The article is interesting even if bits and pieces are out of date. It's nice to see other's viewpoints.
My one complaint about this article, and a lot of articles of the same ilk, is the part where Americans get criticized for not "traveling abroad" and not "seeing foreign countries".
I suspect most american's will travel more MILES than the average european without ever seeing another country. It's far far more expensive for an American to visit other western countries than it is for the average European. We'd absolutely LOVE to be able to fly to France for the price of train ticket from London to Paris. Sadly, the price of oversees airfare is pretty damned high.
I know visiting different states isn't the same as visiting countries but I think people living outside of the U.S. don't understand just how different various U.S. regions are from each other. Really, you might say it's a bit silly to go visiting foreign countries when you haven't even experienced all of the diversity in your own country yet.
I once had a conversation with a Frenchman (in France) about how he had berated some poor American girl (also in France) for not knowing that Zurich was in Switzerland. I promptly quizzed him on which states 5 American cities were in, all larger than Zurich. He failed miserably.
The United States is geographically almost as large as the whole of Europe. The closest foreign border to me is Niagara Falls just over 400mi away, and even if I go there, they still speak my native tongue with pretty much the same accent. I don't think there exists any point in Germany that far from another country.
The US state of Montana is slightly larger than Germany. I can't name more than one city there and many airlines don't even fly to the state. The US is really big!
The point is that knowing that Zurich is in Switzerland is more similar to knowing that Denver is in Colorado than it is to knowing that Denver is in the United States. Presumably the size of the city is interesting because the implicit assumption is that knowing where Zurich is important because Zurich is a big city.
My point is that it isn't similar at all, on any level.
A typical foreigner to the US probably knows where some large cities in US are without having the slightest clue about which state many of them reside in.
...Which is why it's so similar to how a typical American probably knows where some large cities in Europe are without having the slightest clue about which country many of them reside in.
I'd say that few outside of America could write that sentence.
The difference between two neighbouring countries is a huge deal and apparent (regardless if you are a local or not) where you don't even speak the same language, have the same currency (the euro has of course changed that a bit (in Europe)) and for all practical purposes a complete different sets of laws and culture.
The reason for why many cities are notable is because they are the capitals of different countries. Their identity is based on their country. You can hardly say the same about different states in America (to the same extent (of course people that live in America have different accents and prejudices for people in other states etc., but to compare that to different countries?)).
I think we're both wrong to a certain extent - you're de-emphasizing the differences between states in America too much, and I'm overemphasizing them. You believe that countries are different enough culturally that not knowing which culture a city is part of is ridiculous, I believe that states are different enough geographically that not knowing which geographic area a city is equivalently ridiculous. It's a pretty dumb argument.
In America I don't need to travel at all to hear many different languages, experience different cultures, etc. They're all in walking distance in any major city. European mono-cultures need to make nationalistic distinctions, the American multi-culture doesn't.
America's monoculture was actually one of my surprises. I live in London; going to the Bay Area and seeing the monoculture was a bit of a shock. IMO you're far more likely to hear foreign languages (foreign to the country) in Europe than almost anywhere in the US.
"Try Los Angeles, there are few gringos here, and fewer all the time."
I was referring to this statement. And it is a racist statement. It is exactly as racist as saying "Try Illinois, there are few wetbacks there and fewer all the time." These are clear statements by the speaker that the group in question is both undesirable in general and worthwhile to eliminate or distance oneself from, a belief commonly called racism.
With regard to demographics, few of the thousands of undocumented immigrants likely respond to government questionnaires.
The trend is cleary described in the link above. The first sentence, "The 1990 United States Census and 2000 United States Census found that non-Hispanic whites were becoming a minority in Los Angeles."
> immigrants likely respond..
Exactly, they are quite underrepresented in the data above, reinforcing the argument. They are in higher concentration the farther south you go.
If you are upset with the word gringo or "fewer..", it was a small attempt at adding levity, perhaps it is a bit flippant.
Your assumptions of my mental state, however, are known psychologically as projection.
I'm sarcastic in general, and when receiving accusations respond. Of course we could always improve our writing in general. If you don't like your argument critiqued, perhaps you shouldn't do it either?
The San Francisco Bay Area? That's where I live. Mono-cultural it is not. Maybe you meant another Bay Area (there are as many of those as there are bays.)
I meant relatively speaking. In London, there are many streets that all could be in different countries, right down to the script used for the shop signs. I never once saw someone in a niqab or a djellaba, for example.
Well, I'm honestly bewildered. Where did you go in San Francisco? You didn't hear Spanish, Mandarin, or Cantonese anywhere? How? I hear these languages and more, constantly, every day.
To paraphrase Richard Feynman: you're not right; in fact, you're not even wrong.
No I don't find Swedish cities interesting. But I did not start quizzing you about U.S. cities. If you started quizzing me about Swedish cities, then it would be fair for me to quiz you about American ones. The issue of cities is irrelevant; the concept at discussion is "turnabout is fair play." The guy who asked about Zurich wanted to show how stupid Americans were by trumpeting his culturally specific, regionally biased knowledge. To show how this was just snobbery, an American did the same to him. It doesn't matter if you don't think America is interesting; that's not what this is about.
Note: I actually like Europe; I'm just trying to prove a point.
> It's far far more expensive for an American to visit other western countries than it is for the average European.
Well, yes. Then there's the enjoyment factor. Personally, I've been to Europe multiple times. Hell, I was born there. And frankly, I enjoy going to the Caribbean, Bermuda, and Mexico much more.
> I know visiting different states isn't the same as visiting countries but I think people living outside of the U.S. don't understand just how different various U.S. regions are from each other.
Also spot on. If you live in NYC, going to NOLA is plenty exotic. Vice versa as well. Air fare is almost nothing compared to going to other continents.
The only people who might truly be able to relate would be from China and India. Both countries are large and diverse enough that traveling inside of their borders becomes a rewarding experience.
The more I think about it, the more out of touch you really seem. The people you label as plenty exotic from NOLA were actually deported from eastern Canada(your "tundra") and St.Petersburg(what they've been calling Leningrad for the last 20 years) is pretty well on the Arctic circle, and yet is not part of your "tundra". (and Yes I realise that St.Petersburg isn't tundra, neither is the vast majority of Russia or Canada)
Ya. The cajuns decendants of the acadians of Eastern Canada(present day Nova Scotia/New Brunswick). Deported by the British/Americans(who were one & the same at the time) to what is now the state of Louisana.
In Canada, you have three choices. British Columbia/Vancouver, Ontario/Ottawa, and Quebec/Montreal. The rest is frozen tundra.
Russia? Leningrad (or whatever they're calling it now), Moscow, and the Black Sea region (might as well go to Ukraine/Odessa for that). The rest is frozen tundra.
So yeah, China and India. It's not about size. It's about the diversity of cultures and climates.
Speaking as one who lives south of some of that Canadian frozen tundra in what you probably would think is frozen tundra of the USA, I think you might want to learn more about those areas. They are quite beautiful and very nice places to visit.
Toronto is in Ontario. I did mention Ontario. Look, Canada is a wonderful place to visit. I'm going there at the end of August. But if you're a Canadian and you've already been to BC, QB, and ON ... there's not much else to see. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong.
Also Ontario is huge, and Toronto is a miniscule part of it. The people outside of Toronto/Ottawa in Ontario are completely different from the people who live in those two areas.
If you'd had been to any other parts of Canada aside from Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal, you'd realise how much more there is to see, and how much more diverse the country really is.
"It's not about size. It's about the diversity of cultures and climates." Give me a break. Canada, Australia and Russia are more diverse climate wise than China or India. How is China more culturally diverse answer me that?
edit:
From the cia world factbook(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...)
China
Ethnic groups:
Han Chinese 91.5%, Zhuang, Manchu, Hui, Miao, Uighur, Tujia, Yi, Mongol, Tibetan, Buyi, Dong, Yao, Korean, and other nationalities 8.5% (2000 census)
What you likely consider Desert - Osoyoos
Then there's all that tundra we're talking about, which is desert as well.
Jungle is tropical, so there is no jungle, there are temperate rainforest though.
Where's the jungle in China?
My one complaint about this article, and a lot of articles of the same ilk, is the part where Americans get criticized for not "traveling abroad" and not "seeing foreign countries".
I suspect most american's will travel more MILES than the average european without ever seeing another country. It's far far more expensive for an American to visit other western countries than it is for the average European. We'd absolutely LOVE to be able to fly to France for the price of train ticket from London to Paris. Sadly, the price of oversees airfare is pretty damned high.
I know visiting different states isn't the same as visiting countries but I think people living outside of the U.S. don't understand just how different various U.S. regions are from each other. Really, you might say it's a bit silly to go visiting foreign countries when you haven't even experienced all of the diversity in your own country yet.