Global Geographic Literacy Survey

[luchog]

I find there's more cultural diversity within a small country such as Italy than the whole of the US. In Italy you find an entirely different culture every other town. People look different, talk differently, have different traditions, expections, hopes. A Venetian has barely anything in common to a Sicilian or a Roman.

Despite the historical feuds and such, a Venetian has more in common with a Roman or Florentine, and Neopolitan more in common with a Sicilian (if that didn't earn me a blood feud) than an urban New Yorker has in common with a rural Louisianan, for example; or a Texan in common with a San Franciscan.

Russia is also extremely varied culturally, but I know less about it. China, India? China also has very diverse landscapes.

Russia is very close culturally; not as much geographically. Neither is China, particularly since the Cultural Revolution; though it probably comes closer geographically than anywhere else.

Brazil.

But it's likely you don't know enough about Brazil to start debating that.

I know enough to say that that's not true. Brazil has, at most 4 or 5 distinctly different geographical/climatalogical zones; and the majority of the country is tropical rainforest and mountan. Not including Territories, the US has at least 11, depending on how strictly you define them. Russia, Canada, and China are more diverse than Brazil; but not as diverse as the US. (And keep in mind that we're talking about Russia proper, not the former Soviet Union). The US benefits from a unique location and size -- it is the third largest nation by land mass (area); and covers a wider range of latitude than any other nation in the world. Both of the latter have most of their mass taken up by plains and tundra; whereas the US's is fairly evenly spread through many different types of terrain and climatological features.

The US is also the third largest by population. And unlike any of the others except Canada, the vast majority of it's population is recent (roughly the last 250 years) immigrant, rather than indigenous, from nearly everywhere else in the world. Many of these ethnic groups have maintained a comparatively degree of insularity, in many cases moreso than similar ethnic groups in Canada or Europe. Interestingly, the US may have the second largest Basque community outside of Spain and France (Argentina being heavily Basque throughout). Can't say for sure, since I can't seem to find hard numbers for most of South America.

 

[luchog]

Sorry if this sounds Anti-American, but it's not. It is how I perceived it. I just find it a tad preposterous to say that you can find the same diversity in the US than in Europe.

Straw man. Despite Claus's obfuscatory blather, no one claimed the US had a higher diversity than Europe (except possibly geologically/climatologically), only a higher diversity than individual European nations.

 

[luchog]

But then it's not just "in" Mexico or, to a lesser extent, Brazil. Then, it's in the areas where people are more likely to speak English. Duh.

You must be quite amazingly fit from all that goalpost moving you do.

Is it? I could turn the tables on you and ask you to make your way in certain areas of Chinatown, New York, using English alone. You want to go to large parts of the South West and try anything else than Spanish?

The former is no more true for New York than it is for San Francisco or Seattle. The latter was my point, which you are merely echoing.

Rrrrrright.

If you can't refute, dismiss. Quite clearly I'm right on that one.

So, you tell me that my comparison is wrong, but you can't come up with a better one.

Already did. Not my fault your reading comprehension is so poor.

Oh? Can I see just how much area the US in total includes?

Sure. It will take you about 5 seconds to look it up on Google.

No, it was one of the reasons. There are many reasons to travel.

Like I said, aside from literary and linquistics students, I find it very difficult to believe that language diversity is even a significant reason, if not primary, for travel. More often it's a restriction.

As Luciana has already explained, there is far, far more cultural diversity in Europe than in the US.

And as I already explained, in my reply to her comment, that's another one of your red herrings.

I was asking you. You are the one claiming that there is a similar level of diversity as in Europe within the same country - namely the US.

Nope, I didn't. Try reading more carefully. Pay attention to the "individual countries" part. But since you bring it up, the level of cultural diversity in the US does approach that of Europe as a whole.

Prove it. Start with proving that there is less hospitality in Puget Sound than El Paso. Should be easy.

You know, I'm not interesting in getting into another futile debate of this nature; because you'll simply dismiss everything with yet another of the obfuscatory non-sequitors that you're so fond of. And judging by the truly dismal understanding of the US that you've displayed, I seriously doubt you'd be able to understand the nature of the cultural differences. There have been entire books written on the subject; which you're clearly not interested in taking the time to read.

Let's see..... Texas became a state in 1845. Before that, Texas was part of the Spanish colony of New Spain. And then, part of Mexico. Should we be surprised that Texas is so heavily influenced by Spain? No.

And this is relevant how? Oh yes, an attempt to divert attention from the fact that you were wrong yet again, and completely incapable of admitting it.

Washington State. Oregon Trail. Wait - isn't that "open-land travel"? I do believe so. Talk about rugged individualism, too! Prejudice? Oh, I suggest you ask the Asian communities if they are discriminated.

I'd ask where this non-sequitor came from, but I'd probably injure my brain trying to understand your convoluted illogic.

Want me to continue? I think you don't.

Actually, I find your bizarre digressions from reality to be entertaining on slow work days like today.

What differentiates "Spanish culture" from "Scandinavian culture"? (It's spelled with an i, not an a.)

And you're calling Americans geographically ignorant? Wow. First, look up the word "machismo", then look up the word "stoic". Once you've demonstrated knowlege of those qualities, then you'll have a much better idea of the difference.

Hmmm...I believe I asked you to compare Iceland with Greece. Not Italy with Greece. (Just because they begin with the same letter doesn't mean they have similar cultures) Please do so.

See above.

Really? Since you are implying that Microsoft ships products full of flaws, could you point me to where we can see a comparison between Microsoft and other similar companies?

Bugtraq

Oh, brother. You simply won't let go of this notion that trial-and-error is far better than understanding things. Oh, well. I prefer to understand rather than guess.

Another Larsen distortion and misrepresentation. Show me where I claimed that it was "better than understanding"? I really wonder what drugs you must have done in your profiligate youth to make you capable of such bizarre leaps of illogic.

Who is comparing apples and oranges now? It takes precisely as long for an American to fly 500 kilometers as it does for a European.

Absolutely not. You assert that time is "probably the second most important factor, after expense." Ergo, it makes very much sence to look at how you travel. Try again: How far can you fly in the world the time it takes you to drive from Washington State to South Texas?

No. The point is exactly what I said: It is just as easy for Americans to go from the US to Europe as it is for Europeans to go to the US.

Your reading comprehesion seems to get worse the longer you read, since this isn't even relevant. As an aside, do you have any idea how much the cost difference is between driving and flying? You clearly have no idea just how nonsensical your statement is in the context the rest of us have been using? Little hint, the context had to do with "Americans traveling in the US" vs. "Europeans travelling in Europe". The rest is your obfuscatory non sequitor again.

Wrong. You will need exactly one, English.

Wrong again, though i was incorrect, in that getting around the vast majority of Europe would only take three. English is certainly useful, though hardly universal. French and German are considerably moreso. No, I take that back, Spanish would probably be necessary as well for the Med; since there are enough similarities between it and Italian and Portugese. Not sure how well that would work in Greece; but I'd imagine with the number of French and Spanish tourists, one could likely cope well enough with at least one of those.

Eastern Europe could be a problem; but IIRC enough of them speak some form of German.

As Luciana pointed out, try Brazil.

Already have done.

Prove it.

See above.

Yeah. My point exactly: It starts with geographical knowledge.

Your point being completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I have travelled, too, not just 20 years ago. Dismiss my experiences all you like, and focus on those that agree with you. See how far that will get you.

Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle, but I've yet to find anyone anywhere on this board who substantially agrees with you on much of anything outside the paranormal. Even the laws of physics and principles of medical science disagree with you quite often.

I live in Europe, and yet, you have a better understanding of Europe than me, based on your 20-year old experiences....

And yet you claim to have a greater understanding of America, based on an equally limited experience. Pot, Kettle, Again.

No, I am not claiming that. We do seem to be protesting against Bush a lot, though. The emphasis is not on America(ns), but Bush.

Your claim, not my experience.

You would know, had you read this thread, this not to be true.

No, I know that you have repeatedly claimed that you have, but evidence to support said claim is sadly lacking.

Yes, that's nice. Do you have anything else than your opinion, be it ever so limited?

Yup. This thread, as I pointed out. Your refusal to acknowledge it's existence is not my problem.

We could take Spain, too. Ever been to Catalonia? They are first and foremost Catalonians and then Spanish. And don't mention the Basque area...

Flandern and Vallonia. Bayern and Holstein. Sicily and Italy. The Balkans? Very bloody civil wars, with tensions stretching many years ahead.

I do believe the point is made.

And that point would be? You seem to be good at obfuscation, but not so good at actually presenting a coherent argument.

You are aware that there have been a number of wars in England and various conflicts in the US and Asia between people of identical or very similar ethnic groups, right? And that conflict is not necessarily an indication of significant differences?

As you can see, we are very aware that you have plenty of variation in the US. We know there's a difference between the prairie and the city.

Congratulations. You have mastered the bloody obvious. Now let's see if you can manage to extend that knowledge to other ethnic an geological/climatological zones.

Oh, and Nevada isn't prairie land. It's predominantly desert and scrub; with some more fertile river-valley and mountain terrain. Just so you know. But I'm sure you knew that, being so knowlegible about American geography and all.

Again, because of history: Italy and Germany have a very short history as nations as we see them. They are comprised of very different regions.

You are aware that parts of the US have an equally short history, right? And that the current form is barely over 50 years old? Even CONUS isn't even a hundred years old; and won't be for nearly another decade.

Because we travel to the US, despite us being told by Americans that we do not live in the greatest country in the world?

Think about that.

*thinking*

Nope, looks like another Larsen non sequitor to me.

 

[Luciana]

Why don't you just admit that was nationalist bravado? I could live with that.

Russia is very close culturally; not as much geographically. Neither is China, particularly since the Cultural Revolution; though it probably comes closer geographically than anywhere else.

I know enough to say that that's not true. Brazil has, at most 4 or 5 distinctly different geographical/climatalogical zones; and the majority of the country is tropical rainforest and mountan.

Six morpho-climate zones. And culturally?

It is hard to quantify "culture". How could you say: There isn't a single country in the world that has half the natural and cultural diversity that the US does.

And I offered Brazil, Russia, India, China. China seems to be the best contender, and yet, you'd be hard-pressed to quantify "half"!

That I know of, China has more than 50 nationalities, 6 major linguistic groups (quite unintelligeable among themselves), more than 1.3 billion people, many religions including many brands of Buddhism, immigrants, etc. And their landscape variety?

Not including Territories, the US has at least 11, depending on how strictly you define them. Russia, Canada, and China are more diverse than Brazil; but not as diverse as the US. (And keep in mind that we're talking about Russia proper, not the former Soviet Union). The US benefits from a unique location and size -- it is the third largest nation by land mass (area); and covers a wider range of latitude than any other nation in the world. Both of the latter have most of their mass taken up by plains and tundra; whereas the US's is fairly evenly spread through many different types of terrain and climatological features.

More bravado.

The US is also the third largest by population. And unlike any of the others except Canada, the vast majority of it's population is recent (roughly the last 250 years) immigrant, rather than indigenous, from nearly everywhere else in the world. Many of these ethnic groups have maintained a comparatively degree of insularity, in many cases moreso than similar ethnic groups in Canada or Europe. Interestingly, the US may have the second largest Basque community outside of Spain and France (Argentina being heavily Basque throughout). Can't say for sure, since I can't seem to find hard numbers for most of South America.

So I'll talk more about Brazil. Largest number of blacks outside of Africa. Largest number of Japanese outside of Japan (1 million or so). 10 million descendents of Lebanese-Syrians. 200,000 Indians living in reserves, not to mention the millions that mixed with the other whites and blacks,and thye speak more than 200 languages among themselves. About 35 tribes are kept completely isolated in the Amazon Forest. Isolated communities of Germans and Austrians in the South. We even have a city called "Americana", founded by ex-Confederates. Predominant mix of white and Indian in the Northeast. Mostly white in the South. All colors (heavily mixed) around Rio. In my own family I have Italians, Portuguese, one Ukrainian, Indian, etc.

Half? What is half?

Russia? Indeed, it lost much of its diversity after the fall of the USSR. But the number and variety of its bordering countries answer for some cultural variety.

India has more than 20 official languages (I should check, but I won't), it's known for being multicultural and multiethnical.

I see you dismissing other cultures and landscapes and writing essays on yours. It's understandable, that is what you know more about. But that's still biased nationalism.

 

[CFLarsen]

Despite the historical feuds and such, a Venetian has more in common with a Roman or Florentine, and Neopolitan more in common with a Sicilian (if that didn't earn me a blood feud) than an urban New Yorker has in common with a rural Louisianan, for example; or a Texan in common with a San Franciscan.

Again, how do you measure that? Look at at atlas? How so?

Russia is very close culturally; not as much geographically.

Excuse me? Russia is "very close culturally"? Why don't you start opening that atlas of yours?

I know enough to say that that's not true. Brazil has, at most 4 or 5 distinctly different geographical/climatalogical zones; and the majority of the country is tropical rainforest and mountan. Not including Territories, the US has at least 11, depending on how strictly you define them. Russia, Canada, and China are more diverse than Brazil; but not as diverse as the US. (And keep in mind that we're talking about Russia proper, not the former Soviet Union). The US benefits from a unique location and size -- it is the third largest nation by land mass (area); and covers a wider range of latitude than any other nation in the world.

That's highly misleading: It doesn't cover a "range", since there is a large gap between Alaska and the other states.

If we choose to measure it your way, Denmark "covered" an even wider range before 1917 (from Greenland in the North to the Virgin Islands in the Caribbean). Do you think that's a fair way?

The US is also the third largest by population. And unlike any of the others except Canada, the vast majority of it's population is recent (roughly the last 250 years) immigrant, rather than indigenous, from nearly everywhere else in the world. Many of these ethnic groups have maintained a comparatively degree of insularity, in many cases moreso than similar ethnic groups in Canada or Europe. Interestingly, the US may have the second largest Basque community outside of Spain and France (Argentina being heavily Basque throughout). Can't say for sure, since I can't seem to find hard numbers for most of South America.

Huh? Argentina is "heavily Basque throughout"? How do you figure that?

Argentina, Ethnic groups:
white (mostly Spanish and Italian) 97%, mestizo (mixed white and Amerindian ancestry), Amerindian, or other non-white groups 3%

They come from Spain, so they must be Basque?

You must be quite amazingly fit from all that goalpost moving you do.

You are the one moving the goalposts: First, you speak generally, then it has to be the tourist traps.

The former is no more true for New York than it is for San Francisco or Seattle. The latter was my point, which you are merely echoing.

The facts are against you, my friend:

In the Bay Area, 112 languages are spoken.

In Queens alone, approximately 138 languages are spoken.

Do you acknowledge that you are wrong?

Already did. Not my fault your reading comprehension is so poor.

Where? Post #, please?

Sure. It will take you about 5 seconds to look it up on Google.

DING! "Google" is not a satisfactory answer here. You provide your own evidence, or you lose the argument.

Like I said, aside from literary and linquistics students, I find it very difficult to believe that language diversity is even a significant reason, if not primary, for travel. More often it's a restriction.

That's an American talking. Europeans learn more than just whatever their own language is, and they see an opportunity to exercise their skills when they go abroad.

And as I already explained, in my reply to her comment, that's another one of your red herrings.

Aren't you the one harping on the differences in cultural diversity?

Nope, I didn't. Try reading more carefully. Pay attention to the "individual countries" part. But since you bring it up, the level of cultural diversity in the US does approach that of Europe as a whole.

"Approach"? How do you measure that?

You know, I'm not interesting in getting into another futile debate of this nature; because you'll simply dismiss everything with yet another of the obfuscatory non-sequitors that you're so fond of. And judging by the truly dismal understanding of the US that you've displayed, I seriously doubt you'd be able to understand the nature of the cultural differences. There have been entire books written on the subject; which you're clearly not interested in taking the time to read.

"I can't answer Claus' question, even though it was about proving my own claim. So, I'll just tell him that he is dumb, and to go away."

And this is relevant how? Oh yes, an attempt to divert attention from the fact that you were wrong yet again, and completely incapable of admitting it.

It is very relevant: Texas is a new addition to the US, where European countries have been, well, European always.

I'd ask where this non-sequitor came from, but I'd probably injure my brain trying to understand your convoluted illogic.

It isn't a non sequitor and the logic is impeccable. Why don't you consider the Oregon Trail "open land travel"?

Actually, I find your bizarre digressions from reality to be entertaining on slow work days like today.

"No", then.

And you're calling Americans geographically ignorant? Wow. First, look up the word "machismo", then look up the word "stoic". Once you've demonstrated knowlege of those qualities, then you'll have a much better idea of the difference.

Let's take a look:

machismo
Etymology: Spanish, from macho
1 : a strong sense of masculine pride : an exaggerated masculinity
2 : an exaggerated or exhilarating sense of power or strength
(Webster)

stoic
1 capitalized : a member of a school of philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium about 300 B.C. holding that the wise man should be free from passion, unmoved by joy or grief, and submissive to natural law
2 : one apparently or professedly indifferent to pleasure or pain
(Webster)

What does this have to do with culture? This is about how people are perceived to behave.

See above.

Iceland is not part of Scandinavia. Iceland compared to Greece? Want to take a shot at it, or do you want to avoid it?

Bugtraq

What's that? Merely throwing out a word means nothing.

Another Larsen distortion and misrepresentation. Show me where I claimed that it was "better than understanding"? I really wonder what drugs you must have done in your profiligate youth to make you capable of such bizarre leaps of illogic.

I have done no drugs in my entire life.

Your reading comprehesion seems to get worse the longer you read, since this isn't even relevant. As an aside, do you have any idea how much the cost difference is between driving and flying? You clearly have no idea just how nonsensical your statement is in the context the rest of us have been using? Little hint, the context had to do with "Americans traveling in the US" vs. "Europeans travelling in Europe". The rest is your obfuscatory non sequitor again.

We were talking about flying 500 km. If my argument is uncomfortable to you, that is your problem.

Wrong again, though i was incorrect, in that getting around the vast majority of Europe would only take three. English is certainly useful, though hardly universal. French and German are considerably moreso. No, I take that back, Spanish would probably be necessary as well for the Med; since there are enough similarities between it and Italian and Portugese. Not sure how well that would work in Greece; but I'd imagine with the number of French and Spanish tourists, one could likely cope well enough with at least one of those.

English is currently the most widely spoken and written language worldwide.

English is also the dominant member of the Germanic languages.

Through the global influence of native English speakers in cinema, airlines, broadcasting, science, and the Internet in recent decades, English is now the most widely learned second language in the world, although other languages such as French and Spanish also retain much importance worldwide.

Because a working knowledge of English is required in many fields and occupations, education ministries around the world mandate the teaching of English to at least a basic level (see English as an additional language) .

English is the most widely learned and used foreign language in the world, and as such, some linguists believe that it is no longer the exclusive cultural emblem of 'native English speakers', but rather a language that is absorbing aspects of cultures world-wide as it grows in use. Others believe that there are limits to how far English can go in suiting everyone for communication purposes. English is the language most often studied as a foreign language in Europe (32.6 per cent), followed by French, German, and Spanish.
Source

Again, you are clobbered by the facts.

Eastern Europe could be a problem; but IIRC enough of them speak some form of German.

"Enough"? How many is that?

German is spoken primarily in Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, in two-thirds of Switzerland, in two-thirds of the South Tyrol province of Italy (in German, Südtirol), in the small East Cantons of Belgium, and in some border villages of the South Jutland County (in German, Nordschleswig, in Danish, Sønderjylland) of Denmark.

In Luxembourg (in German, Luxemburg), as well as in the French régions of Alsace (in German, Elsass) and parts of Lorraine (in German, Lothringen), the native populations speak several German dialects, and some people also master standard German (especially in Luxembourg), although in Alsace and Lorraine French has for the most part replaced the local German dialects in the last 40 years.

Some German speaking communities still survive in parts of Romania, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and above all Russia, Kazakhstan and Poland, although massive relocations to Germany in the late 1940s and 1990s have depopulated most of these communities.
Source

Again, you are clobbered by the facts.

Already have done.

Now you have, yes. After I asked.

See above.

I'll leave that to Luciana.

Your point being completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You have a tendency to dismiss any uncomfortable argument as "irrelevant". It is very relevant, luchog.

Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle, but I've yet to find anyone anywhere on this board who substantially agrees with you on much of anything outside the paranormal. Even the laws of physics and principles of medical science disagree with you quite often.

Feel free to point out where I am in disagreement with the laws of physics and principles of medical science.

And yet you claim to have a greater understanding of America, based on an equally limited experience. Pot, Kettle, Again.

I moved from the US in 2002. Not 20 years ago. And I visit every year, at least once. Not equally limited experience.

Your claim, not my experience.

A claim which I have backed up with evidence. All you have is your experience.

No, I know that you have repeatedly claimed that you have, but evidence to support said claim is sadly lacking.

Igore the evidence at your own peril.

Yup. This thread, as I pointed out. Your refusal to acknowledge it's existence is not my problem.

This thread consists of people's opinions and arguments. Sometimes (as in my case), they back it up with evidence. But opinion is not evidence.

And that point would be? You seem to be good at obfuscation, but not so good at actually presenting a coherent argument.

You are aware that there have been a number of wars in England and various conflicts in the US and Asia between people of identical or very similar ethnic groups, right? And that conflict is not necessarily an indication of significant differences?

Huh? The reason why they fight is because they are not identical or very similar ethnic groups.

You are aware that parts of the US have an equally short history, right? And that the current form is barely over 50 years old? Even CONUS isn't even a hundred years old; and won't be for nearly another decade.

Yes. I pointed that out with Texas. As you well know.

*thinking*

Nope, looks like another Larsen non sequitor to me.

You need to look up the term.