Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A. Idealized stereotypes of the British institutions.
B. Outdated ridiculous negative stereotypes of the developing world.
C. A silly idealization of the US with a touch of 20th century Eurocentrism.
I paraphrase: "The US started to lose its britishness after non Europeans came in"that claim is ridiculous.
Only 13 states on the eastern seaboard were British, the rest of the country was either French, Indigenous land, or Spanish subsequently Mexican (After its independence from Spain), honorable mention to black Americans who are one of the pillars of American identity and culture. Did they come from the UK too?
To claim the US lost its British touch due to non whites is offensively wrong! A black Jamaican from Kingston living in the US with a commonwealth passport has far more in common with the UK than a white Ukrainian immigrant fresh of the plane from Kiev who can hardly speak English for example.
Not true.
After OTHER EUROPEANS ( and non-Europeans) came it.
Plus if you ask me personally, I wouldn't have survived in Great Britain AT ALL.
I would be really a bad match.
(I am a bad match even in the US as it is.)
Only 13 states on the eastern seaboard were British, the rest of the country was either French, Indigenous land, or Spanish subsequently Mexican (After its independence from Spain), honorable mention to black Americans who are one of the pillars of American identity and culture. Did they come from the UK too?
You act like those lands were filled with millions of French and Spanish/Mexican people when that simply was not the case. Sure there was New Orleans and Santa Fe with sizable populations but all the other cities were either just tiny trading posts or missionaries and today they are not even major cities with cities built by American pioneers have outgrown them like Phoenix and Houston. Except for the natives those lands were mostly empty and what ever people there were, quickly found them selves out populated by the hordes of pioneers making their way across the Oregon trail in the name of manifest destiny.
The USA is not hardly influential in the UK. The US is everywhere in the UK!
All you have to do in the UK to be submerged in Americana is to turn the TV on. Even younger generation brits are adopting American slang and American ways.
Even the identity in England is morphing towards the racial US style identity. (No longer English or Northerners or Cockneys but white, black, East Asian etc.)
That is how deeply embedded the American culture is in the UK.
On the other hand, the exposure Americans have to the UK is pretty mundane.
Fog, Victorian themed places, tea, people with bad teeth, bad weather, posh accents, the queen. Beyond that, most Americans know virtually nothing of the UK.
I am not putting the UK down, but certainly the special relationship British politicians talk so much about while American politicians tend to overlook or ignore is tilted, and not in favour of the UK!
Irene that is f*ckin hilarious!! lol. The UK is 'morphing into the US' because millions of Indians live here!! I've seen some pretty daft posts in my time but this one REALLY takes the biscuit lol
You act like those lands were filled with millions of French and Spanish/Mexican people when that simply was not the case. Sure there was New Orleans and Santa Fe with sizable populations but all the other cities were either just tiny trading posts or missionaries and today they are not even major cities with cities built by American pioneers have outgrown them like Phoenix and Houston. Except for the natives those lands were mostly empty and what ever people there were, quickly found them selves out populated by the hordes of pioneers making their way across the Oregon trail in the name of manifest destiny.
The very prevalent Spanish and French place names can be misleading but outside of a few places (you mention a couple in your post), what we might call "organized society" only arrived with Anglos who were originally from or at least transited via points further east in the US.
As much as I love the French name Grand Teton and what it evokes , there was no Grand Teton City.
The very prevalent Spanish and French place names can be misleading but outside of a few places (you mention a couple in your post), what we might call "organized society" only arrived with Anglos who were originally from or at least transited via points further east in the US.
A. Idealized stereotypes of the British institutions.
B. Outdated ridiculous negative stereotypes of the developing world.
C. A silly idealization of the US with a touch of 20th century Eurocentrism.
I paraphrase: "The US started to lose its britishness after non Europeans came in" that claim is ridiculous.
Only 13 states on the eastern seaboard were British, the rest of the country was either French, Indigenous land, or Spanish subsequently Mexican (After its independence from Spain), honorable mention to black Americans who are one of the pillars of American identity and culture. Did they come from the UK too?
Those original 13 states were the ones who expanded westward, not the other way around. It doesn’t matter whether the majority of the population is of British origin, because the foundations most certainly are. That doesn’t negate the influence of either cultures either. A country is a dynamic entity, not a static one.
Those original 13 states were the ones who expanded westward, not the other way around. It doesn’t matter whether the majority of the population is of British origin, because the foundations most certainly are. That doesn’t negate the influence of either cultures either. A country is a dynamic entity, not a static one.
Correct. The societal and governance structures of the 13 colonies were (in large part) replicated in the new states that were added when the country expanded westward.
Everything from sheriffs to Thanksgiving dinner...
The US on paper is first world, but the American masses tend to be more akin to masses in the developing world.
Even certain aspects of the American way of life screams proletarian masses. (love for giant homes, giant shiny cars, sprawling suburbs because it gives them a sense of success even though it is fake) You can see the US is very proletarian, the US was surely built for the poor and by the poor hence the myth of the American dream making millions of poor/desperate people leave it all behind to move there.
I mean, the Kardashians would have never become famous in a rich society like the Swiss. There has to be a very strong proletarian roots for celebrity worshiping to happen or for society to divide itself into caste like races etc.
This is just bitterness and jealousy over riches. You’re performing a lot of mental gymnastics to distract from the fact that wealth indicators for the US have been higher than in any European country, judging from the aggregate of wealth and income measurements, since the 1890s.
“The Kim Kardashians being famous” and “big houses and sprawling suburbs being a fake sense of success” or whatever, is cope. America is richer, particularly for its massive size, than Switzerland. Europe is poorer. It has been since the 19th century. Please come back to earth. You’re welcome to keep making jealous posts about the size of American houses.
Diversity is a fact of life on this on this earth, even so called homogeneous societies are full of people forming cliques and social hierarchies to separate themselves from the rest.
Diversity for many Americans seems to be having different skin complexions.
Real diversity is measured by:
- Linguistic differences (many languages spoken)
- Cultural/political contrasts (different cultures and political views being practiced)
- Religious differences (Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism etc. side by side)
- Socioeconomic contrasts (Rich people values versus poor people values)
The US is in many ways incredibly homogeneous. In fact it is so homogeneous Americans often assume diversity means people looking physically different because in everything else, everyone is simply too similar.
The US is vastly English speaking, Christian, working class, and bipartisan. That sound very homogeneous, especially if you take into account the vastness of the country.
The US is incredibly linguistically diverse, statistically, is religiously diverse, is not at all “working class” relative to the rest of the world, and what does “bipartisan” used as a single word here mean? Lmao - the US is one of the most politically diverse countries in the world.
You make bland insistences against the US’s diversity here without going into any specifics, because those specifics would reveal you to be wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, there was no Grand Teton City.
