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.
And we all know that the slums are the primo tourist destination. Simply everyone wants to go there. Red herring again.
I got by just fine outside the tourist traps, as long as I stayed in more metropolitan areas. And that was in the '80s, before NAFTA and the influx of American business into Mexico.
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.
A bit of an exaggeration, I admit, but it's far more useful for Europeans than for Americans (though a working knowledge of Spanish is rapidly becoming so).
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.
Precisely my point. Now, if you can stretch your brain that far, where is that UK WJ more likely to vacation, the Continent or the US? If you said the US, you need to study more.
How do you suggest we compare, then?
That's my entire point. You're comparing apples and oranges. European tourism and American tourism have some fundamental differences. Some of which were pointed out in a previous post.
Europe is larger than the US. My point about the necessity to be knowledgable about geography is once again validated.
Sorry, was including US Territories in that, old military habit. Should have been more clear.
Strawman. Who said anything about travelling abroad primarily for the language?
"But you don't get different cultures, different languages." In context, that implied that at least a secondary impetus was for linguistic diversity as well as cultural (and natural).
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.
You really need to work on your comprehension. Yes, it's diverse; but in order to experience that diversity,
YOU HAVE TO TRAVEL TO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. In the US, you can experience a similar level of diversity
WITHIN THE SAME COUNTRY. Again, different countries, vs. same country. Did you understand it that time, or do I need to use smaller words?
What is so different between Southern Texas and Washington State?
Ahem. Does this sound familiar? "My point about the necessity to be knowledgable about geography is once again validated."
I suggest familiarizing yourself about American geography and culture(s) before spouting off.
But as a starting point, you certainly don't have the traditions of open-land travel, hospitality, the cowboy mythos, religious extremism, rugged individualism, or prejudice in the Puget Sound region, that you do around, say, El Paso. Likewise, the Texans don't have the traditions of stoicism, individual privacy, tolerance, limited collectivism, and the clusturing that results from a coastal land-locked culture (one of the reasons that the Japanese are so fond of the PNW).
Texas culture is very much hispanic, and from there, Spanish. Western Washington culture is historically far closer to Scandanavia, with a recent and very strong Asian influence. Puget Sound culture actually has more in common with parts of the Great Lakes region (who also had a strong Scandanavian population) than it has ever had with Texas or Pennsylvania; whose cultures were influenced by the immigrants who settled there (The Roman Catholic Spanish/Hispanics vs the Anabaptist Germans).
If you can understand the differences between Spanish culture and Scandanavian culture, you should be able to get some idea of the difference between Washington State culture and Texas culture. However, i'm not holding my breath. Same with Irish culture and the French and African cultures, and Massachussets and New Orleans respectively.
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.
See above.
Or you could avail yourself of that godlike geographic knowledge you claim. I already pointed out the difference, it's not my fault you're unable to comprehend them. You are aware of how similar, and cross-influential, Greek and Italian cultures are, right?
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.
Really? It certainly hasn't hurt Microsoft all that much. And testing doesn't require a knowledge of the underlying theory, or if it does, only a rudimentary one. Quite the contrary, in most cases. Testing is trial and error in a controlled setting. How long was it before the theory behind salicylate compounds was understood? How long before the mechanism behind THC and the SSRI family of medications were understood? Both of these, while thoroughly tested for both useful and undesirable effects, lacked the actual theory underlying their effects until very recently. Empiricism has historically been far more common than theory.
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.
And how long does it take for an American to fly to Europe? Compared to how long it takes an American to fly a couple states within the US? And what is the comparitive cost?
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?
Red Herring.
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.
You seem bound and determined to avoid answering the actual point. Let's try again.
Here it is.
American have to travel farther and incur a higher cost to travel to other countries (with the exception of Canada and Mexico), than Europeans do. I can travel to several distinct regions, each with it's own culture and distinct natural geography
without ever leaving my own country.
In Europe can you visit a desert, a temperate or semi-tropical rainforest, a tropical island, an arid steppe, a temperate or semi-tropical coast, a complex maze of inland waterways, a rich "fruit basket" agricultural region, extensive tide flats where you can walk for miles in 3-4 feet of water, vast open grasslands, dense deciduous or evergeen forests, high mountain ranges, frozen arctic tundra, enormours lakes or vast complexes of small lakes, huge rivers, canyons, and much more;
all in the same country? Or do you have to travel to different countries to do so? H3ll, I can visit seven of those without ever leaving my own state. Depending on where you are, you can't visit more than 3 or 4, maybe 5 at the outside, without going to an entirely different
country, with an entirely different language. I can visit all of them, and more (especially if I include Territories) without ever having to worry about anyone not speaking English (even in Puerto Rico). Try to do that in Europe, and you'll need at least 4 different languages.
Some of those features don't even exist in Europe; but they all exist in the US, and there is nothing that exists in Europe that the US doesn't have an equivalent. There isn't a single country in the world that has half the natural and cultural diversity that the US does.
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.
Um... you do realize that climate is, in fact, a part of nature, right? So therefore, by definition, the reason for that exodus is natural diversity (as opposed to cultural diversity), by your own arguments. And before you try to set up another straw man, I never claimed that Europeans don't travel for natural diversity; simply that it wasn't as high a priority for most Europeans as it is for Americans (and even moreso for the Japanese).
How do you determine which has the far most "natural diversity"?
By looking at a f***ing atlas.
It doesn't hold true. Not crap, then.
According to others here, who have travelled more recently, it does. You might consider admitting, for once, that your own knowledge and experience is insufficient for you to make god-like pronouncements of truth in this particular case.
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?
At least as much of both as you do, and probably considerably more, since I'm American and experience sentiments directly that you'll never be aware of.
We are very aware in Europe that Americans aren't (necessarily) supportive of Bush. We protest against Bush.
So you're now claiming that Europeans are monolithic and all think just like you and your coterie?
So far, I have seen only false assumptions and reliance on unverifiable anecdotes from you.
And you haven't posted anything more substantial.
Whoa. Such haughty attitudes are fortunately rarely seen.
Seeing plenty of that ignorant dismissiveness right here.
