Heh - I have heard similar stories about the Northeast from a friend of mine from high school here, who went off to college in Vermont, and who found the people there to be quite rude, really snobby, and very aggressive on the road....
American English in the UK?
San Francisco is more European-flavored than New England or other BackEast regions.
***I believe that when the poster says California is the most like Europe, I think he's talking about their political views***
Never having been to the USA let alone California I cannot claim to be qualified in anyway to give cast iron comments on the similarities between that particular US State and Europe (including the UK of course). However I am sufficiently aware of the status quo to confirm what Jasper said about political views and a general liberal approach to many social issues, and I daresay that in this respect the UK (and the rest of the EU) very closely resembles California, and perhaps the more metropolitan parts of New York state and maybe some other New England states. Maybe New England is aptly named, but I wouldn't like to offer any comment with regard to the rudeness of people!
British people generally are not rude and aggressive - on the contrary they are quite friendly and open - except perhaps in London - where people can be rude, offhand and indifferent but it is a big city after all and even there it is certainly not universally the case - I have encountered some really nice, helpful, friendly and affable people in London and that includes shop assistants, restaurant and bar staff and a jolly guy at the ticket barriers at East Finchley tube station - what a barrel of laughs he is and no mistake - always a joke and a chuckle even with hordes of hurrying, scurrying commuters streaming past him in the mornings all of whom he merrily sends on their way down the escalators into the bowels of the earth and onto the Northern line.
I know that generally Edinburgh is an extremely friendly city and that's not just because we have to be as national and international tourism is vital to our economy....it's just the way we are by and large. Scots as a whole are generally a friendly bunch of people, and I'm not saying that simply because I'm a proud Scot myself! We are a friendly race for the most part.
Here in the UK our political colours are the opposite way round to those in the USA.
Blue is the colour of the right - the Conservatives (or Tories if you prefer their original, historical title).
Red is the colour of the left - the Labour party, the current ruling party, which, incidentally is rapidly losing ground in the public opinion polls for a variety of reasons and who are MOST unlikely to be re-elected in the next UK General Election which must be held before June 2010 at the latest.
Yellow (or orange) is the colour of the Liberal Democrats - a party roughly midway between the two main parties politically.
Various colours represent the other parties, including the Scottish and Welsh and Northern Ireland parties - purple is the colour of our own Scottish National Party - the SNP.
A national opinion poll covering the entire UK issued its latest result today and showed the Conservatives on 52%, Labour on 24%, the Liberal Democrats on 14% and 10% to all the rest, including the SNP and Plaid Cymru (Wales).
I believe blue is the colour of the Democrats in the USA and red the right wing Republicans. I think it's a very high probability that were the UK (or Europe generally) an American state it would be about the bluest of all the blue American states.
As for driving standards in the UK - all in all they are very good, and for the most part drivers are courteous - nine times out of ten if you give way to oncoming vehicles because of obstructions or whatever you will get an acknowledgment from the drivers as they pass you.
Roundabouts in the UK seem to scare the pants off American drivers here, probably because they are not used to them (they are profuse over here) and also they have to look in the opposite direction to what they are used to and also negotiate them in a clockwise direction - the proper way! ;-) If you are in the right lane it's easy peasy lemon squeezy!
Never having been to the USA let alone California I cannot claim to be qualified in anyway to give cast iron comments on the similarities between that particular US State and Europe (including the UK of course). However I am sufficiently aware of the status quo to confirm what Jasper said about political views and a general liberal approach to many social issues, and I daresay that in this respect the UK (and the rest of the EU) very closely resembles California, and perhaps the more metropolitan parts of New York state and maybe some other New England states. Maybe New England is aptly named, but I wouldn't like to offer any comment with regard to the rudeness of people!
British people generally are not rude and aggressive - on the contrary they are quite friendly and open - except perhaps in London - where people can be rude, offhand and indifferent but it is a big city after all and even there it is certainly not universally the case - I have encountered some really nice, helpful, friendly and affable people in London and that includes shop assistants, restaurant and bar staff and a jolly guy at the ticket barriers at East Finchley tube station - what a barrel of laughs he is and no mistake - always a joke and a chuckle even with hordes of hurrying, scurrying commuters streaming past him in the mornings all of whom he merrily sends on their way down the escalators into the bowels of the earth and onto the Northern line.
I know that generally Edinburgh is an extremely friendly city and that's not just because we have to be as national and international tourism is vital to our economy....it's just the way we are by and large. Scots as a whole are generally a friendly bunch of people, and I'm not saying that simply because I'm a proud Scot myself! We are a friendly race for the most part.
Here in the UK our political colours are the opposite way round to those in the USA.
Blue is the colour of the right - the Conservatives (or Tories if you prefer their original, historical title).
Red is the colour of the left - the Labour party, the current ruling party, which, incidentally is rapidly losing ground in the public opinion polls for a variety of reasons and who are MOST unlikely to be re-elected in the next UK General Election which must be held before June 2010 at the latest.
Yellow (or orange) is the colour of the Liberal Democrats - a party roughly midway between the two main parties politically.
Various colours represent the other parties, including the Scottish and Welsh and Northern Ireland parties - purple is the colour of our own Scottish National Party - the SNP.
A national opinion poll covering the entire UK issued its latest result today and showed the Conservatives on 52%, Labour on 24%, the Liberal Democrats on 14% and 10% to all the rest, including the SNP and Plaid Cymru (Wales).
I believe blue is the colour of the Democrats in the USA and red the right wing Republicans. I think it's a very high probability that were the UK (or Europe generally) an American state it would be about the bluest of all the blue American states.
As for driving standards in the UK - all in all they are very good, and for the most part drivers are courteous - nine times out of ten if you give way to oncoming vehicles because of obstructions or whatever you will get an acknowledgment from the drivers as they pass you.
Roundabouts in the UK seem to scare the pants off American drivers here, probably because they are not used to them (they are profuse over here) and also they have to look in the opposite direction to what they are used to and also negotiate them in a clockwise direction - the proper way! ;-) If you are in the right lane it's easy peasy lemon squeezy!
San Francisco is barely a city ... it's suburban sprawl, with a town center that has what, 300,000 people in it? That's barely a neighborhood in the borough of Brooklyn in New York City.
Typical Californian arrogance.
Typical Californian arrogance.
And as always, people from the rest of the US complain about the Northeast being too old, too snooty, too snobby, stuck up, too fancy and pretentious, etc. Sounds familiar, eh? This is the stuff we have to deal with from other Americans coming from this region.
-San Francisco is barely a city ... it's suburban sprawl, with a town center that has what, 300,000 people in it? That's barely a neighborhood in the borough of Brooklyn in New York City.-
Many lovely cities have low population, for example Geneva or Florence.
Many lovely cities have low population, for example Geneva or Florence.
<<However, things really have changed as a result of the George W. Bush presidency. I'm not sure that Americans are aware of how much damage has been done to their country's international reputation as a result of his foreign policy and refusal to co-operate on climate change. I think it would be fair to say that Bush is generally thought of as being an ignorant, war-mongering, irresponsible bully - and by extension that image is also transferred to the US as a whole, and sometimes individual Americans (somewhat unfairly, as not everyone voted for him).
I can't think of a time when the US was so unpopular.>>
I don't know, Hilda. I grew up outside the US on military installations, and we were pretty much conditioned to always think of ourselves as targets in the game of geopolitics. Far more so than people living in the safety of the actual US. I would say we internalized things like the Iranian Embassy hostage situation, the Achille Lauro incident, and all the tensions over the years -- especially the cold war and the older middle east conflicts back in the day -- to a much greater degree than your average citizen. We were used to protests outside the gates, bad feelings and distaste from the locals, and warnings from up above. I remember my high school tennis team being stuck in the Phillippines an extra week because rebel activity made it unsafe to fly back, dire warnings not to go out at night in Seoul because there had been death threats against any Americans seen in the city, all the politically-motivated plane hijackings in the 70's and 80's, anti-nuclear demonstrations, and so on. So for me, the current climate of nastiness toward us is nothing new. I think it surprises the average Joe, but I've lived with that cloud since I was a little girl. I remember it quite vividly.
I think George Bush is very easy to hate, but that's not just because of his actions but because he's such a personification of a stereotype that everyone already had in their minds from long ago. And having that stereotype living and breathing and doing outrageous things right in front of everyone just sort of made it okay to be OPENLY hateful. Nothing's new about the sentiment itself. It's just the worldwide social acceptability of that hatred that is recent and significant, and it really came to a head during this administration. It's now not just okay to despise us, but downright cool.
As for gratuitous anti-Americanism (which I haven't seen you display at all), I pay no attention to it anymore -- I've been on international forums long enough to get that it just comes with the territory. You ignore it and move on. Rational criticism is fine, too -- don't think it doesn't happen here every day. We do have our kneejerk reactions about some of it in certain situations -- there was funny article in the Guardian about the US reaction to a British plot to try to wage a letter-writing campaign to sway American voters that was aptly titled "Dear Limey Assholes", and I giggled through the self-righteous indignation of US replies from ALL parts of the political spectrum -- I giggled because I recognized that it got MY back up just as much -- silly as that is!
That history is why I think that even if Obama wins, Europeans will find that the glitter wears off quickly, and they'll find some other aspect of the country to take umbrage against -- the Iraq War and its scars won't magically go away, US industry will still fight pollution regulation tooth and nail, we'll still pump gasoline into our car tanks, and the Democrats are big proponents of trade protectionism -- don't be expecting major free trade concessions. All I expect if Obama wins is a new flavor of prejudice against us -- not its eradication. (And I'm a democrat -- but still a pessimist on this subject!)
I can't think of a time when the US was so unpopular.>>
I don't know, Hilda. I grew up outside the US on military installations, and we were pretty much conditioned to always think of ourselves as targets in the game of geopolitics. Far more so than people living in the safety of the actual US. I would say we internalized things like the Iranian Embassy hostage situation, the Achille Lauro incident, and all the tensions over the years -- especially the cold war and the older middle east conflicts back in the day -- to a much greater degree than your average citizen. We were used to protests outside the gates, bad feelings and distaste from the locals, and warnings from up above. I remember my high school tennis team being stuck in the Phillippines an extra week because rebel activity made it unsafe to fly back, dire warnings not to go out at night in Seoul because there had been death threats against any Americans seen in the city, all the politically-motivated plane hijackings in the 70's and 80's, anti-nuclear demonstrations, and so on. So for me, the current climate of nastiness toward us is nothing new. I think it surprises the average Joe, but I've lived with that cloud since I was a little girl. I remember it quite vividly.
I think George Bush is very easy to hate, but that's not just because of his actions but because he's such a personification of a stereotype that everyone already had in their minds from long ago. And having that stereotype living and breathing and doing outrageous things right in front of everyone just sort of made it okay to be OPENLY hateful. Nothing's new about the sentiment itself. It's just the worldwide social acceptability of that hatred that is recent and significant, and it really came to a head during this administration. It's now not just okay to despise us, but downright cool.
As for gratuitous anti-Americanism (which I haven't seen you display at all), I pay no attention to it anymore -- I've been on international forums long enough to get that it just comes with the territory. You ignore it and move on. Rational criticism is fine, too -- don't think it doesn't happen here every day. We do have our kneejerk reactions about some of it in certain situations -- there was funny article in the Guardian about the US reaction to a British plot to try to wage a letter-writing campaign to sway American voters that was aptly titled "Dear Limey Assholes", and I giggled through the self-righteous indignation of US replies from ALL parts of the political spectrum -- I giggled because I recognized that it got MY back up just as much -- silly as that is!
That history is why I think that even if Obama wins, Europeans will find that the glitter wears off quickly, and they'll find some other aspect of the country to take umbrage against -- the Iraq War and its scars won't magically go away, US industry will still fight pollution regulation tooth and nail, we'll still pump gasoline into our car tanks, and the Democrats are big proponents of trade protectionism -- don't be expecting major free trade concessions. All I expect if Obama wins is a new flavor of prejudice against us -- not its eradication. (And I'm a democrat -- but still a pessimist on this subject!)
Whoever wins the American Presidency we in Europe hope it will be someone who knows how to speak decent English! After eight years of the present incumbent, now thankfully due for his P45 come January 2009, we either fell about laughing hilariously or seethed with rage......
Unfortunately, Europeans generally will indeed continue to look for reasons to take swipes at the Americans......sad as it is, it's just a fact of life. It probably all started way back in 1917.......resurged again in 1929, burst into life again in 1941 and has continued on and off ever since and no doubt will never really go away whatever happens... ;-)
As for the British - well, the fact that we (sort of) share a Language isn't really a guarantee of non inclusion in the general European mindset. I know it's sad, but as I say - it's just the way it is. I'm not necessarily including myself in this scenario....well, I don't think so.... ;-)
Unfortunately, Europeans generally will indeed continue to look for reasons to take swipes at the Americans......sad as it is, it's just a fact of life. It probably all started way back in 1917.......resurged again in 1929, burst into life again in 1941 and has continued on and off ever since and no doubt will never really go away whatever happens... ;-)
As for the British - well, the fact that we (sort of) share a Language isn't really a guarantee of non inclusion in the general European mindset. I know it's sad, but as I say - it's just the way it is. I'm not necessarily including myself in this scenario....well, I don't think so.... ;-)
I think a lot of people see California as it was in it's hippy days, back when drugs were legal, everyone was protesting the war, and the Black Panthers were making their statement. It's really not as outrageously liberal as anyone imagines. I mean, the town right next to mine still has its Secession Day parade every year. That's right, one little town decided it was going to join the Southern States and secede from the Union back in 1863. The town that I live in is just about as Republican as it gets except for the fact that it now promotes itself as a destination for gay couples who wish to marry. It's a tourist town that's going to be a ghost town soon with the economy the way it is, and because the California Supreme Court recently decided it was illegal to ban gay marriage, the little town thought "ah, fresh tourist blood!" and starting handing out liscences.
In any case, despite all of the polls and actual voting statistics, who really knows? Less than 50% of Americans actually vote for president and far less for Governors, Senators, etc. So, none of the statistics can actually represent what the majority of people think.
In any case, despite all of the polls and actual voting statistics, who really knows? Less than 50% of Americans actually vote for president and far less for Governors, Senators, etc. So, none of the statistics can actually represent what the majority of people think.
De Tocqueville said that “in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.”
-it's a tourist town that's going to be a ghost town soon -
it sounds like Redding, CA.
it sounds like Redding, CA.
<<I think George Bush is very easy to hate, but that's not just because of his actions but because he's such a personification of a stereotype that everyone already had in their minds from long ago>>
I think it would be more accurate to say that George W. Bush has done openly and brazenly what other American governments have done more subtly.
I appreciate what you're saying Uriel, and I'm not questioning your experience or denying that there always has been a degree of hostility to the US Government on the international stage (which is then often misdirected towards ordinary Americans who as individuals have done nothing to warrant it).
However I feel it's a bit of a cop out to dismiss anti-American sentiment as something that has just always been there and always will, and which has no rational basis to it.
Some of it may just be down to economic jealousy and fear of being swamped by American culture, certainly. But there are also some very real reasons behind some of it - and I do think it's a big problem in the States that Americans are not generally (there are exceptions of course) very aware of role their government has on world affairs, which means it's easy for them to get sucked into a "them and us" mentality.
This became apparent after the 9/11 attacks, where the the "War Against Terror" was presented as a black and white affair, evil vs good, them trying to kill us. Now, no one in their right mind would try to excuse killing innocent people on any grounds, and I am absolutely in no way trying to justify or be blasé about mass murder, but at the same time there seemed to be very little awareness among the American public of what had driven the terrorists against the US, and very little context given to help the public understand how this situation came about.
(And the problem with this is that it creates a climate of ignorance, which leaves people vulnerable to manipulation; so one Republican politician could go on Fox News and use the World Trade Centre attacks to justify the invasion of Iraq, saying, rather hysterically, "These people are trying to kill our children" - when in fact the two issues were not linked at all, and Iraqi were emphatically not trying to kill Americans.)
The US is extremely powerful and can and does bend other countries to do its will, either with incentives, threats or both. And it has on occasions acted disgracefully - the support of a murdering right-wing dictator like Pinochet in Chile, to give just one example.
It's not extraordinary in that - this is the politics of the strong, and any country in a position of power would probably do the same, as Britain frequently did in the 19th century. But it's important to accept that this creates resentment - resentment that is often unfairly and ignorantly directed at individuals, but which nevertheless has a reasoning behind it. I think it's very dangerous to brush it off as something that people just like to do for no particular reason, because that creates a non-critical climate.
Incidentally I know what it's like to be subject to abuse, and adulation, through no fault of my own. When the invasion of Iraq was declared I was living in north London in an area with a high immigrant population. All day there were Kurds out in my street celebrating, beeping their car horns, and waving British flags. I went out to get some bread and milk and a group of them came running up to me and started hugging me and thanking me. Later in the day I was walking past some men outside a mosque and I was spat on. In each case I didn't deserve it, but I understand why I got it.
Okay, that's enough politics!
I think it would be more accurate to say that George W. Bush has done openly and brazenly what other American governments have done more subtly.
I appreciate what you're saying Uriel, and I'm not questioning your experience or denying that there always has been a degree of hostility to the US Government on the international stage (which is then often misdirected towards ordinary Americans who as individuals have done nothing to warrant it).
However I feel it's a bit of a cop out to dismiss anti-American sentiment as something that has just always been there and always will, and which has no rational basis to it.
Some of it may just be down to economic jealousy and fear of being swamped by American culture, certainly. But there are also some very real reasons behind some of it - and I do think it's a big problem in the States that Americans are not generally (there are exceptions of course) very aware of role their government has on world affairs, which means it's easy for them to get sucked into a "them and us" mentality.
This became apparent after the 9/11 attacks, where the the "War Against Terror" was presented as a black and white affair, evil vs good, them trying to kill us. Now, no one in their right mind would try to excuse killing innocent people on any grounds, and I am absolutely in no way trying to justify or be blasé about mass murder, but at the same time there seemed to be very little awareness among the American public of what had driven the terrorists against the US, and very little context given to help the public understand how this situation came about.
(And the problem with this is that it creates a climate of ignorance, which leaves people vulnerable to manipulation; so one Republican politician could go on Fox News and use the World Trade Centre attacks to justify the invasion of Iraq, saying, rather hysterically, "These people are trying to kill our children" - when in fact the two issues were not linked at all, and Iraqi were emphatically not trying to kill Americans.)
The US is extremely powerful and can and does bend other countries to do its will, either with incentives, threats or both. And it has on occasions acted disgracefully - the support of a murdering right-wing dictator like Pinochet in Chile, to give just one example.
It's not extraordinary in that - this is the politics of the strong, and any country in a position of power would probably do the same, as Britain frequently did in the 19th century. But it's important to accept that this creates resentment - resentment that is often unfairly and ignorantly directed at individuals, but which nevertheless has a reasoning behind it. I think it's very dangerous to brush it off as something that people just like to do for no particular reason, because that creates a non-critical climate.
Incidentally I know what it's like to be subject to abuse, and adulation, through no fault of my own. When the invasion of Iraq was declared I was living in north London in an area with a high immigrant population. All day there were Kurds out in my street celebrating, beeping their car horns, and waving British flags. I went out to get some bread and milk and a group of them came running up to me and started hugging me and thanking me. Later in the day I was walking past some men outside a mosque and I was spat on. In each case I didn't deserve it, but I understand why I got it.
Okay, that's enough politics!
US is hated because it's fighting in foreign soil. Obviously they never experienced any war on their own territories (except for Pearl Harbor back in 1940ies). US are exporting wars. War can never be a solution. In the good old days, US was more oriented to themselves, not involved in Iraq, Mongolia, Kosovo or whatever. why is that no one hates Brazil? because it's not a country interested in making conflicts all around the globe. Sometimes I see the US as a very aggressive and moody person than cannot control itself. Get a pill ;)
Um, we've had lots of wars on our own soil. The entire 19th century comes to mind....and that little second half of the 18th, too.
We do lots of things that piss off other people now that we're strong, but we were despised by Europeans back when we were weak, too -- the British especially looked down on us as backward hayseeds in the colonial and post-colonial eras. So I think I have a point when I say that really, it's only the reasons that seem to change from one era to another. Sometimes they're good reasons, sometimes they're bad, but they are always there, and it really has a deadening effect on us. If you expect everyone to hate you no matter what you do, you start to really not take outside opinions too seriously. You become inured. Criticism starts to have the opposite effect of what's intended. We are in a perfect position to be isolated and insulated from others anyway, through geography and power, and then we have always had a streak of alienation in our mass psychology as well -- after all, we were founded on the principle of rejection, as our ancestors left their original homes behind and switched allegiences. That lack of any other common bond is why we have manufactured this cult of patriotism to compensate, that Europeans find so odd -- we don't have blood ties or historical ties to bind us together "naturally", like they do. And we can exploit that undercurrent of alienation, rejection, and insularity to a very strong degree when it suits us. It's not one of our better traits, maybe, but it explains why it is often easy for us to turn our backs on outside criticism and become very obstinate; contrariness to the point of perversity is something of a guilty pleasure for us. There are other cultural features that put us at cross-purposes -- for instance, when you call us arrogant, we think, gee, you say that like it's a bad thing! Arrogance is not quite the sin in American culture that it is in others -- we encourage it in many ways, and don't have much use for humility except in certain circumstances. I'm terrible at being humble at work, for instance, and would rather be confrontational in my interpersonal clashes with others -- even my superiors. It's a hard, hard habit to break, and giving way doesn't come easily, even when there might be disciplinary action involved. And as often as it has gotten me into trouble, it has gotten me out -- sometimes the other guy backs down, when he sees that I can't be bullied simply by pulling rank. On the whole, I'm pretty mild-mannered, so this is just how deeply ingrained certain behaviors are. That wouldn't work at all in other cultures, but it's what I'm used to. It's not a big step to translate that to the international stage.
We do lots of things that piss off other people now that we're strong, but we were despised by Europeans back when we were weak, too -- the British especially looked down on us as backward hayseeds in the colonial and post-colonial eras. So I think I have a point when I say that really, it's only the reasons that seem to change from one era to another. Sometimes they're good reasons, sometimes they're bad, but they are always there, and it really has a deadening effect on us. If you expect everyone to hate you no matter what you do, you start to really not take outside opinions too seriously. You become inured. Criticism starts to have the opposite effect of what's intended. We are in a perfect position to be isolated and insulated from others anyway, through geography and power, and then we have always had a streak of alienation in our mass psychology as well -- after all, we were founded on the principle of rejection, as our ancestors left their original homes behind and switched allegiences. That lack of any other common bond is why we have manufactured this cult of patriotism to compensate, that Europeans find so odd -- we don't have blood ties or historical ties to bind us together "naturally", like they do. And we can exploit that undercurrent of alienation, rejection, and insularity to a very strong degree when it suits us. It's not one of our better traits, maybe, but it explains why it is often easy for us to turn our backs on outside criticism and become very obstinate; contrariness to the point of perversity is something of a guilty pleasure for us. There are other cultural features that put us at cross-purposes -- for instance, when you call us arrogant, we think, gee, you say that like it's a bad thing! Arrogance is not quite the sin in American culture that it is in others -- we encourage it in many ways, and don't have much use for humility except in certain circumstances. I'm terrible at being humble at work, for instance, and would rather be confrontational in my interpersonal clashes with others -- even my superiors. It's a hard, hard habit to break, and giving way doesn't come easily, even when there might be disciplinary action involved. And as often as it has gotten me into trouble, it has gotten me out -- sometimes the other guy backs down, when he sees that I can't be bullied simply by pulling rank. On the whole, I'm pretty mild-mannered, so this is just how deeply ingrained certain behaviors are. That wouldn't work at all in other cultures, but it's what I'm used to. It's not a big step to translate that to the international stage.