shameful, but he's still putting them on the same level.

But if you don't think it's shameful to not know where either of them are though, then you're also setting them as equal in this regard (just simply equal at 0). If we accept it's not shameful to not know where Slovenia is, then the person attempting to shame someone for that is wrong. At which point, giving them a taste of their own medicine and challenging them to know something that shouldn't be shameful for them not to know (whether it's a country or a state) is simply a matter of illustrating why the first person is wrong. It leaves the first person either unable to shame the second or else shame themselves by the same logic.

[Traab]

But if you don't think it's shameful to not know where either of them are though, then you're also setting them as equal in this regard (just simply equal at 0). If we accept it's not shameful to not know where Slovenia is, then the person attempting to shame someone for that is wrong. At which point, giving them a taste of their own medicine and challenging them to know something that shouldn't be shameful for them not to know (whether it's a country or a state) is simply a matter of illustrating why the first person is wrong. It leaves the first person either unable to shame the second or else shame themselves by the same logic.

Its a shame I have no idea what you mean. But then, its all the shame, only the names have changed.

[Terraoblivion]

That is kind of the major issue, thinking that Slovenia doesn't matter. He thinks that Slovenia with it's bloody history, in the lifetime of at least a good chunk of the people in this thread at that, and struggles to define itself as a sovereign nation is just an irrelevant name on the map and pointless trivia and he says that in his capacity of an official representative of the US. That both says that whoever trains and manages the American team think that Slovenia isn't worth giving a brief briefing on before the match and that he doesn't even see Slovenia as something worthy of curiosity. He didn't say that he had been busy with training or that he hadn't paid enough attention in geography class, he takes offense at the suggestion that he gave a **** about the place. He takes pride in his ignorance about other nations, rather than be merely ignorant. And his handlers working for the US government don't see that as a problem to try to preempt.

If it was a Danish athlete playing against Belize and he couldn't say "Central America" or at least "Latin America" when asked where it was, he'd be a national embarrassment, if he got defensive about it there's be an outrage. Same for a German, a Swede or Frenchman. It's really only Americans who think that you shouldn't even pretend to care about other countries when you have to deal with them in an official capacity. And that, not the ignorance itself, is what pisses people off about American views about the rest of the world. Saying that other people shouldn't care about foreign cultures either, is just further cultural chauvinism in suggesting that others adopt American attitudes rather than Americans playing along with the international standard of politeness in international interactions.

Also, I'd be willing to put money on more Europeans knowing where Alabama is than Americans who know where Slovenia is without prior research.

[Reverent-One]

That is kind of the major issue, thinking that Slovenia doesn't matter. He thinks that Slovenia with it's bloody history, in the lifetime of at least a good chunk of the people in this thread at that, and struggles to define itself as a sovereign nation is just an irrelevant name on the map and pointless trivia and he says that in his capacity of an official representative of the US. That both says that whoever trains and manages the American team think that Slovenia isn't worth giving a brief briefing on before the match and that he doesn't even see Slovenia as something worthy of curiosity. He didn't say that he had been busy with training or that he hadn't paid enough attention in geography class, he takes offense at the suggestion that he gave a **** about the place. He takes pride in his ignorance about other nations, rather than be merely ignorant. And his handlers working for the US government don't see that as a problem to try to preempt.

If it was a Danish athlete playing against Belize and he couldn't say "Central America" or at least "Latin America" when asked where it was, he'd be a national embarrassment, if he got defensive about it there's be an outrage. Same for a German, a Swede or Frenchman. It's really only Americans who think that you shouldn't even pretend to care about other countries when you have to deal with them in an official capacity. And that, not the ignorance itself, is what pisses people off about American views about the rest of the world. Saying that other people shouldn't care about foreign cultures either, is just further cultural chauvinism in suggesting that others adopt American attitudes rather than Americans playing along with the international standard of politeness in international interactions.

Not knowing the physical location of a country isn't the same as thinking the country doesn't matter. You're also assuming that he couldn't have said "Europe", rather than he could but didn't because knew he'd still be ridiculed for not getting closer than the continent. I for one very much doubt that just saying Europe would have satisfied the reporter. And from what Asta Kask said, European athletes don't know the location of every nation they play against in world sporting events. Are you saying he's wrong?

[Asta Kask]

And from what Asta Kask said, European athletes don't know the location of every nation they play against in world sporting events. Are you saying he's wrong?

To be precise - I don't know what they know or not, but I would be extremely surprised if they were well versed in geography. Why should they be?

[Bulldog Psion]

Heh, sounds like some people here would be willing to start a major international incident and/or break off diplomatic relations with the U.S. over a reporter and a basketball player taking a minor verbal jab at each other.

[Gwynfrid]

Vatican City is part of Rome

Oh, arrgh, no. It's a state of its own while Rome is the capital city of another state. The most you can say is, it's physically enclaved inside Rome, but not part of it.

Now fortunately it has a population of 842 (per Wikipedia) so, as these things go, you haven't offended too many people.

Please point out where I said goegraphical size meant "mattering more". I have said, to my knowledge, nothing of the sort. The dart board anology has absolutely nothing to do about which board is more important, but which board is easier to hit (or in the context of the debate in question, locate on the map).

True, you didn't say that. Unfortunately, that's how making such equivalences (as the player did) comes across, in the context of the discussion we're having. Yes, that's unfair. In communicating with others, there is what you say, or what you intent to say; and then there's what the other guy hears you saying, which you can't control. That's why it's useful to listen to the feedback the other guy is giving you, allowing you to correct misperceptions.

Based on the discussion we're having, I can honestly say I don't believe you're participating in the stereotype. Still, as I tried to explain earlier, the simple fact that you're insisting on using land mass, to the exclusion of all other factors (especially the state vs country distinction) in the context of this debate will make many non-USofA people conclude the stereotype is well alive. It's not really fair on you, but I assure you it's unfortunately real.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now seriously, I think this thread has more than run its course. Everybody thinks the journalist was being a jerk. Most on the American side think the retort from the player was smart, while, as far as I could gather, most on the ROW side think he shot himself in the foot and came across as just as arrogant as the journalist. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be able to get the other side to understand why we see it that way. Well, such things happen. Sorry I couldn't put up a more clear description, but as much as I can scratch my head, I can't see what more I could say.

[Yora]

I believe on an unlabled map of the united states, I would be able to point at Alabama or at least a state that shares a border with Alabama.

On a map that doesn't have the state borders marked, I'm not sure I would be able to get very close to it. Not better than "somewhere between Texas and Floridia". Does Alabama even have a coast?

To be fair, I think even the vast majority of Western and Central Europeans wouldn't be able to tell where Slovenia is.

[Asta Kask]

Oh, arrgh, no. It's a state of its own while Rome is the capital city of another state. The most you can say is, it's physically enclaved inside Rome, but not part of it.

Now fortunately it has a population of 842 (per Wikipedia) so, as these things go, you haven't offended too many people.

It has the highest Pope-density in the world - 2 Popes per square kilometer.

[Reverent-One]

To be precise - I don't know what they know or not, but I would be extremely surprised if they were well versed in geography. Why should they be?

Apparently it's the height of arrogance and would mean they don't think the opposing countries matter at all or something.

[Bulldog Psion]

It has the highest Pope-density in the world - 2 Popes per square kilometer.

Impressive when you put it that way. Over 5 popes per square mile!

[Terraoblivion]

Apparently it's the height of arrogance and would mean they don't think the opposing countries matter at all or something.

It is getting offended by the suggestion that maybe they learn something about the opposing country that's arrogant, not happening to not know anything.

[Zrak]

Well, whether you cross the border between Alabama and Mississippi, or Georgia, or whatever or you fly from Colorado all the way, you will still be speaking the same language, have similar institutions, and whatever.

If you fly from Alabama to Australia, you will still be speaking the same language. I was not aware Australia had become a part of the United States, so perhaps Americans are geographically ignorant.

(Texas probably most notably)

This one girl my friend dated always drank "Lone Star" beer and whenever anyone made fun of her for it, she'd say "What? I love my country."

As for what Americans think of first, I've asked a number of Americans I know and they're pretty unanimous. The only state that has people who would even think of saying it when asked their nationality is Texas and only as additional information after saying American and still probably not a majority until asked where in the US. Which fits with my own experiences talking to Americans, who do in fact make up the majority of people I regularly spend time with. It also fits with how Americans are many times more likely to seek work in a different state than Europeans are to do so in a different country, even within the EU.

A lot of my family would say "Iowa" (the tribe, not the state) if asked their nationality. How many Europeans could point to our reservation on a map?

He's a basketball player. He plays basketball. When do you expect that sort of thing to come up?

How is he supposed to come up with landmass-specific trash talk if he doesn't know the first thing about Slovenian geography? If he knew more about Slovenia, Cousins could respond "Pft, your free throw percentage is roughly equivalent to the percent of your nation's territory under some form of ecological protection." The Slovenian player, being a geographically astute European, would know this meant Cousins was implying he only made about 12.5% percent of his free throws. Cousins could go on to add that he's draining threes like Slovenia's landmass is belonging to the black sea basin, leaving the player further stung by the realization that Cousins is implying not only that the Slovene player is missing 87.5% of his free throws, but that Cousins himself is meanwhile successfully scoring from the three-point distance more than four fifths of the time.

Reeling at his peerless knowledge of geography being turned against him, the Slovene player would be helpless as, seeing him on his heels, Cousins moved in for the finishing blow by saying he thought the Slovene player looked as shaken up as the Adriatic plate. Completely demoralized, the Slovene team would obviously forfeit then and there, with all other nations following suit in fear of the same happening to them. If Cousins had only spent a few minutes on wikipedia, he could have single-handedly seen the United States crowned World Basketball Champions For Ever and Ever.

[Amidus Drexel]

In This Thread:
A few Americans (and a few other people from north america) claim that Alabama roughly as geographically notable as Slovenia
A few Non-Americans claim that Slovenia is politically notable in a way that Alabama is not
A few people take neither side and argue the relevance of the current discussion

that made the players point well enough to not be nitpicked.

Clearly not.

Still, as I tried to explain earlier, the simple fact that you're insisting on using land mass, to the exclusion of all other factors (especially the state vs country distinction) in the context of this debate will make many non-USofA people conclude the stereotype is well alive. It's not really fair on you, but I assure you it's unfortunately real.

The thing is, he's not. He's explicitly compared it in several different ways (as have you, for that matter). Let's break this down.

Spoiler

Show

Arguments for Alabama (in geographical and demographic notability)
-Landmass (about 8 times as large)
-GDP (about 3 times as large)
-Age (on the order of about an order of magnitude older)
-Population (about 2 times as large)

Arguments for Slovenia (in political and demographic notability)
-Sovereign Nation > Province
-Greater relative political clout in larger governing body
-Language distinct from its neighbors

Distinctions Slovenia and Alabama share:
-Small subdivision of landmass in relation to their respective continents
-Direct involvement and importance in local wars and conflicts
-Relatively small involvement and importance in wars on foreign continents
-Largely independent government that directly answers to a larger governing body

And that's just off the top of my head, taking into account what's been said in this thread.

Are they politically comparable? No. Pretty clearly no. Alabama doesn't have a whole lot of political clout in the US (none of the states really do - even California can't manage a veto by itself), and it's only represented in the UN via the US.

Are they comparable in terms of notability? Sort of. Slovenia is much smaller in physical size than Alabama is (and in many other ways - particularly age), but has the distinction of being a sovereign nation instead of a subdivision of such. I'd say that's a reasonable comparison - but that's my opinion. I can certainly see why some people might think otherwise (in favor of either Alabama or Slovenia).

Is it reasonable for an athlete to know a lot about either? Pretty much no. Athletes are, first and foremost athletes, and if they're spending more time appeasing reporters and people that cling to stereotypes of foreigners than focusing on their game, then they'll be replaced by someone who puts that effort into the game. They're not supposed to be curious about the places they visit - they're supposed to win the game they were brought to those places to play. Similarly, I wouldn't expect a Slovenian basketball player in Alabama to be able to point out Alabama on a map. It's not relevant at all to their skillset or job.

Would I expect that sort of knowledge from a diplomat or a visiting politician? Absolutely - that's what their job is. But a basketball player? Not really. They're not really expected to care about where they are when they're not on the court. It wouldn't really matter if they couldn't point out where they were from on a world map - that's not something they need to know for anything that they do on even a semi-regular basis.

Now seriously, I think this thread has more than run its course. Everybody thinks the journalist was being a jerk. Most on the American side think the retort from the player was smart, while, as far as I could gather, most on the ROW side think he shot himself in the foot and came across as just as arrogant as the journalist. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be able to get the other side to understand why we see it that way. Well, such things happen. Sorry I couldn't put up a more clear description, but as much as I can scratch my head, I can't see what more I could say.

I don't see why it can't be both. I see it as a clever, off-the-cuff retort that also happened to be an arrogant one. Both arguments seem very clear - they just happen to be addressing different premises. That's why there's no perceived agreement; you're no longer arguing about the same thing.

[Reverent-One]

It is getting offended by the suggestion that maybe they learn something about the opposing country that's arrogant, not happening to not know anything.

It's getting offended at attempting to be "trapped" for not knowing one specific, abitrary piece of information. Why should the location of their opponent's country be something that every athlete, regardless of their country of orgin, has to know? You haven't answered whether every non-American athlete always knows that fact. Could every player on Germany's team in the World Cup find Ghana on a map?

[Asta Kask]

Are they politically comparable? No. Pretty clearly no. Alabama doesn't have a whole lot of political clout in the US (none of the states really do - even California can't manage a veto by itself), and it's only represented in the UN via the US.

Are they comparable in terms of notability? Sort of. Slovenia is much smaller in physical size than Alabama is (and in many other ways - particularly age), but has the distinction of being a sovereign nation instead of a subdivision of such. I'd say that's a reasonable comparison - but that's my opinion. I can certainly see why some people might think otherwise (in favor of either Alabama or Slovenia).

Is it reasonable for an athlete to know a lot about either? Pretty much no. Athletes are, first and foremost athletes, and if they're spending more time appeasing reporters and people that cling to stereotypes of foreigners than focusing on their game, then they'll be replaced by someone who puts that effort into the game. They're not supposed to be curious about the places they visit - they're supposed to win the game they were brought to those places to play. Similarly, I wouldn't expect a Slovenian basketball player in Alabama to be able to point out Alabama on a map. It's not relevant at all to their skillset or job.

Would I expect that sort of knowledge from a diplomat or a visiting politician? Absolutely - that's what their job is. But a basketball player? Not really. They're not really expected to care about where they are when they're not on the court. It wouldn't really matter if they couldn't point out where they were from on a world map - that's not something they need to know for anything that they do on even a semi-regular basis.

You are a very intelligent man and welcome to marry my sister. Except I don't have a sister.

[Coidzor]

It is getting offended by the suggestion that maybe they learn something about the opposing country that's arrogant, not happening to not know anything.

No, it's that it's being stated as an obligation to be able to pick out the opposing country on a map, as if that actually matters compared to just about any other basic information one could look up about a country, its people, or its culture; none of which is actually an obligation in the first place, despite the vehement insistence in this thread that it is.

[Knaight]

Check your atlas. Does it have Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein and the Vatican State? Most maps I've seen of Europe don't.

Most maps I've seen have at least some of them, and all of these are substantially smaller than Slovenia. Something like Kosovo would be a better example.

[Bulldog Psion]

Interestingly, the main reason I participate in stuff like this train wreck is to hone my debating skills and observe others' methods of debate. The pointlessness of the argument is often beneficial -- it helps you focus on the technique rather than getting too mired in the emotional response.

[comicshorse]

Interestingly, the main reason I participate in stuff like this train wreck is to hone my debating skills and observe others' methods of debate. The pointlessness of the argument is often beneficial -- it helps you focus on the technique rather than getting too mired in the emotional response.

Welcome to the internet, I think you'll be very happy here

[Grinner]

A lot of my family would say "Iowa" (the tribe, not the state) if asked their nationality. How many Europeans could point to our reservation on a map?

I'll be honest here. Most Americans probably can't point out a Native American reservation off the top of their heads.

How is he supposed to come up with landmass-specific trash talk if he doesn't know the first thing about Slovenian geography?

*snip*

If Cousins had only spent a few minutes on wikipedia, he could have single-handedly seen the United States crowned World Basketball Champions For Ever and Ever.

You are a very intelligent man and welcome to marry my sister. Except I don't have a sister.

I say you let Zrak marry your imaginary sister.

[Coidzor]

Once again, I don't think that's what Aedilred is trying to say. He's saying that this is the type of answer which fuels Europeans with an axe to grind, because it plays perfectly into their stereotypes. The answer doesn't make the player equally bad, it's still the reporter holding the antagonist stick, but it's not an answer that get us any closer to resolving any disputes or dissolving any stereotypes.

He may not have been trying to say it, but through his stance, tone, and advocacy of just laying there and taking it, that's what he and a number of others in this thread have communicated.

Which I suppose goes back into the whole "Americans view this as pointing out the equivalence of geographical trivia" vs. "Non-Americans think this is the height of American arrogance because of a whole laundry list of reasons to hate on the U.S. and Americans which would never have occurred to a basketball player when put on the spot like that."

I do think most of us agree that the player's response only was meant for the reporter in order to call ou on an annoying person's behaviour, and not directed at any European in the room in order to confirm a stereotype.

Could've fooled me. The general sentiment of this thread by non-Americans has been fairly clearly anti-American, at least in this instance. They haven't even offered a way that he could have responded without losing. Simply because he's American, there would be no winning response other than to accept an unreasonable obligation to memorize the trivia of where every country in the world falls on the map.

But it's not prominent in media, not over here, and that accounts for a whole lot. When something happens abroad, it generally happens in "[city], [country]", no matter whether the country in question happens to be Slovenia or the USA. The only time the states are mentioned is when it's about controversial state-wide laws or the American elections, or something concerning the countryside (usually droughts).

Then how are you supposed to be able to assume we're all either Californians, Texans, or from New York City?

It's more prominent in most quantifiable ways, I'm not really clear why you couldn't compare them.

Because comparing two places based upon any metric is evil if one is a sovereign nation and the other is a sub-division of a larger nation-state. It is the highest sin possible.

I'll be honest here. Most Americans probably can't point out a Native American reservation off the top of their heads.

They're not commonly mapped out on most maps that people will encounter and they're usually a ways away from other inhabited areas so, yeah...

[Terraoblivion]

Being asked if you know basic information about where your opponent is isn't some cruel trap. To think that it is is simply some kind of weird national insecurity on the part of Americans. Just saying that you unfortunately don't because reasons is perfectly valid. A bit disappointed for Slovenians hoping that people cared, but valid. It's getting in a huff about the concept of people even asking that's offensive and the certainty that it obviously has to be a trap to show that Americans are stupid. And frankly, it's absurd to think that Europeans are constantly lurking and ready to pounce on random Americans to score points and show that Americans are stupid. Europeans ask these questions because they're the questions Europeans ask, including of each other and so far I haven't seen anybody except Americans get offended by them. Seriously, Americans, we really aren't obsessed enough over your specialness or intimidated enough by you that we need to make up reasons to insult you, we have lives to lead.

[Yora]

It's getting offended at attempting to be "trapped" for not knowing one specific, abitrary piece of information. Why should the location of their opponent's country be something that every athlete, regardless of their country of orgin, has to know? You haven't answered whether every non-American athlete always knows that fact. Could every player on Germany's team in the World Cup find Ghana on a map?

No, they could not.

And since geographic ignorance is one of the popular ways Europeans mock Americans, the players reply was entirely justified and quite clever.

[Bulldog Psion]

Seriously, Americans, we really aren't obsessed enough over your specialness or intimidated enough by you that we need to make up reasons to insult you, we have lives to lead.

Throughout, you seem to have been taking the stance that the brief verbal retort of one American basketball player is a deadly insult from all Americans and the U.S. government directed at all Europeans, showing our arrogance, indifference, hatred of kittens and all that is good and holy, etc. etc.

My stance at least is that one reporter was a jackass, took a jab at some guy, the guy jabbed back, end of story. Said reporter was a lout, maybe the American was too but he was provoked.

So your position seems to be: all Americans are jackasses. Most of those arguing on the other side seem to think: one guy was a jackass.

Have I missed something?

Oh, that's right, my refusal to attack all Europeans on the basis of one reporter having a minor jerk moment is going to be interpreted by you as "arrogant American projection of my cultural values onto yours, meaning that I'm insecure and arrogant and stupid, and therefore my saying that I don't think all Europeans are jerks because one reporter was is a deadly insult to all Europeans."

Or something.

You've got all bases covered, anyway. No matter what an American says, it'll put them in the wrong in this type of world-view. Kind of like the basketball player, really.