Things Most Americans Don’t Know About America(thoughtcatalog.com)
thoughtcatalog.com
Things Most Americans Don’t Know About America
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2013/10-things-most-americans-dont-know-about-america/
24 comments
Great article! One thing I'd like to point out though is how his note about making generalizations in the first section makes it seem like everything he says is mostly fact.
I haven't lived outside the United States, but I have spent a considerable amount of time in parts of Europe and I definitely saw "exceptions" to what he presents everywhere I went.
For example, in Poland, people absolutely loved Americans and telling people I was American and not British warranted free beers and lots of attention from women.
In Scandinavia, everyone was extremely insecure because their cultures look down on competition and individuality. In the article, he mentions that in America women don't know how to react when told they are beautiful. If that's the case then Scandinavian women all but have a stroke when you tell them they're beautiful. In contrast, in South America, Women have no issues at all carrying on a conversation after a bold approach like that.
My point is that there are some HUGE generalizations being made here -- the world is a very big place -- and you should take this all with a grain of salt. That said, I found this a fascinating, refreshing article. Thanks for sharing it blackjack48.
I haven't lived outside the United States, but I have spent a considerable amount of time in parts of Europe and I definitely saw "exceptions" to what he presents everywhere I went.
For example, in Poland, people absolutely loved Americans and telling people I was American and not British warranted free beers and lots of attention from women.
In Scandinavia, everyone was extremely insecure because their cultures look down on competition and individuality. In the article, he mentions that in America women don't know how to react when told they are beautiful. If that's the case then Scandinavian women all but have a stroke when you tell them they're beautiful. In contrast, in South America, Women have no issues at all carrying on a conversation after a bold approach like that.
My point is that there are some HUGE generalizations being made here -- the world is a very big place -- and you should take this all with a grain of salt. That said, I found this a fascinating, refreshing article. Thanks for sharing it blackjack48.
The author's point number 8:
"We're Status-Obsessed and Seek Attention"
and he proves it at the end of the article:
"You should like Thought Catalog on Facebook here."
"We're Status-Obsessed and Seek Attention"
and he proves it at the end of the article:
"You should like Thought Catalog on Facebook here."
It's not the original blog, it is just a repost from here http://markmanson.net/
The original site prominently displays logos of well-known media outlets ("as seen on NBC News"), promotes a book entitled "The Style Guide for Men" and also has all the usual social media buttons. So I see a bit of status obsession and attention seeking there too.
I think this writer of this post is more than a little ignorant of the class that he is in and the class that the people he has been meeting are in. As a personal account from someone honestly expressing his own opinion I still think it was a good read but it makes way too many assumptions that are wrong.
For one thing it is really wrong to talk about the "culture" of America. Even just in the same state, even in the same county, the culture of people can vary widely. Just go to Palo Alto, talk to the super friendly people there (because the billionaires wear hoodies and they don't know how much money you have) then try to find the black people (oh they are there .. there are lots of them .. can you find them?) and see if you can talk to them and get them to open up and see what their culture is like. In the south, go to a white church and a black church and then come tell me if they have the same culture. This sort of thing happens all over the world as well. Unless you have stayed in a country for YEARS I don't think you can even begin to understand the intricacy of cultures in that area.
Generalizing a people by their country is no more (or less) accurate than generalizing people by their gender or the color of their skin. It's not completely inaccurate but it is completely wrong a lot of times.
For one thing it is really wrong to talk about the "culture" of America. Even just in the same state, even in the same county, the culture of people can vary widely. Just go to Palo Alto, talk to the super friendly people there (because the billionaires wear hoodies and they don't know how much money you have) then try to find the black people (oh they are there .. there are lots of them .. can you find them?) and see if you can talk to them and get them to open up and see what their culture is like. In the south, go to a white church and a black church and then come tell me if they have the same culture. This sort of thing happens all over the world as well. Unless you have stayed in a country for YEARS I don't think you can even begin to understand the intricacy of cultures in that area.
Generalizing a people by their country is no more (or less) accurate than generalizing people by their gender or the color of their skin. It's not completely inaccurate but it is completely wrong a lot of times.
> We didn’t even invent modern democracy. There were parliamentary systems in England and other parts of Europe over a hundred years before we created government.
AFAIK, England's parliament, prior to the US, could not remotely be described as a democracy. Indeed, it was well over a hundred years later that this would be the case.
I have no idea what he means by "other parts of Europe". My best guess would be San Marino, which has had a democratic-ish thing going for a very long time. But San Marino was (and indeed is) pretty far from a modern democracy in any sense of the term.
The US might not have a lot of things going for it. But I think it's fair to say that it's the first modern democracy.
AFAIK, England's parliament, prior to the US, could not remotely be described as a democracy. Indeed, it was well over a hundred years later that this would be the case.
I have no idea what he means by "other parts of Europe". My best guess would be San Marino, which has had a democratic-ish thing going for a very long time. But San Marino was (and indeed is) pretty far from a modern democracy in any sense of the term.
The US might not have a lot of things going for it. But I think it's fair to say that it's the first modern democracy.
Since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, English Bill of Rights 1689, the Monarchy never since had absolute power, there was always a powerful parliament.
The English Civil War, a few decades earlier, was fought between pro-parliament (Oliver Cromwell) and pro-monarchist forces.
Without these events, it's unlikely the U.S. would have been founded explicitly as a Republic. As it was, Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists argued at the constitutional convention for an elective monarchy. (Which is why the presidency is more powerful than the anti-federalists and others would have liked)
The English Civil War, a few decades earlier, was fought between pro-parliament (Oliver Cromwell) and pro-monarchist forces.
Without these events, it's unlikely the U.S. would have been founded explicitly as a Republic. As it was, Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists argued at the constitutional convention for an elective monarchy. (Which is why the presidency is more powerful than the anti-federalists and others would have liked)
Or the Magna Carta of 11something
1215. There is actually a lesser known document called the "Charter of Liberties" from 1100. It was entirely ignored but was critical influence for the Magna Carta.
The Magna Carta was also basically ignored, but was utterly critical for the English Bill of Rights, which really has been followed, till this day.
The Magna Carta was also basically ignored, but was utterly critical for the English Bill of Rights, which really has been followed, till this day.
And you can make out that (parts of( the US Declaration of Independence was also ignored: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.". Just ask any slave living under that constitution!
Isn't history fun! And nuanced! And grey!
Isn't history fun! And nuanced! And grey!
Fully 30% of Jefferson's Original Declaration was truncated. It explicitly denounced slavery and blamed it on Britain.
That caused him great trouble. Till his death, he insisted that be the version preserved for posterity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_In...
That caused him great trouble. Till his death, he insisted that be the version preserved for posterity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_In...
AFAIK, England's parliament, prior to the US, could not remotely be described as a democracy. Indeed, it was well over a hundred years later that this would be the case.
How? When the USA got independence it basically copied the UK voting/parliament system, only allowing white men who owned property to voting, just like UK.
Of course, it depends on definition of "democracy". But I can't see how you can have a definition that would hold the following things all true: "(a) The UK is a democracy in 2013 (b) The USA was a democracy in 1776 (c) The UK was not a democracy in 1776 (d) The UK was not a democracy for ~100 years after 1776"
(I use the term UK, but don't think it was called that in 1776)
How? When the USA got independence it basically copied the UK voting/parliament system, only allowing white men who owned property to voting, just like UK.
Of course, it depends on definition of "democracy". But I can't see how you can have a definition that would hold the following things all true: "(a) The UK is a democracy in 2013 (b) The USA was a democracy in 1776 (c) The UK was not a democracy in 1776 (d) The UK was not a democracy for ~100 years after 1776"
(I use the term UK, but don't think it was called that in 1776)
> The US might not have a lot of things going for it. But I think it's fair to say that it's the first modern democracy.
What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commo... ?
What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commo... ?
As an American who is living in Vietnam and has travelled around Asia a lot (including North Korea), I take issue with a lot of the points in this article.
1. There are more American flags in Saigon that I've seen almost anywhere in the US. Being American here has more cache here than being British, Australian, etc. Probably because American ex-pats are kind of rare here, not counting the Viet Kieu. Maybe this isn't true the more north you go, but it is in Saigon for sure.
3. I'm totally not sure where he gets the idea the Vietnamese think the "American War" (what they refer to it as) being about China when it was clearly about expelling foreign occupation and re-uniting the country. Maybe he has it confused with the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in the 1970's which had more to do with the Khmer Rouge aligning with China, while Vietnam was aligned with Russia.
5. If you think the quality of life isn't great for the average American, come on down to District 4 and grab a bowl of pho with me. Or we could go to PR Karaoke and have the hostess girl tell us about why she's working at karaoke.
6. Bangkok is kind of a shit hole. But it's a much nicer shit hole than most of it's SE Asian neighbor's big cities. And of course the world is predictable and all people everywhere have common sets of problems. But my experience is that the severity of those problems, on a whole, are much more severe in developing countries than what most people face in America.
7. Agree whole heartedly.
8. This is what makes America special though. Try training iPhone developers in Vietnam for a few months and you realize it's that "you are special" thing we are taught from childhood that makes the difference in our skillsets. I think a mild level of arrogance is healthy.
1. There are more American flags in Saigon that I've seen almost anywhere in the US. Being American here has more cache here than being British, Australian, etc. Probably because American ex-pats are kind of rare here, not counting the Viet Kieu. Maybe this isn't true the more north you go, but it is in Saigon for sure.
3. I'm totally not sure where he gets the idea the Vietnamese think the "American War" (what they refer to it as) being about China when it was clearly about expelling foreign occupation and re-uniting the country. Maybe he has it confused with the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in the 1970's which had more to do with the Khmer Rouge aligning with China, while Vietnam was aligned with Russia.
5. If you think the quality of life isn't great for the average American, come on down to District 4 and grab a bowl of pho with me. Or we could go to PR Karaoke and have the hostess girl tell us about why she's working at karaoke.
6. Bangkok is kind of a shit hole. But it's a much nicer shit hole than most of it's SE Asian neighbor's big cities. And of course the world is predictable and all people everywhere have common sets of problems. But my experience is that the severity of those problems, on a whole, are much more severe in developing countries than what most people face in America.
7. Agree whole heartedly.
8. This is what makes America special though. Try training iPhone developers in Vietnam for a few months and you realize it's that "you are special" thing we are taught from childhood that makes the difference in our skillsets. I think a mild level of arrogance is healthy.
As an American, I honestly don't see these as being a problem at all where I live. Maybe its more relegated to the coasts but by and large everyone I know here (obviously there are exceptions every now and again) already knows/has this internalized.
This post largely strikes me as attacking American export culture mostly. Guess I'm in an exceptional bubble then.
This post largely strikes me as attacking American export culture mostly. Guess I'm in an exceptional bubble then.
'Problem' and 'attacking' sound a bit defensive. The post is definitely a generalization, but I would say (as a Canadian who visits the US a few weeks out of the year) that these are fairly accurate.
I don't know if these are very popular in the US, but the CBC has a whole series called 'Rick Mercer Talks To Americans' (comme ca http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhTZ_tgMUdo) where he gets people in DC, New York, and other major cities to go on national television and petition to 'Save The Parliamentary Igloo', 'Stop the Saskatchewan Whale Hunt', etc. These people really just don't seem to:
a) have any awareness of the rest of the continent they live on, above the 49th
b) care what they say in public. They'll just spout anything to be on the TeeVee
I'm aware it's all edited to be entertaining, but frankly it does seem fairly representative of American exceptionalist and isolationist culture.
I don't know if these are very popular in the US, but the CBC has a whole series called 'Rick Mercer Talks To Americans' (comme ca http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhTZ_tgMUdo) where he gets people in DC, New York, and other major cities to go on national television and petition to 'Save The Parliamentary Igloo', 'Stop the Saskatchewan Whale Hunt', etc. These people really just don't seem to:
a) have any awareness of the rest of the continent they live on, above the 49th
b) care what they say in public. They'll just spout anything to be on the TeeVee
I'm aware it's all edited to be entertaining, but frankly it does seem fairly representative of American exceptionalist and isolationist culture.
Ugh. I'm a Canadian who is repelled by Rick Mercer's way of feeding Canadians' blind spots and prejudices back to them. His comedy is smug. He is not a truth-teller—he shows people what they want to see.
Canadian prejudice against Americans has little to do with Americans and much to do with ourselves. It's a national neurosis (at least among the educated classes) which we're mostly unaware of. It quickly becomes obvious to Americans who notice it, though. I've had many conversations with American friends about this. Luckily for us, most Americans' feelings toward Canada are uncomplicated, friendly and warm, so they have no idea how far from reciprocated this is. It's also lucky for us that they think we're cute and don't take us seriously, because if they did they'd find a lot to be offended by.
The most curious aspect of Canadian prejudice against Americans is how openly and proudly we proclaim it, as if it could be nothing but endearing. This is a consequence of its being mostly unconscious.
Canadian prejudice against Americans has little to do with Americans and much to do with ourselves. It's a national neurosis (at least among the educated classes) which we're mostly unaware of. It quickly becomes obvious to Americans who notice it, though. I've had many conversations with American friends about this. Luckily for us, most Americans' feelings toward Canada are uncomplicated, friendly and warm, so they have no idea how far from reciprocated this is. It's also lucky for us that they think we're cute and don't take us seriously, because if they did they'd find a lot to be offended by.
The most curious aspect of Canadian prejudice against Americans is how openly and proudly we proclaim it, as if it could be nothing but endearing. This is a consequence of its being mostly unconscious.
You could easily send an American reporter onto the streets of Canada, or any nation for that matter, and produce the same results.
It's all fine and well to say that, but there's actually the meta-problem that Americans don't really want to watch non-Americans. Despite the dismal quality of network television, and drought of content for 24 hour news stations, no US television producer has thought, "We'll go to Canada and laugh at how they don't know how to make a Philly Cheesesteak!".
Seriously thought, did you watch the video? I should find the one where he says our Prime Minister is "Pierre Poutine".
Seriously thought, did you watch the video? I should find the one where he says our Prime Minister is "Pierre Poutine".
But mistermann is right; his point is the critical one, and you've responded to it by changing the subject.
Another humorist who does this, in a meaner way, is Sasha Baron-Cohen. The lesson here is not how ridiculous the people being ridiculed are, but rather: Who controls the editing controls everything. Christopher Hitchens said brilliantly about the dinner party scene in Borat that it showed not how racist Americans are, but how polite they are.
Mercer's portrayals of Americans are not portrayals of Americans at all, but of Canadians' self-congratulatory caricatures of Americans. It makes me cringe with embarrassment.
Another humorist who does this, in a meaner way, is Sasha Baron-Cohen. The lesson here is not how ridiculous the people being ridiculed are, but rather: Who controls the editing controls everything. Christopher Hitchens said brilliantly about the dinner party scene in Borat that it showed not how racist Americans are, but how polite they are.
Mercer's portrayals of Americans are not portrayals of Americans at all, but of Canadians' self-congratulatory caricatures of Americans. It makes me cringe with embarrassment.
> It's all fine and well to say that, but there's actually the meta-problem that Americans don't really want to watch non-Americans
Is a lack of exposure to Canadian television really a problem? Americans listen to quite a bit of Canadian music. And a sizable minority also watch a significant amount of British television (Downton Abbey, tons of Murder-Mystery stuff). Not to mention the huge amount of European literature we're exposed to in our education system or that we read for pleasure (Harry Potter). But that's just western culture. Looking East, you can also look at the huge impact Japanese Animation and Chinese Film has had on our culture as well.
Americans will voraciously consume any media that's 1) Made available to them (Most Canadian TV fails this test) 2) In English.
Is a lack of exposure to Canadian television really a problem? Americans listen to quite a bit of Canadian music. And a sizable minority also watch a significant amount of British television (Downton Abbey, tons of Murder-Mystery stuff). Not to mention the huge amount of European literature we're exposed to in our education system or that we read for pleasure (Harry Potter). But that's just western culture. Looking East, you can also look at the huge impact Japanese Animation and Chinese Film has had on our culture as well.
Americans will voraciously consume any media that's 1) Made available to them (Most Canadian TV fails this test) 2) In English.
I find this amusing that every one of my friends watches the following religiously:
Top Gear, Doctor Who, Downton Abbey, Peep Show, QI, amongst others.
And from showing all of the rest of my non-british loving friends these shows they tend to become instant fans. So I think this meta problem is really not on the American side to be honest but the lack of availability if at all.
And from showing all of the rest of my non-british loving friends these shows they tend to become instant fans. So I think this meta problem is really not on the American side to be honest but the lack of availability if at all.
It's a bit like the meme-myth "only 10% of Americans have a passport", which turns out to be nonsense.
I don't think anyone would describe US television as "dismal". Maybe you've missed The Wire, The Sopranos, and Deadwood but there are some wonderful programs being produced in the US these days. Of course, there is some serious dross among those gems. Having seen a fair amount of Canadian television, I can tell you it contains some serious dross as well.
And yes, I don't think a show demonstrating foreigners lack of knowledge about US culture would be produced here. That sounds like a very boring show.
And yes, I don't think a show demonstrating foreigners lack of knowledge about US culture would be produced here. That sounds like a very boring show.
The points in the post were selected for narrative value rather than accurate representation. Repeated use of misleading statistics is a strong hint as to purpose. I've lived all over the US and, like you, I've never really seen this problem. Americans are no more or less provincial than the people anywhere else in the world.
Ironically, the author essentially commits the sin he is accusing other Americans of, painting a large group of diverse people with caricatures and stereotypes invented and reinforced by mass media. The US has a common language (with some exceptions) but there is not a common culture except in a a very loose sense.
Ironically, the author essentially commits the sin he is accusing other Americans of, painting a large group of diverse people with caricatures and stereotypes invented and reinforced by mass media. The US has a common language (with some exceptions) but there is not a common culture except in a a very loose sense.
As someone who lived outside the US for about 10 years as an adult, in several countries, this pretty much rings true.
It's not that all 10 items are only true for the US and not true for any other countries -- there are certainly other status-obsessed countries, other unhealthy countries, etc. -- but I think the most important take-away from the article is that America is not nearly as special as Americans assume it is.
I remember being shocked as I discovered that on my own, long ago. America may have the biggest military or invent a lot of things, but it's still just another country. But because we're so big and so insular, it's hard for most Americans to realize.
(However, I still like the US an awful lot too -- living in NYC now is great because there's such a mix of people from everywhere.)
It's not that all 10 items are only true for the US and not true for any other countries -- there are certainly other status-obsessed countries, other unhealthy countries, etc. -- but I think the most important take-away from the article is that America is not nearly as special as Americans assume it is.
I remember being shocked as I discovered that on my own, long ago. America may have the biggest military or invent a lot of things, but it's still just another country. But because we're so big and so insular, it's hard for most Americans to realize.
(However, I still like the US an awful lot too -- living in NYC now is great because there's such a mix of people from everywhere.)
I'm wondering how many fo these apply to other countries in the Anglosphere. Certainly Americans in general must be better at expressing emotions than the British in general, culturally speaking.
Yeah, this for example is blatantly false in most other anglophone cultures and at least a few others I'm aware of. Or it's the exception rather than the rule:
> Whereas, in almost every other culture approaching women this way is met with a confident smile and a “Thank you.”
> Whereas, in almost every other culture approaching women this way is met with a confident smile and a “Thank you.”
The author's discussion of healthcare seems a bit off, or at least misleading, to me. I'll freely admit I'm not an expert and my understanding is that the healthcare system in the United States has all kinds of perverse incentives and lack thereof, etc.
That said: The author (and others) mention people getting surgery and the like for free. This doesn't seem accurate to me: doctors and nurses must be payed, medicines acquired, hospitals run, etc. The cost may be collected differently (taxation vs. insurance or at time of service) and various systems may be more or less efficient. But except in rare edge cases, no system is free.
Speak of medicine, yes, drugs are more expensive in the US than elsewhere. My understanding is that there are multiple reasons for this, including that some countries with nationalized healthcare can negotiate in bulk, Americans have more to spend, and the insane cost of R&D is primarily recouped in the American market. The rest of the world quite literally has subsidized pharmaceuticals. Edit: which is not to say that drugs are not in fact unusually expensive in the USA. But it is misleading to blithely imply that other countries are less messed up because they have cheaper pharmaceuticals.
Finally, the snarky comments about profit seem a bit off the mark. Do we believe that the food industries in other countries are not interested in profit?
That said: The author (and others) mention people getting surgery and the like for free. This doesn't seem accurate to me: doctors and nurses must be payed, medicines acquired, hospitals run, etc. The cost may be collected differently (taxation vs. insurance or at time of service) and various systems may be more or less efficient. But except in rare edge cases, no system is free.
Speak of medicine, yes, drugs are more expensive in the US than elsewhere. My understanding is that there are multiple reasons for this, including that some countries with nationalized healthcare can negotiate in bulk, Americans have more to spend, and the insane cost of R&D is primarily recouped in the American market. The rest of the world quite literally has subsidized pharmaceuticals. Edit: which is not to say that drugs are not in fact unusually expensive in the USA. But it is misleading to blithely imply that other countries are less messed up because they have cheaper pharmaceuticals.
Finally, the snarky comments about profit seem a bit off the mark. Do we believe that the food industries in other countries are not interested in profit?
>That said: The author (and others) mention people getting surgery and the like for free. This doesn't seem accurate to me: doctors and nurses must be payed, medicines acquired, hospitals run, etc. The cost may be collected differently (taxation vs. insurance or at time of service) and various systems may be more or less efficient. But except in rare edge cases, no system is free.
Well, for one it's not overpaid 10 times, as is in the US.
So essentially, even in the numeric sense, it's almost free.
Second, for free means "without having to pay directly".
Yes, people pay through taxes.
But then again, you pay taxes in the US too, and that doesn't give you free surgery.
Well, for one it's not overpaid 10 times, as is in the US.
So essentially, even in the numeric sense, it's almost free.
Second, for free means "without having to pay directly".
Yes, people pay through taxes.
But then again, you pay taxes in the US too, and that doesn't give you free surgery.
I have never flagged anything at HN before, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the characteristics I associate with HN. Plus the "things that most Americans don't know" are pablum I've seen so many times before as to be boring.
I would have preferred to keep my mouth shut, but when my own (software-development oriented) submissions have been flagged, I've groused that I wish flagging required a brief written justification. So I felt obligated to write this to explain myself.
I would have preferred to keep my mouth shut, but when my own (software-development oriented) submissions have been flagged, I've groused that I wish flagging required a brief written justification. So I felt obligated to write this to explain myself.
Amen brother.
While this article is a break from the PRISM fodder that's seen quite a bit of play here, it has absolutely nothing to do with software development, technology, or the internet.
If I could downvote the article I would, and I'm not the type to flag submissions, but to see this on the front page is, I guess, indicative of the audience and their views.
If I could downvote the article I would, and I'm not the type to flag submissions, but to see this on the front page is, I guess, indicative of the audience and their views.
As a teenager in America with immigrant parents, I'm surprised at how few people understand metric units or even the universal dating system and 24 hour time. Foreign language classes are the only things even bringing this stuff up where I am.
"but unless you actually are Steve Jobs or Thomas Edison (which is unlikely) then most people around the world are simply not going to care. There are exceptions of course. And those exceptions are called English and Australian people."
What? I don't know any Australian people who would be impressed by American people just because they are from the US. Perhaps you didn't pick up on our sense of humour? Or perhaps you meant Australian politicians?
What? I don't know any Australian people who would be impressed by American people just because they are from the US. Perhaps you didn't pick up on our sense of humour? Or perhaps you meant Australian politicians?
This is more or less correct, but I think the author exaggerated the "non-noteworthiness" of the USA in order to make a point. While the rest of the world may not care about an individual US citizen, they all pay close attention to the country as a whole. They do this because the USA makes a HUGE impact on the world stage and not paying attention to us isn't an option. Just about every news broadcast in the rest of the world will have a short bit on "what's going on in America." Granted, the things the rest of the world thinks are important (who are we invading now, who did we make angry) are not the same things that CNN thinks are important (the popular murder trial, Kim Kardashian's baby's name). The USA casts a large shadow around the world. This doesn't give Americans the right to act like fools when we travel, but we aren't exactly impotent.
I found the article to be inconsistent.
Then there are the references to CNN and Fox News. (vomit) Do Americans really get their news from these sources? Or is it only the TV-zombie masses?
That said, I do agree that we are too full of ourselves, and we do exhibit a fair bit of myopic tendencies as pertains to just where we actually stand in the overall global scheme.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, why is this crap on the front page of HN?
>Norwegians make more money.
>despite being the richest country in the world, we come in a paltry 38th. (life expectancy)
>In a recent survey of young Americans, 63% could not find Iraq on a map (despite being at war with them)
Then there are the references to CNN and Fox News. (vomit) Do Americans really get their news from these sources? Or is it only the TV-zombie masses?
That said, I do agree that we are too full of ourselves, and we do exhibit a fair bit of myopic tendencies as pertains to just where we actually stand in the overall global scheme.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, why is this crap on the front page of HN?
> So which is it? How can the USA be the richest country in the world if Norwegians make more money?
Norwegians make $62,767 per year per capita on average.[1] Americans make $49,965 per year per capita on average.[1] So an average Norwegian makes $12,802 more every year.
You know that Norway is a pretty small country compared to the USA : 5 millions inhabitants vs 300 millions.
That is you should try simple maths :
5,000,000 * 62,757
300,000,000 * 49,965
I'm pretty sure the second result will be slightly bigger.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP...
Norwegians make $62,767 per year per capita on average.[1] Americans make $49,965 per year per capita on average.[1] So an average Norwegian makes $12,802 more every year.
You know that Norway is a pretty small country compared to the USA : 5 millions inhabitants vs 300 millions.
That is you should try simple maths :
5,000,000 * 62,757
300,000,000 * 49,965
I'm pretty sure the second result will be slightly bigger.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP...
Pretend-smart pablum.
Nice perspective from outside the USA USA USA bubble.
Previously submitted a couple of times:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4231219
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5633838
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4231219
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5633838
" Americans tend to assume that the rest of the world either loves us or hates us (this is actually a good litmus test to tell if someone is conservative or liberal)."
So, is that respectively? Do conservatives generally feel one way while liberals feel another?
So, is that respectively? Do conservatives generally feel one way while liberals feel another?
It's difficult to discuss this without arguing but what about the name "America" not the "United States of America".
There are many countries on the continent of Africa and almost a billion people and nobody would argue referring to people from there as Africans. What if South Africa argued only its citizens could be called Africans?
There are many people and many countries in the EU and Europe (who aren't part of the EU) that you could refer to as Europeans. Spain doesn't have exclusive use to the word European anymore than someone from Italy or Germany does.
Asia is a bit different but an Asian person is generally from India, China, south Asian, etc. just not China or Japan.
The Americas both North and South what do we call people from those countries? No not just North American or South American I mean referring to all people, otherwise the USA should be called the United States of North America.
There are many countries on the continent of Africa and almost a billion people and nobody would argue referring to people from there as Africans. What if South Africa argued only its citizens could be called Africans?
There are many people and many countries in the EU and Europe (who aren't part of the EU) that you could refer to as Europeans. Spain doesn't have exclusive use to the word European anymore than someone from Italy or Germany does.
Asia is a bit different but an Asian person is generally from India, China, south Asian, etc. just not China or Japan.
The Americas both North and South what do we call people from those countries? No not just North American or South American I mean referring to all people, otherwise the USA should be called the United States of North America.
The problem is that US dwarfs the rest of the continent in most things - economy, scientific development, etc.
In other words - if a random person somewhere in the world mentions 'America' they are most likely refering to the USA. So people (outside of South America obviously) just choose to save time and skip the 'Northern' bit. I know it's a bit unfair to South Americans - but that's life. Same way Scots and Welsh are probably unhappy when rest of the world thinks they are from England.
Perhaps if in the future the roles change and South America dominates, the language will adopt.
In other words - if a random person somewhere in the world mentions 'America' they are most likely refering to the USA. So people (outside of South America obviously) just choose to save time and skip the 'Northern' bit. I know it's a bit unfair to South Americans - but that's life. Same way Scots and Welsh are probably unhappy when rest of the world thinks they are from England.
Perhaps if in the future the roles change and South America dominates, the language will adopt.
Few people hate us
Well, this part has changed a little since the article was written in May.
Well, this part has changed a little since the article was written in May.
>Hitler was primarily defeated by Russia (not us)
That's what European history buffs think too. Russia (USSR) bled Hitler to death, and then the US comes, does a little song and dance and "we defeated Germany!".
That's what European history buffs think too. Russia (USSR) bled Hitler to death, and then the US comes, does a little song and dance and "we defeated Germany!".
Hitler was primarily defeated by the US in western Europe at least.
He was fully defeated by Russia and Americans+UK.
He was fully defeated by Russia and Americans+UK.
I take issue with the sexist bits of this article, but I agree with the overall "Americans are cold and don't say how they feel" message. As an American, it gets confusing and lonely sometimes.
Off topic political rant. Flagged.
You could just, you know, ignore it and carry on with your life. You'll be happier that way.
I think there is one thing were many Americans really have a wrong opinion about themselves. It's that they enjoy the most freedom in the world. IMHO this should be number one in the list.