Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MattSh

(3,714 posts)
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 02:19 AM Apr 2014

The less Americans know about Ukraine’s location, the more they want U.S. to intervene

God, I wish I could say this surprises me, but it doesn't.



Since Russian troops first entered the Crimean peninsula in early March, a series of media polling outlets have asked Americans how they want the U.S. to respond to the ongoing situation.  Although two-thirds of Americans have reported following the situation at least “somewhat closely,” most Americans actually know very little about events on the ground — or even where the ground is.

On March 28-31, 2014, we asked a national sample of 2,066 Americans (fielded via Survey Sampling International Inc. (SSI), what action they wanted the U.S. to take in Ukraine, but with a twist: In addition to measuring standard demographic characteristics and general foreign policy attitudes, we also asked our survey respondents to locate Ukraine on a map as part of a larger, ongoing project to study foreign policy knowledge. We wanted to see where Americans think Ukraine is and to learn if this knowledge (or lack thereof) is related to their foreign policy views. We found that only one out of six Americans can find Ukraine on a map, and that this lack of knowledge is related to preferences: The farther their guesses were from Ukraine’s actual location, the more they wanted the U.S.  to intervene with military force.

Ukraine: Where is it?

Survey respondents identified Ukraine by clicking on a high-resolution world map, shown above. We then created a distance metric by comparing the coordinates they provided with the actual location of Ukraine on the map. Other scholars, such as Markus Prior, have used pictures to measure visual knowledge, but unlike many of the traditional open-ended items political scientists use to measure knowledge, distance enables us to measure accuracy continuously: People who believe Ukraine is in Eastern Europe clearly are more informed than those who believe it is in Brazil or in the Indian Ocean.

About one in six (16 percent) Americans correctly located Ukraine, clicking somewhere within its borders. Most thought that Ukraine was located somewhere in Europe or Asia, but the median respondent was about 1,800 miles off — roughly the distance from Chicago to Los Angeles — locating Ukraine somewhere in an area bordered by Portugal on the west, Sudan on the south, Kazakhstan on the east, and Finland on the north.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Populist_Prole

(5,364 posts)
1. Sports fan, team-player mentality
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 02:55 AM
Apr 2014

Blood pressure rising listening to the neocon jerkoffs I work with wanting to go to war over this. They have this Tom Clancy book view on foreign policy. ( Not too much to guess on their domestic policy either )

newthinking

(3,982 posts)
5. I think we are pushing very close to a very serious confrontation
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 04:09 AM
Apr 2014

Putin has been loudly complaining (through his statesmen) that he is not doing what NATO and the media are speculating. If that turns out to be true we are backing him into a corner that could even get nastier than a conventional exchange. In confrontation you always must leave a way out or things can get out of control.

There are Nuclear missiles very close to Russia's border, much closer than during the "Cold War". There were times in the past were we were very close to a nuclear exchange. The trigger is even closer now and I don't think that people realize how close we are approaching to an Armageddon.

MattSh

(3,714 posts)
9. Depends how a serious confrontation is defined.
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 09:02 AM
Apr 2014

The consensus seems to be, once you get beyond the blowhard DC pundits, that Putin has no desire to take over any other part of Ukraine. Ukraine is a bigger basket case then anyone in the west wants you to believe. The current sanction hardly hurt Russia at all; taking over any other part of Ukraine, either using the Crimea method or an all out invasion, will hurt Russia a lot more.

Warpy

(111,255 posts)
2. I'm a little surprised so many got it right.
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 02:57 AM
Apr 2014

My fellow citizens are largely dunderheads, especially when it comes to geography.

The only reason I know it is that I was planning various escapes from a shitty family life.

MattSh

(3,714 posts)
6. Yep...
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 05:24 AM
Apr 2014

A lot of questions and mysteries in this one.

I'd ask these respondents "what are you thinking?" But they probably aren't.

JHB

(37,159 posts)
7. The Falkland Islands? Seriously?
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 06:23 AM
Apr 2014

Alaska? Seriously?
Djibouti? Seriously?
Open water somewhere between Cuba, Haiti, and Jamaica? Seriously?
...


Repeat for nearly all the wrong answers.

Xithras

(16,191 posts)
12. There's a valid historical reason for that one.
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 12:28 PM
Apr 2014

"The Ukraine" was the proper and accepted English name for the region until the Soviet Union broke apart. In the English language, when one region is considered to be a sub-region of another, the "the" article is commonly prepended to the name. "The Himalayas", "The Mojave", "The South". Because the area that is now Ukraine had been part of the Russian Empire for centuries, and was simply a subregion of the Soviet Union, that particular region was referred to as "The Ukraine" by English speaking outsiders. It was the Ukraine subregion of the Soviet Union.

For those of us who grew up during the Cold War, "The Ukraine" was the name we were taught in schools. That kind of programming doesn't go away easily.

FWIW, I still remember my 5th grade teacher discussing a potential nuclear exchange with our class. I'll never forget him telling us, "We really don't need to nuke every city and silo in the Soviet Union to beat them in a war. We only need to irradiate The Ukraine and the commies will all starve to death!" He said that with a smile on his face. It was certainly a different era.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
10. Stupider people are more likely to support war, this does not surprise me
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 11:18 AM
Apr 2014

My household has an international life and I have to say this is a very common dialog: "Where in the US do you live?" Oregon. "What?" Oregon, it is a State. "I have not heard of it, how far from Chicago?" Well, we are on the Pacific Coast, the State above California. "So you are near Hollywood?"
And so it goes.

Nay

(12,051 posts)
11. I always have to relate my story about a woman at work who commented
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 12:03 PM
Apr 2014

on my upcoming trip to New Mexico.

Her: Aren't you scared to go there?
Me: Uh, noooo, why would I be scared?
Her: All those kidnappings by the drug cartels and all? Aren't US tourists always at risk there?
Me: (cautiously) Uh, you must be thinking of Mexico. We're going to NEW Mexico.
Her: Isn't that the same thing?
Me: No, New Mexico is a state in the United States. It's out west, like with Indians and cowboys.
Her: REALLY? I didn't know that.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
13. I lived most of my life in CA, in places the world knows well
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 12:37 PM
Apr 2014

So when I moved to Oregon and found that almost no one outside the US has even heard of it I was a tad surprised. But it is the fact. Not only that, but many Americans including Members of Congress mispronounce the word Oregon regularly.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The less Americans know a...