Anglosphere

>> . Asians haven' ever been a huge component of the population, except in the big cities and on the west coast. <<

The same could be said about the Mexicans. How much has Spanish culture affected states like North Dakota, for instance? In my opinion, not very much.

>> way, and most definitely, never, ever have I come across an American drunk in public....not ever, of any age <<

Interestingly enough, the only person I have ever seen someone drunk besides on TV or in a play, was my uncle. Whenever he's not drunk, he acts really angry--even when he's not. He has an edge to his voice that gives you the impression that he hates you. Then in the evening when he has had an entire bottle of wine, he suddenly becomes nice. He laughs at practically everything, and he seems jolly, and a little bit like Santa Claus. But then you have to remember that after dinner you can't believe anything he has to say.

What shocks me the most though, is to see people of my own generation (Generation Y) drink when they turn 21, or even worse, smoke. When I was little I assumed that people knew better about those things, and would never do them. I thought it was just the adults that had already become addicted that did that. I felt very sorry for them.

<<What shocks me the most though, is to see people of my own generation (Generation Y) drink when they turn 21, >>


Ok, maybe with all the anti-smoking propaganda I can see what you mean, but did you honestly think people were going to stop DRINKING with your generation????!!!!!!! That's unimaginable! The most likely situation where people stop drinking is colonisation of the USA by Saudi Arabia!

DAMIAN: "I have never, ever seen an American tourist, of any age, behaving in an unruly and uncivilsed way, and most definitely, never, ever have I come across an American drunk in public....not ever, of any age. "

A couple of issues are at play here, Damian. First of all, there's no doubt about the fact that drinking is much more frowned upon in general in the US than it is in Europe. (I confess my own admittedly unfair disdain for the practice.)

Secondly, public drunkenness in the US is associated with alcoholism—a most decided barrier to the financial success that would permit travel to foreign lands in the first place. Does this make sense?

With all of this in mind, in American cities you can definitely find people drunk in public, but you're not likely to ever see those same people ever go to Europe.

"ESB - The only time I started seeing Anglo-Saxon names (and facial features!) was when I got a job in Washington, DC, and moved down here. "

Pray tell, what exactly are Anglo-Saxon features? I suspect most Italians in the US are from the South, who do perhaps fit the profile of 'swarthy' or whatever word it is that Americans use. North Italians usually look very similar to "Anglo-Saxons" (a misnomer in itself, by the way).

Secondly, Uriel says "Immigrants from India and Pakistan and Iran, etc. are present in the US, but are pretty negligible in terms of numbers or impact." I don't want to be all politically correct, but this is a little ill-advised. Are you the arbiter of which community has had negligible impact? Particularly when speaking of a national-origin group that has the highest education and income levels in the US (Indians - http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf).

Finally, this issue of whether Americans are politer than British people - no contest. Americans are politer, at every level (age-wise, class-wise, income-wise, etc etc). I remember in my time in Spain seeing British people totter off the plane from Liverpool or elsewhere ALREADY DRUNK. And to those in any doubt as to whether this is an outlier - please. No. Brits of all classes and incomes drink silly-ly. I suppose it's the uniter.

↑ Duke, I must come to the defense of my correspondent Uriel.

Indians and Pakistanis are here, but not in significant numbers—not enough to impact our culture much.

If you compare them to the Mexicans, for example, the Indians lose on every account. You don't see Indian restaurants on every corner; you don't hear Indian words creeping into the vocabulary; you don't see Indian stations on the television; you don't see Indian stores with signs reading,"We Speak English".

I am sure that this is what she's referring to, Duke.

Hmm, quite so. The UK has seen some huge changes brought by the subcontinentals - the UK's (unofficial, I suppose) national dish is now the Indian curry! I suppose the Indian population in the US has only been strong since the 1990s, so not much going on there.

As for the words, there are a surprisingly large number of words in English that come from the subcontinent, but they're a little old. Anyway, I still don't get the "We Speak English" reference...

And y'know, I was thinking recently about Australians et al...maybe they should be able to come to the UK visafree, but then, why do WE need visas to work in Aus, Canada, etc?

No, I was being pretty accurate, Duke. Indians and Pakistanis in the US have a pretty low profile. Very unlike the UK, where they have a much stronger presence. They are barely noticed here. Their food and culture have little presence in everyday life -- there's no parallel to the popularity of Anglicized curry dishes that you see in the UK. You want Indian food here, you need to find yourself an Indian restaurant, and outside of major cities and university towns, they aren't that common.

This shows a map of the major places where Indian-Americans live:

http://www.epodunk.com/ancestry/Asian-Indian.html

According to the 2000 census figures, people of Indian ancestry made up a little under 1.7 million -- out of a total population of 281 million. They were doing well here -- averaging a median wage that was $20k above your average Joe -- but they aren't a significant ethnic group within the US. Pakistani-Americans totaled up at a whopping 153,533 -- even more insignificant! Apparently the US is not a popular destination for those groups.

(The link's ugly, but it does work!)

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFIteratedFacts?_event=&geo_id=01000US&_geoContext=01000US&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_2&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=013&qr_name=DEC_2000_SAFF_R1010&reg=DEC_2000_SAFF_R1010%3A013&_keyword=&_industry=



And Italians are much more likely to be found in the north, not the south, as this map shows:

http://www.epodunk.com/ancestry/Italian.html

Why would you think they would be in the south?

Duke, by the "We Speak English" reference, I'm referring to the fact that there are such large Mexican neighborhoods in many US cities that entire businesses conduct all their business in Spanish. Put another way, the Mexican influence dominates completely in those large neighborhoods. Even Reno, a city of about 200k, has neighborhoods like that.

You just don't see that kind of dominance in any of the Indian neighborhoods. While a lot of the customers and proprietors might speak the language, they also speak English, so if an American were to walk into the store, there'd be no problem.

Hmm, I see your (various) points. I'd forgotten about the Mexicans...I remember when I was in Cali, I went to the OC and everybody for miles around was Mexican.

Anyway, this takes me to another point about the Anglosphere. Or rather, a question. How come the British colonies became so rich so fast and the Spanish ones not so? I mean, Australia is barely 160 years old, and already has some of the highest living standards in the world (in the cities, anyway). And then there's Argentina, which declared independence just 40 years after the USA (not a great deal of time nation-wise) and yet today has income levels 1/3 of that if the US, Aus, etc. I'm an Economist, y'see, so we come up against this Q frequently. Is it culture or just luck?

Oh, and I meant south of Italy, not the US.

Ah, I reread your post and I see I misunderstood. My mistake.

The reason I have always heard for the English colonies doing better than the Spanish ones lies with how they were organized. The Spanish patron system was downright feudal, and did not do much to pave the way for the later rise of the middle class that the English colonies encouraged and capitalized on before and during the Industrial Revolution. The English, on the other hand, tended to send lots of ordinary people to settle their colonies, who then branched out into all walks of life -- not just aristocrats and serfs, with nothing in between. The English also made it easier for common people to own land in their colonies, another way to individual prosperity. The Spanish tended to divide land up into large tracts owned by a single man, tended by tenant farmers -- not unlike the Southern plantation system, which was also semi-feudal in nature, and also created another region that was not particularly prosperous once the system collapsed. (So it can happen in a former English colony as well.)

And wow, what's with all you nondrinkers out there? Alcohol is consumed in the US by the boatload. The reason you don't see a lot of public drunkenness is because it's ILLEGAL and will get you hauled off to the drunk tank 'til you can post bail in the morning. Being utterly shitfaced at a bar will get you cut off, as the bartender is liable for any pedestrians you might later run over. So we drink plenty -- we just keep it indoors. Hope you foreigners aren't getting a false impression of us -- I've seen plenty of drunk Americans, and been one myself on a few occasions. Haven't met too many nondrinkers in real life. Not even among the Mormons I know -- they're just called Jack Mormons (as in Captain....)

As for excessive public drunkenness abroad -- well, we may not do it in Europe, but Mexico is a whole 'nother story....

Anyway, this takes me to another point about the Anglosphere. Or rather, a question. How come the British colonies became so rich so fast and the Spanish ones not so? I mean, Australia is barely 160 years old, and already has some of the highest living standards in the world (in the cities, anyway).
************************

Something to do with the fact that, compared to other empires, the British Empire was comparatively benign and something to do with the fact that countries such as Australia, the USA and Canada are run using the British parliamentary system, which is superior to that found on the European mainland, and use Anglo-Saxon economics, again superior to that found in mainland Europe.

Throughout the 19th Century, Australia was the second only to Britain as the world's richest country, per capita.

>> And wow, what's with all you nondrinkers out there? <<

What's with all the *drinkers* out there? When I was little everyone frowned on drinking. At school, people came in to discuss the dangers of drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. They said that abstinance in all vices is the only way to live. They rewarded people that pledged to never drink alcohol or smoke. My friends would dump out their families' wine bottles, discard their cigarettes. There were plays that showed the evils of smoking and drinking and sex. After all of that education, I find it hard to believe how anyone could ever consider smoking or drinking. Maybe older people that were already addicted. But not for people that know better. That's why it always shocks me to see someone from Generation Y do it. But it's even worse in Europe, where I saw people that were UNDER 21 drink!

"There were plays that showed the evils of smoking and drinking and sex"

Sex is the worst of unholy trinity, I'm sure.