A NATION OF KNOW-NOTHINGS

Is the purpose of a more internationally sensitive education to improve business relations, as Meisler seems to indicate? Wouldn’t we be better served by analyzing our own industrial and economic organization, which makes us uncompetitive with other nations regardless of our knowledge of customs and practices in China? Wouldn’t it be better to clarify our own interests in the world? Our difficulty in doing so was amply evident during the Persian Gulf crisis.

It is not at all clear that American interests are best served through internationalism. Further, the lack of such breadth shouldn’t be confused with isolationism, as Meisler claims. American involvement in world affairs has been neither a matter of isolation, nor has it been a complete failure.

Meisler has adopted a perspective common to expatriates and those envious of older and less pluralistic (read: cohesive) cultures.

HOWARD A. FAYE

Los Angeles