And in both cases, due to tourism or business, use of English is growing rapidly. It's possible to get by in Mexico, and to a lesser extent Brazil, without knowing a word of Spanish or Portugese.
That sure depends on where you go. If you stay in the tourist traps, you may bank on the waiters to understand "Beer", but you try your luck with English in the slums of Mexico City or the favelas.
Due to decades of American domination of the technology and business worlds, there is far more impetus for others to learn English, than it is for Americans to learn other languages; which has contributed to a sort of national laziness in that respect. It's simply not necessary, so it isn't done. Unlike Europe, where it's vital to know at least two, usually three or four, languages on at least a functional (if not actually fluent) level.
No, it isn't
vital to know usually three or four languages on at least a functional level. It helps, but it isn't
vital.
It's far more feasible for a Working Joe in the UK to holiday on the continent than it is for one in the US to travel to Europe or Asia.
It is just as feasible for a UK Working Joe to holiday in the US as it is for a US Working Joe to holiday in the UK.
Not really. Since the two most common destinations for vacationers outside the US are Canada and Mexico, and neither require a passport to travel to.
How do you suggest we compare, then?
When you live in a country larger than Europe with more geographical diversity, there really isn't much of an impetus to do so.
Europe is larger than the US. My point about the necessity to be knowledgable about geography is once again validated.
Different languages is a red herring, since no one aside from linguistics and literature students travel to another country primarily for the language.
Strawman. Who said anything about travelling abroad primarily for the language?
As for different cultures, it's quite clear that you know far less about US culture than you try to claim. The US is one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world. The cultural difference between western Washington State and southern British Columbia just to the north in Canada is negligible when compared to the difference between western Washington and, say, southern Texas, or the Louisiana Bayou. Same thing with southern Texas or Arizona, and northern Mexico or Baha California; compared to, say, Northern California or Maine.
As for different cultures, it's quite clear that you know far less about European cultures than you try to claim. Europe is one of the most culturally diverse continents in the world.
What is so different between Southern Texas and Washington State?
There is more cultural diversity between many regions of the US than there is between, say France and Belgium, Austria and Germany; or even Italy and Greece.
I can't wait to hear the differences. If you can compare Washington State with Southern Texas, why not compare Iceland with Greece? List the differences between those, too.
A lot of modern medicine, and other technology, says otherwise. Trial-and-error and serendipidy are still very popular.
They may be
popular but they aren't
effective. Companies don't ship products that haven't been thoroughly tested. It is suicide to send a product on the market that is full of flaws.
Look at how science works: Science doesn't work with The Lone Scientist Working In Solitude. Science is very much a global communal endeavour.
Indeed.
Having more time to travel isn't a decisive factor? What colour is the sky on your planet? Is it blue like on Earth?
You are still thinking pre-commercial flight. In Denmark, it takes me about 6 hours to drive from Gedser (south) to Skagen (north). In that time, I can fly from Copenhagen to Madrid
and back.
Time is probably the second most important factor, after expense.
Depends on your means of transportation. How far can you fly in the world the time it takes you to drive from Washington State to South Texas?
And while it's easy for Europeans to grab a train off to Deutschland for the weekend; it's not quite so simple to do that for Americans.
Again, it is just as easy for Americans to go from the US to Europe as it is for Europeans to go to the US.
Here's a question for you. What is the primary impetus for recreational travel? It's to experience something different than you're used to. Different nature, different cultures, etc.
There is a regular exodus from Northern Europe during winter to the South, because people want to get to the sun. Not different nature or different cultures - heck, in most of the most popular tourist destinations, there are even Danish bars and restaurants, run by Danes.
When one can experience such a dramatic difference between regions in their own nation, why expend the considerable additional effort and expense to travel outside it? Particularly when you add in the fact that the impetus for travel is slightly different for Americans. Americans travel for natural diversity more often than cultural diversity; exactly the opposite of Europeans (but similar to the Japanese) IME. And there's far more of that in the US than in Europe.
How do you determine which has the far most "natural diversity"?
If my experiences travelling in the '80s still holds true, this is complete crap.
It doesn't hold true. Not crap, then.
Back then, it was Reagan, and the sentiments were similar whenever I travelled outside the US. People would assume that I supported Reagan, and would frequently treat me (and other Americans) like ◊◊◊◊ accordingly. No matter how I tried to explain that I didn't vote for or support him, I was still tarred with the same brush more often than not. And there was not nearly the negative reaction to Reagan than there is to Bush. I hear a lot online from those outside the US who do treat all Americans as if they were Bush supporters.
And I hear a lot, both online and in real life, What is more, I can back my contention up with evidence. What do you have?
We are very aware in Europe that Americans aren't (necessarily) supportive of Bush. We protest against Bush.
Claus is arguing ad ignorantum.
So far, I have seen only false assumptions and reliance on unverifiable anecdotes from you.
I had a similar discussion on a different forum regarding reaction to GLBT indivisuals. If you're not a member of the target group, you will rarely observe a reaction to nearly the degree that those in the target group experience it. Not being American, there is no reason why you would notice anti-American sentiment to nearly the degree that Americans directly experience it. And there is far too much of an impetus among the intellectually lazy to simply dismiss any incidents of prejudice that they do not personally observe.
Whoa. Such haughty attitudes are fortunately rarely seen.
). Fortunately, I tend to pick up accents and idiomatic language fairly quickly, and can pass for a Vancouverite with ease. 
