10 Things Most Americans Don?t Know About America

[Agayek]

You're making an awfully illogical argument for someone who wants to act superior. I mean seriously, that idiotic tone argument is good in kindergarten, but I imagine you're a bit older than that.

I'm not making any claims to superiority. All I'm saying is that you seem to have been extremely offended by something that you have rather loudly proclaimed as having no merit.

If it has no merit, then it's untrue. If it's untrue, then there's no reason to be offended by it.

Ergo, if you are offended by it, it has merit.

This is the same kind of response that allows all of the -isms to retain their social power. If it's not true, ignore it and people will either get over it or continue to wallow in ignorance. Either way, it's not your problem.

 

[Dansen]

Anyone who has grown up in a city with large immigrant populations or has traveled outside their country should know everything on that list. I live in both a diverse city and have traveled to South America on several occasions to visit my family. I can't help but feel insulted because they are presented as some sort of shocking revaluation, they aren't. Thanks for those nuggets of wisdom, but I had most of that stuff figured out in elementary school.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

]My thoughts exatly. I mean I have spoken to people from Europe, Asia, Africa and Central America, and the only group of people who time and time again keep telling me how inferior Americans are, are Europeans. I guess some people don't like the fact that their region is no longer the strongest power in the world anymore.

Just ignore them. If you ever come over to Europe, I'm sure you would find the great majority of people wouldn't give a shit. It's just that the very loud minority as per usual.

I really hope so, because overall Europe is probably one of the most beautiful places in the world(IMO) and I would love to go there.

 

[Dragonpit]

-snip-

Okay, that's all well and good that you don't necessarily agree with the original post (if it could be called such), but this is a personal essay, meaning it's highly opinionated. It literally reeks of his own experiences and perceptions; it's the whole point.

Lecturing people based on your biased personal experiences is not a very good point to have. If he's going to lecture someone he should try to be at least a bit objective and accurate about it instead of just sounding full of himself.

I was going to say, "It's not a lecture", but I had the foresight to check the article first before doing so. So instead, I'm going to say that the author is making generalizations like you mentioned, and the author himself knows it. He's made it clear that he knows they don't apply to everyone just before his little list. So what I'm wondering about is what you expect with this in mind. Do you want him to acknowledge every single exception in the world in his article? (I'm actually not trying to sound condescending, so I apologize in advance if I come off at such.) I mean, you don't have to agree with him, like I said. I just can't help but think you're being somewhat unreasonable.

 

[Kalont]

An interesting read.

 

[Yassen]

snip

I'm very startled by the length and quality of your thread.
I think I agree with you about almost everything you wrote here. I recognize many of the 'Americanisms' you speak of in myself.
Depressing.

I hope you realize I didn't actually write that article, I found it and shared it. Unless you were writing to the actual author, you might want to do it on the website I linked on the same post.

 

[Bocaj2000]

The one about directness applies in a great deal with most English speaking countries, I am extremely blunt in most cases in relationships and discussion, just wanting to get to the damn point already - and it's very hard to find someone who understands and isn't just confused by it. It's hard to see without a comparison, but it applies to a lot of people. Although maybe you haven't experienced it, it's been acknowledged by a great deal of people in this thread alone, showing it's even partial relevance. And as I said, if it doesn't apply to you, ignore it.

Maybe instead of whining about my post you should read it? Or at least read it first? If you did you might see what I disagreed on about directness. Hint: It wasn't that the issue doesn't exist.

Allow me to but in.

American culture is about subtly, and dating tends to be about bait and chase. I don't know about other cultures but that is American dating in a nutshell. Maybe in other cultures having, "I think you are beautiful and I want to get to know you" as an opening line is perfectly acceptable, but in the US that is "creepy" no matter what the approach is. Americans would prefer implying feelings and emotions in order to avoid confrontation and the fear of rejection. That's all it is.

When asking directly, one is putting the person on the spot to know if he or she is wasting their time; if they are not into you subtlety won't change that. Implication makes both feel comfortable even if the end result is rejection. In my opinion, as an American, it is better for both parties to be direct. It saves a lot of time and energy.

EDIT:

snip

You're resorting to fallacious argument and personal attacks. I'd say that you're offended

 

[Wolf Hagen]

As from a viewpoint of the German "average Joe", I think most of the points are right.

But let's just say: It is not about beeing exited to see an American, since as a kind of Cultural Steamroller (where do the Big Blockbusters cvome from, the Video Games and a good Bunch of Music?), the U.S. are kind of overwhelming.

We just know a hellbunch of you guys just by those cultural Exports (from Casablanca, to Metallica, to Mythbusters and so on...), so we already got a pretty big Picture of the U.S.
And let's just say, I picked the raisins.

 

[the_green_dragon]

I'm Australian and I just like the American's funny accents.

 

[Agayek]

Prove there's no reason to be offended by it if it is untrue. That'll be a fun one. Hint: It's your subjective view on it. Hint 2: Offense isn't necessarily based on reason. Now that you have a tiny bit of knowledge for a change, want to actually think before you spew bullshit?

It's a fairly simple exercise of logic.

1) A statement is made, and it can be either true or false.
2) If it's false, there's two possible responses: Get butthurt or proceed with your life.

One of those responses requires no further effort on the part of anyone, the other wastes the time and effort of everyone involved, for no discernible gain. Since time is a commodity, you are throwing away a highly limited resource for no reason.

Ergo, getting offended by a false statement is a waste of time and energy.

Furthermore, that's beside the point. My original point was simply that you are reacting as if the whole article was a direct, personal insult, when it's fairly clearly a sweeping generalization of one of the most diverse and hard-to-generalize cultures in existence. Such reactions are usually only had in people who are afraid said generalization applies to them more than they would like.

So which is it? Does the stereotype fit, or are you just wasting everyone's time?

PS - You're seemingly mortally offended by Joe Q Random's opinion that was posted on the internet because they don't like you. How the hell do you manage in life with such thin skin?

 

[Agayek]

I'm Australian and I just like the American's funny accents.

Lies! You're the ones with the silly accents! 'muricans don't got none of that funny talk, ya hear?!

 

[Bocaj2000]

The one about directness applies in a great deal with most English speaking countries, I am extremely blunt in most cases in relationships and discussion, just wanting to get to the damn point already - and it's very hard to find someone who understands and isn't just confused by it. It's hard to see without a comparison, but it applies to a lot of people. Although maybe you haven't experienced it, it's been acknowledged by a great deal of people in this thread alone, showing it's even partial relevance. And as I said, if it doesn't apply to you, ignore it.

Maybe instead of whining about my post you should read it? Or at least read it first? If you did you might see what I disagreed on about directness. Hint: It wasn't that the issue doesn't exist.

Allow me to but in.

American culture is about subtly, and dating tends to be about bait and chase. I don't know about other cultures but that is American dating in a nutshell. Maybe in other cultures having, "I think you are beautiful and I want to get to know you" as an opening line is perfectly acceptable, but in the US that is "creepy" no matter what the approach is. Americans would prefer implying feelings and emotions in order to avoid confrontation and the fear of rejection. That's all it is.

When asking directly, one is putting the person on the spot to know if he or she is wasting their time; if they are not into you subtlety won't change that. Implication makes both feel comfortable even if the end result is rejection. In my opinion, as an American, it is better for both parties to be direct. It saves a lot of time and energy.

I acknowledge that it's more subtle and so on. What I disagreed on was his value judgment about that.

You think it's better to be direct. I don't see why it must be. I think it's fine not to be direct and to dislike overt directness. It's merely a preference in communication. Some people prefer certain modes over others. I feel like the author of the article is being self-centered and arrogant to seemingly complain that people don't like to do it his way. If they don't want to they don't have to.

Fair enough. It's your preference. I'm just giving a sociological perspective of why you might feel that way. It's expected for you to. It's insight to culture, which is what the author was trying to describe.

As for the author, you must have read something that I didn't. It wasn't an instruction manuel nor was it complaining. It was simply clarity on misconceptions. This person is well traveled and did what I would call an amateur sociology article. These aren't complaints; they're observations. What about the article came off as arrogent and self-centered and why should that possibly negate anything?

 

[Dragonpit]

-snip-

Okay, that's all well and good that you don't necessarily agree with the original post (if it could be called such), but this is a personal essay, meaning it's highly opinionated. It literally reeks of his own experiences and perceptions; it's the whole point.

Lecturing people based on your biased personal experiences is not a very good point to have. If he's going to lecture someone he should try to be at least a bit objective and accurate about it instead of just sounding full of himself.

I was going to say, "It's not a lecture", but I had the foresight to check the article first before doing so. So instead, I'm going to say that the author is making generalizations like you mentioned, and the author himself knows it. He's made it clear that he knows they don't apply to everyone just before his little list. So what I'm wondering about is what you expect with this in mind. Do you want him to acknowledge every single exception in the world in his article? (I'm actually not trying to sound condescending, so I apologize in advance if I come off at such.) I mean, you don't have to agree with him, like I said. I just can't help but think you're being somewhat unreasonable.

He's lecturing the country in general. Saying "Oh it only applies to most people" doesn't magically make it immune from criticism. I'd argue it doesn't necessarily even apply to most. Furthermore some of my complaints have to do with more than just it being a generalization.

Agreed. It doesn't make it immune to criticism. That's why I said you didn't have to agree. As for it not applying to most, that could just be your experience. Doesn't make you wrong, but it doesn't make him wrong, either. That aside, I can see you're not just making complaints about the generalization (by the way, comfort and happiness may be linked, but they are not the same thing. A person can be comfortable, but not happy. The author is not wrong in treating them separately here), but as I reread your post, I noticed more often than not, you are responding to a generalization the author made, and often it was with an exceptionally dismissive attitude. You didn't exactly support your argument against his.

 

[Agayek]

1) A statement is made, and it can be either true or false.
2) If it's false, there's two possible responses: Get butthurt or proceed with your life.

Prove those are the only two options.

Well, when someone says something to you, you can either react, or you can not react. It's a binary system. There's really nothing else to it.

Oh I'm curious, since when was life always about discernible gain. Furthermore, you're replying about active reaction. Do prove that offense is an active reaction. One can be offended and do nothing or not be offended and reply anyway.

And time is a commodity? That's a laugh. I'm so sorry to inform you of this, but being here on the Escapist is not generally what people consider a particularly productive use of time. They tend not to be looking for high return. Maybe you didn't think of that, or maybe you're too busy bullshitting.

The only objective measure of the "quality" of an act is the discernible gain. Thus, by objective standards, getting butthurt about something you disagree with is a negative and pointless response.

Time is very much a commodity. The few minutes I've put into this argument are minutes I will never get back and thus there is that many fewer minutes I have available to do something else.

You assume offense is a choice.

Offense is not a choice. How you act on it though, very much is. You can do the sensible thing and leave, removing yourself from exposure to the offensive thing in question, or you can kick up a fuss about it and waste everyone's time.

No, I am not reacting as if it was a direct personal insult. Now I understand that you're so full of yourself you don't understand that people react differently, but if I took it was a personal insult I'd just go to the mods and try to get the thread shut for being a personal insult.

Such reactions? Yeah, and people who say that kind of thing are usually ignorant talking out of their ass. I can play that stupid game too.

Actually it's based on a psychological study I read a couple of years ago, from UC Berkeley I want to say, but that could easily be wrong. IIRC the basic premise was that humans, especially males, tend towards aggressive responses to perceived insults that they are afraid really do apply to them. I'll see if I can find a link to the study itself, but I doubt I'll be able to find it.

So you're admitting that you can't make a logical argument? Because that's a false dichotomy. Worse still, you have made what appears to be the baseless leap that this thread is otherwise productive.

I admit nothing. I never said anything about this thread being productive. It's pretty clearly spiraled into completely unproductive at this point. All I have said on that matter is that going off on an offended rant about something is a waste of time with no discernible payout.

PS - I'm not. How the hell do you manage in life without the ability to not jump to stupid conclusions?

It's quite simple, I relish every minute of it.