10 Things Most Americans Don?t Know About America

[Carlos Storm]

As far as the "we don't know a lot about the rest of the world" statement goes, it makes sense for this to be the case since America is so large and so far physically away from so much of the rest of the action. It makes a lot of sense that someone brought up in Europe where everything is literally RIGHT THERE would need to know a lot A LOT of geography--and several languages--but in America where one can live several hours and several hundred miles from ANY other nation, this is not as necessary. When a person can go through their whole life without needing to travel outside of their nation (and frankly it costs a million million dollars to get a ticket across the ocean), then it is understandable that few people bother.

I personally like to travel myself--but I just wanted to throw this perspective out there. It's incredibly bothersome to me how sometimes people look at the lack of interest and knowledge of European affairs (because lets be honest--that's what people mean when they say "world affairs") in America and immediately jump to unfair and frankly inaccurate conclusions.

Yeah, it's not like you CLEARLY have a highway of some sort, filled with information on any given subject, literally at your fingertips....oh wait.

You might want to redo your math on overseas tickets there bud, or maybe go with a different airline, either way that's wrong.

You're opinion on the definition of the term "world affairs", while certainly more enlightened than the average American(you grudgingly admit Europe exists), is still narrow-minded, there's 5 other continents buddy, pull up an atlas and learn them.

 

[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?

Well it's kind of there in the title where it says we're poor at it. He speaks of our language being cheapened. And the comparison to other cultures at the end with the starting bit of saying we're poor at it seems to imply that other cultures are better at it. I say it's merely different social cues. Maybe it's just a false implication I picked up, but when he says that's poor and compares it to other cultures it's as if he seems to think that "Thank you" is the more proper response. And I didn't say that it should negate anything that I see him as acting self-centered and arrogant. But it does say what I think was wrong with his attitude in approaching this.

He's simply saying that we are not as grand as we think we are. That's all. Sorry if you found is language offensive, but I don't see it the way you do.

 

[Risingblade]

That was completely disappointing I was expecting a list of historical facts. A lot of these can be applied to other countries as well.

 

[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.

Considering he's the one making sweeping claims I think that's more of a problem for him than me. He's more or less saying "Most Americans are like X. I know because of the people I've encountered" and I'm replying "Not most of the ones I've met". Which is going to be more of a problem for him because he's trying to claim Americans are a certain way.

I get the impression that you missed the point; he doesn't have to prove his generalizations. Yes, it's self-indulgent and arrogant, but that's the whole point to generalizations. Again, you don't have to agree with them.

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.

Why do I need to support instead of just saying "Well your proof isn't very good because all you have are experiences and mine differ"? It's not as if I'm claiming Americans are mostly a certain way. He's making the sweeping claims, he has much more to defend. I don't exactly need to provide more evidence than he does if I'm just trying to say his evidence to support his claims is questionable.

Well, then I'm confused about the intent behind your complaints. Are you trying to disprove his argument, get him to improve his argument, or do you just simply disagree with him?

 

[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?

Well it's kind of there in the title where it says we're poor at it. He speaks of our language being cheapened. And the comparison to other cultures at the end with the starting bit of saying we're poor at it seems to imply that other cultures are better at it. I say it's merely different social cues. Maybe it's just a false implication I picked up, but when he says that's poor and compares it to other cultures it's as if he seems to think that "Thank you" is the more proper response. And I didn't say that it should negate anything that I see him as acting self-centered and arrogant. But it does say what I think was wrong with his attitude in approaching this.

He's simply saying that we are not as grand as we think we are. That's all. Sorry if you found is language offensive, but I don't see it the way you do.

Erm, no I really do not think he saying we're not as grand as we think we are. He says that in some points, but if you look at the particular point in question I do not see him mentioning that Americans think they're grand. And seriously, I really have to question anyone who thinks they're grand based on subtle dating habits over direct ones. Unless you mistook me as talking about anything besides point 4 there?

I thought you were talking about the whole article for a couple of posts.

Anyway, as far as #4 goes, I saw it as a cultural statement. One of my Israeli friends actually complained to me about how hard it is to date American women. From a sociological standpoint I agree. Our lack of confrontation due to fear of rejection is very harmful and encourages poor dating habits.

 

[Unsilenced]

So the 10 things most Americans don't know about America... are basically the 10 most common stereotypes/commonly said things about America/Americans?

"10 things that some Americans might disagree with and/or want to amend slightly," maybe.

 

[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.

Considering he's the one making sweeping claims I think that's more of a problem for him than me. He's more or less saying "Most Americans are like X. I know because of the people I've encountered" and I'm replying "Not most of the ones I've met". Which is going to be more of a problem for him because he's trying to claim Americans are a certain way.

I get the impression that you missed the point; he doesn't have to prove his generalizations. Yes, it's self-indulgent and arrogant, but that's the whole point to generalizations. Again, you don't have to agree with them.

No, he doesn't have to but I can still call him on it as a flaw in his position. And it doesn't matter if that's the point to generalizations(a claim that I think is just bullshit), that doesn't defend them.

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.

Why do I need to support instead of just saying "Well your proof isn't very good because all you have are experiences and mine differ"? It's not as if I'm claiming Americans are mostly a certain way. He's making the sweeping claims, he has much more to defend. I don't exactly need to provide more evidence than he does if I'm just trying to say his evidence to support his claims is questionable.

Well, then I'm confused about the intent behind your complaints. Are you trying to disprove his argument, get him to improve his argument, or do you just simply disagree with him?

I'm pointing out his argument his shit because it is not properly supported, amongst other things. Pointing out flaws in it is all I am doing.

I wasn't aware he was supposed to defend his generalizations. I mean, defending them would effectively change the very nature of his article. It'd wouldn't be a list centered around his viewpoints anymore; it'd be an argument defending those viewpoints, which he wasn't trying to write in the first place. You can still call him out on it, but it seems to be very misplaced here.