Why are Americans so ignorant about the world?
I think the answer is, mostly, because they want to be.
One could argue that it’s the fault of the American education system, or the fact the U.S. is actually geographically isolated from the rest of the world, separated by two giant oceans from Europe and Asia, with only two countries—Canada and Mexico—bordering it, or that the U.S. is so large, it is very easy for Americans to get myopic, or that our politics and culture encourage an “America first” attitude and discourages learning about the rest of the world, and all of these arguments would have some merit. But at the end of the day, I blame my fellow Americans themselves for essentially choosing to be ignorant.
I was educated by the same education system as other Americans, grew up in the same giant yet isolated country, and was exposed to the same politics and culture, and yet I am immensely curious about the rest of the world, I’ve been to over 30 different countries (some of them multiple times), hosted exchange students, and I’ve learned enough about the rest of the world to know that there is still a ton for me to learn. But I look at many of my fellow Americans and I don’t see any such interest in them. For them, the rest of the world is nothing more than a handful of exotic vacation spots along with strange and dangerous places they don’t want to go to and have no interest in learning about. They have no desire whatsoever to learn about different cultures, history, geography, politics, etc. They literally have a “why bother?” attitude and happily remain focused on their own insular world. It’s like they want to be ignorant.
Your thoughts are good except isolation. Australia has no land borders with any countries. With New Zealand, Australia is considered an isolated colonial outpost well outside of Asia, Europe, and the Americas. Although since the 1990s, there has been ‘Australia as part of Asia’ debate. I agree with the other part of the argument: different cultures, history, politics, etc. You have some good points here, but a few nuanced corrections, as follows. Australia shares with the United States the perception of being a frontier society. Today, 2025, that is not wholly true, but it is true enough as our countries’ histories. The frontier thesis explains much why Americans, and Australians, are so ignorant about the world? The other “asshole” explanation are those politicians, in both countries, who are more ignorant than the average citizen.
Democracy is important for us, and we must fight to keep it, but politicians have too much power in making false pronouncements. There are currently no consequences for politicians publicly saying what is blatantly false to the population; the educated knows its falseness, the uneducated do not. The legislation in both countries does not cover that circumstance. Yet we have known, the educated, that propaganda is a big problem to our political system. As yet no one has been brave enough to advocate for legislation that would produce the capacity to call out propaganda effectively (although I shall mention one case in this direction), and to have legal consequences for propagandists. In discussing “propaganda”, I am not referring to the beneficial idea of putting out a case for a position, as in the official Catholic rhetoric. What I saying should effectively be outlawed are modern marketing propaganda systems of falsehood, across the political spectrum, including Catholic practices of speech, and those of other religions, which betrays their own doctrines. Secular ideologies should never be excluded, as well in this proposal. To the dismissive opposition, I say, “Fuck everyone who are playing these political games; to be deliberately dishonest.” I am looking you in the eye on your dishonesty. It is not as if the tide of history hasn’t turned on this topic to act upon. Germany has banned certain Nazi statements, The Australian state of Victoria has banned Nazi symbols. Let me clear. BANNING IS NOT THE SOLUTION. What I am proposing is not banning but legislation to provide punitive consequences when elective representatives make blatantly false statements of consequence. It is not difficult. All honest scholars are under the obligation not to make blatantly false statements of consequence. We shall not reach utopia on this matter, but the rhetoric against the idealism is nonsense. There is no intelligent conflict between political realism and seeking to fulfilling an ideal worth having, when thought intelligently. The alternative is conniving stupidity.
Featured Image: The culture-history war is a product of the conniving stupidity. Against Propaganda.
Neville Buch
Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)
- Death in Life and Life in Death: Affective, Intellectual, and Ontological Dimensions of Human Mortality – October 2, 2026
- Psychological Symbol Cards – October 2, 2026
- The Washington Post Impact Report and American Studies – October 1, 2026