I hear ya. I just escaped from Academia about two years ago, where adding $country to everything counts as cred. It's especially powerful when multiple countr

I hear ya. I just escaped from Academia about two years ago, where adding $country to everything counts as cred. It's especially powerful when multiple countries are combined. I cringe when I recall the false delight audience members experience when presenters start with something such as "We got an artist from Greece on board and a physicist from Austria, even some magicians from Latvia." These statements have absurdist, Babel-ish, and feel-good value, but are by no means indicators of practical success. More likely, it's a bunch of bored people from around the world uniting briefly to achieve a highly idiosyncratic and quickly forgotten result. It's fun to imagine statements like: "We put together one developer from Connecticut, a graphic artist from Rhode Island, and -even a web hacker from Massachusetts-". This contrast shows how the practice of making something exotic and worshiping it takes place. It's one form of how we Americans inhibit ourselves from greatness - when we tell ourselves that people from $country are automatically more skilled, wise, experienced than us. Their introductions should lead with their benefits, not where their parents knocked boots. I have also been on the mailing list of more than one musician who lists countries to build social proof with statements such as "I received grants to perform in Belgium, Holland, England and Germany." It's really only a weak form of imperialism to be invited and funded by a single individual or a committee, rather than to have populist acceptance and/or paying customers. Surely some national funding is key to maintaining the freshness within any culture, but confusing top-down support such as cultural grants, which inevitably introduce artisans from @countries with public support, with loyal customership is a blinding error.