Second, the American educational system does little to nothing to teach Americans about the rest of the world (the secondary schools being egregiously bad on this score), and the US is a very insular place to begin with. I'd reckon that if maybe a little more than half of American students with a college diploma can locate Belgium on a map (and forget about those with only high school diplomas), maybe one in five hundred can identify the two main linguistic communities there much less give you a bit of color and background as to the history and culture of these. They go to cover a land they know little to nothing about, and unsurprisingly they become unwitting vessels for whatever ignorant crap happens to be in the air the time deadline hits. I especially loved this one's treatment of vlaams belang in this regard.

Without getting into any boring details, one project I have been involved in is getting African history and culture included in school curriculum. What you wrote is part of what my "pitch" is and it is very true although I would disagree about Belgium.

World history as taught in the U.S. begins with the Fertile Crescent, moves to the Greek and Roman Empires, then onto Western Europe. After the Middle Ages and the Renaissance we go into the Age of Exploration. It here that American students get a small (very small) exposure to Africa, Asia, and the Western Hemisphere. There is no more discussion about Africa until they discuss the issue of slavery. After presenting this description every teacher/professor smile in agreement. Nothing has changed at the primary, secondary, and collegiate levels in terms of requirements.

World history at every level of American education is Eurocentric and dismisses all other continents and cultures.

While I bet they can spot Belgium on a map, I know they would have a real tough time spotting Holland.