> We did not invent democracy. We didn’t even invent modern democracy. There were parliamentary systems in England and other parts of Europe over a hundred years before we created government.
This is a pretty foolish statement from an otherwise reasonable article. Parliament in England was not remotely representative until 1867 by the most generous measure, and more reasonably not until the early 20th century. So far as I know, the only modern government of consequence which could lay claim to being a "democracy" prior to the US is probably San Marino, and its representation is, shall we say, odd.
I think that the US can indeed lay claim to being the first modern democracy: its government was absolutely radical at the time, and more importantly it stood as an example to other later movements (starting with the French).
Actually, to expand on that: The American War for Independence precipitated a major and unprecedented shift in British politics. For the first time the Liberal party gained power in Parliament, and leaders like Edmund Burke instituted major reforms to the political system. That's not to mention the amount of inspiration the French Revolution took from the American one. Italian unification also took inspiration from the American Revolution and there are streets in Rome named after George Washington.
The American Revolution, no matter the particulars, was a huge watershed moment in history. It was the first practical application of Enlightenment ideas to a political system at a great scale and it's unlikely that the world would look anything the same had it not happened. Rome or any other country from antiquity having it first does not change that.
Yes - the US revolution was historically important, though obviously it built on earlier and contemporaneous ideas (french revolution, etc).
In the modern world though, the reality is this is all in the distant past. Most of the world doesn't see the American political system as something to be aspired to any more, which is something a lot of Americans (that I have met) have a hard time understanding.
You should both read up on the history of the French Revolution, as well as the definition of the word "conceived". Yes, the parent was off in calling out the French Revolution specifically, but the actual statement made was spot-on.
The American Revolution was, in fact, built on earlier and contemporaneous ideas, found in myriad writings of mostly non-American Enlightenment thinkers who had been working out various new, altered, subversive, or otherwise novel ideas, studies, and classifications in political theory (among other topics) for nearly 125 years before American founders built upon them in both the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution. A basic review of political theory in the Age of Enlightenment would both confirm for you the correctness of the parent's statements (despite the errant inclusion of the French Revolution), as well as help you see exactly where the American Revolution got the whole of its ideas. America's founders very much imbibed on the Enlightenment, particularly works of political theory.
The French Revolution was not in any way "conceived of" as a result of the American Revolution. Instead, it had been growing in its own specifically French/European manner among the salons and their philosophes, and was quite in step with the march of Enlightenment across much of Western Europe. Ultimately this was brought to a head when, seeing that the Americans' disregard for English rule was something they, too, could emulate in order to bring Enlightenment ideals to practical fruition in France, shit got started in the Estates-General in May 1789 (just two months after the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, bringing the fully Montesquieu-esque political system into reality).
I apologize if I seem overly pedantic, but when you call out someone to check a timeline based on two words in an otherwise sound comment that added something to the discussion, you should at least ensure you have your own timeline correct--particularly if you are going to be bandying about the idea that Historical Event X "was not even conceived of until after" Historical Event Y. History rarely works like that, especially when it is happening but a handful of years apart.
Ultimately, what Abbé Sieyès said in his famous pamphlet, "What is the Third Estate?", is so applicable to both revolutions as to further indicate that a revolutionary wave was both forming and interacting on both sides of the Atlantic (trans-Atlantic intellectual and cultural history is an eye-opening field of study):
"What is the Third Estate? Everything. What has it been until now in the political order? Nothing. What does it want to be? Something."
The Americans espoused the same sentiment. Neither the American founders nor the Estates-General were owners of that idea, though. They both took it from 125 years of hundreds of intellectuals hammering it out.
Thanks. I've been away and Its not often one gets defended like this on HN.
Actually the parent is wrong. As we were talking about ideas and thinking in the revolutions (rather than the fighting), the two were contemporaneous in part and influenced each other. See for example the strong links between the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) and the US bill of rights (1789-1791).
Let's be real, the word democracy doesn't just mean direct democracy. Our "republic" is and always has been a representative democracy, and it's perfectly appropriate to classify the U.S. as a democracy. Republic and democracy are orthogonal concepts, we are both. The word republic just means our leaders aren't chosen by blood or inheritance. Since we elect our leaders, we are a democracy.
It'd be interesting to track down the origins of that misconception, that "Republic" and "Democracy" are two different kinds of government. Is it possible that so many people believe this because of the government types in the original Sid Meier "Civilization" game?
To adapt the OP's original phrase, I think the US can lay legitimate claim to being the first modern republic, except maybe for the Dutch.
Yes, there were nations with a republican form of government before that, but the purpose of that form was fundamentally different.
The pre-modern republics were set up to allow all the aristocracy a turn at being king, while modern republics are set up to allow the non-aristocracy to prevent there being an aristocracy.
For example, the ancient republics of Athens, Rome, and even Carthage were noted by their neighbors as being especially warlike precisely because, to take Rome as an example, everyone only got six months as consul and so they had to make it by launching wars immediately, both because the plunder would form the basis of their personal and family fortunes and because glory from war was the only goal worthy of an aristocrat. Regular kings, by contrast, could take their time.
In the modern world, we don't respect glory in battle or plunder like we used to, and so we use the republican form of government to prevent anyone from amassing too much power on a permanent basis at all. People often think the purpose of voting today is to select the best leader, or at least a good one, but really it's simply to ensure that the current one has to leave since no one can please the majority of an electorate indefinitely.
You are wrong. America is a democratic-aristocratic-oligarchic republic whose history has consistently pressed for greater democratic equality.
Republics can be almost anything in the world because the classification is based on a single important qualification: the head of state is not a monarch. There is no one true definition of republic.
The American founders created a hybrid democratic-aristocratic-oligarchic republic based quite firmly in Montesquieu's classifications, in that it created what was overwhelmingly an aristocratic-oligarchic republic, built around three administrative federal branches, and incorporated limited democracy for landed persons.
For 223 years, Americans has been hammering out more of the democracy and less of the aristocracy/oligarchy since it was codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This in no way changes, nor will it ever change, the classification of America's form of government being a republican one.
You do yourself and everyone else a disservice by exclaiming the US is a republic and not a democracy when
a) the two are not mutually exclusive and the distinction you think exists does not,
2) nobody argues we are a pure democracy--and even if we were, you'd still be hard-pressed to not call such a thing a republic in the modern (and possibly classical) sense, and
d) both classical and modern definitions of democracy and republic share intertwined concepts and throwbacks, while still being disputed by some scholars as to whether they even form a historical continuum at all.
Statements like this are fodder for bumper stickers, not thoughtful discussions.
A representative constitutional republic to tell the whole story.
The article really lost me on this point. If you look that shallowly at what the Constitution established as a one word description, then yes, there were others before. If you look at the branches and, particularly the division between state and popular representation, the US is much different than what came before. It seems like the typical gloss job we find in high schools these days that really needs to be fixed.
Actually, a large part of the US government system - for example, the division between federal and state governments - was copied from the Ottoman Empire.
I may be off but I don't think the Ottoman Empire had a legislator with one house based on population and the other house appointed by the states on an equal basis.
According to wikipedia, the concepts behind modern bicameralism hearken back to the middle ages, where one house was based on commoners (essentially population), and the other house on the aristocracy (essentially state)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism
The independence of the US and its political system was a great moment in history, but it didn't happen in a vacuum. It improved on earlier systems, but also left much to be desired in itself. One clear example is that later democracies allowed plausible multiparty systems, so you're not left with a mere binary choice.
The aristocracy was not essentially states. Your missing the central innovation, one is based on population and one is based on land area division with their own non-uniform governments. Nevermind the structure and powers of the executive branch.
Nothing happens in a vacuum, but if you discount everything that had roots in something before, then there is no such thing as innovation in any human endeavor.
You're saying that the 'landed gentry' are not effectively 'land area divisions'? The aristocracy essentially performed the level of government that the states do these days. They still exist in the British parliament (house of commons vs house of lords - the latter is literally staffed by aristocracy).
Counties, duchies, principalities - these were all forms of states. They just happened to be controlled by the aristocracy rather than an elected representative. So if one chamber is filled with these 'controllers of land', it's very much the same as being filled with 'states'.
but if you discount everything that had roots in something before
"The independence of the US and its political system was a great moment in history" doesn't sound like I'm discounting it much.
The irony in your comment is that in order for me 'not to discount' the efforts put into the US revolution (which I didn't actually do), you're more than happy to discount efforts performed by earlier actors.
"controlled by the aristocracy rather than an elected representative"
The House of Lords and the US Senate are pretty different. The states in the US have their own constitutions and elections. The different between unelected and elected is large.
We're both a democracy and a republic. You can have oligarchic republic or theocratic republics or whatever else too. I think that hybridization is what people tend to mean when they call the US the first "modern democracy."
The terms "democracy" and "republic" are not on the same axis.
"Republic" defines the origin of sovereign power (the individual citizens). The Soviet Union was also a republic, but was not democratic.
"Democracy" describes how that power is exercised (through voting). Technically we're a representative democracy but that is still a type of democracy. The UK is also a representative democracy, but they are not a republic.
One, it's so sad that this country was founded by relatively intelligent people that had radical ideas and revolution in their heart; which has now all but died as we are a dogmatic, stupid, static nation and society with a two party, default winner system.
Two, calling our founding political system a modern democracy, or even really a democracy, is rather absurd considering it was a bunch of genocidal racist, sexist, drunkard, elitists that constructed it. By that measure, non-absolute monarchies are also democracies as they relied on the input and votes of their aristocratic classes.
We essentially, even now, still live in a system that is far more aristocracy than democracy. Plutarchy is probably even more accurate. we are a democracy in theory, in practice, we are far from it.
Maybe you express one of the earliest examples of the seemingly common American affliction to believe that something is such just based on the label. We delusionally like to call things what we want them to be rather than what they are. Probably has to do with our affinity for the superstitious and supernatural.
I'm not sure about the parent commenter, but I believe a main point should be allowed to stand if the details are not correct or well thought out. The great slogan no longer inspires me when the details and thus the follow-up are missing.
I can report that there are a large portion of people in the UK at least who do obsess about america, its culture and its politics.
I mean, it's hard not to at times. Not wishing to be rude, but there is often something of the car crash about it, especially magnified through the media/internet lens.
While that is true, people still don't factor the states into their everyday thoughts and calculations.
Also, note that most of the author's examples weren't from west Europe, but rather more remote places and especially "third world" countries. Basically, places that Americans tend to assume people either hate them or love them(see: china, or east asia in general, or the middle east, etc, etc)
Your post just proves that Americans cannot take any criticism of their country without fighting against it somehow. It's built into your nature, like an automatic response.
Great, a few European newspapers did stories on US politics. They also did stories on the rest of the world too which is something you don't see much in US newspapers.
Don't get me wrong, I love America (and live here, originally from UK) but the country has some serious issues.
Yeah...that doesn't really "prove" anything. I'll thank you to have some better evidence before claiming things about my true "nature".
I remember traveling in France the summer before the 2008 presidential election. Every newspaper and tabloid on the stands had Obama's face on it.
I'm not saying that a mild preoccupation with American politics is a good thing for the world to have, but to say that it doesn't exist doesn't seem...accurate.
When a US president can cause significant economic problems because you refuse to join in war with them, it tends to make them a bit more important. All the rhetoric spewed by the US executive about 'with us or against us' created the 'freedom fries' debacle and lots of open hostility of anything French by many Americans.
The US is an important country and always will be, but the article is saying that there's weird things about the country that he recognises, not that it's a banana republic that doesn't know it yet.
In addition to this: staying informed is not the same as caring (being emotional involved) about somebody.
Europeans just want to know about the rest of the world because the world is connected. What happens all over the world has consequences for Europeans too.
You can very well want to know what's going on in America without caring (feeling sorry) if they're going into the shitter.
"If you’re extremely talented or intelligent, the US is probably the best place in the world to live."
This is one of the most important points.
For the average American HackerNews reader, life is radically different from the rest of America. I am given opportunities, networks, connections and chances that I wouldn't be able to get this easily anywhere else in the World.
The genius of America seems to come from a few very key categories that exist to this day. Silicon Valley is one of them; Hollywood or Wall Street might be others.
But outside that, our average is a rather poor showing compared to a lot of other countries around the world that more collectively seem to take care of their people.
The problem, in my humble opinion, always stems from ignorance. As a culture, we're just not as aware or respectful as we should be. Other countries know more about the World than we do. That leads to more open-ness and respect.
I 100% agree with your quote from the article as well. The US is an absolutely amazing place when you are "the best". You get to live the hyperbole and talk about it too. What better place to do so? For example, the US healthcare doesn't suck, it's actually really good. But it's only good for those who can afford it. I've had to go to the doctor three times now in the UK (eye infection, sports injury and regular checkup) and every time I've had to wait 3+ hours to get diagnosed/treated. In the US, my healthcare meant I was in and out in 30 minutes. The US is a great place when you can afford it. That being said, I happily waited in line for the 3+ hours because I knew that other people are being treated for things they normally can't afford in the US. The problem in America, is that no one can even fathom a system like this. It's so foreign to the way we operate our lives (i.e. our culture) because everything we do is deeply rooted in transferences of goods and services in the form of money.
ps- I'm also an American who has lived in the UK, Germany, and been to 30+ countries. I share a lot of the same views as the author.
Yeah, in visiting other countries, my impression is that the average person is way happier with life, regardless of their financial standing. This in turn makes me happier. I'd be happy to pay way more in taxes in the US to support that kind of living environment.
It's hard to realize the difference it makes without traveling and meeting lots of people when you do so, though, and the tragedy is that the current system in the US doesn't allow most people the resources to travel and educate themselves, which seems to negatively effect the chances of having a well educated voting populace.
But you can get private health care in the UK and it's much cheaper than the US. In the US if you can't get health insurance—and I mean literally can't because you are a single payer where no company is willing to offer you a policy—then you pay out of pocket at a high multiple of the negotiated prices insurance companies get. The quality of the actual care in the US is top notch, but the system is beyond fucked up, and the lies spewed by the politicians are positively nauseating.
I'm an American living in the UK and I have to disagree with your assessment of the difference. First of all, most of my medical needs are taken care of through my GP who has never taken more than a week advance notice to get an appointment with, and the wait times I've experienced are actually far less than I've experience in various US health providers in Minnesota, New Mexico and California. When I crashed my bike before I had my GP, I did have to wait at a Walk-In Center, for about an hour, and ditto for Minor Injuries where they sent me after an initial evaluation, but that's equivalent to going to an emergency room in the states, because you can't just walk in to the nearest doctor there, you have to be "in-network". Later, through my GP I was able to get several osteopath sessions, a shoulder ultrasound, and physical therapy all of which was very well administered with minimal wait times. I'm not saying the system doesn't have problems, but it's nothing like the bogeyman of socialized medicine that seemingly the majority of Americans have been hoodwinked to believe it is.
Even for a hacker news reader the U.S. might not be unequivocally the best place to live. For example I would like to live in the U.S. (perhaps not forever, but at least for some time). There are a couple of things that don't make it a clear cut choice, even if you only consider purely selfish factors:
- healthcare: a large health bill or something that the insurance refuses to pay for can still wreck your life
- very religious
- high HIV rates
- gun ownership
- cycling unfriendly
- social safety net (because even hacker news readers can have bad luck, especially when you do something risky like starting a company)
- and of course more important things like distance from friends & family, but that's not a property of the U.S. in itself
None of these are show stoppers per se, and perhaps they are irrational fears, but they can tip the scales in favor of other places despite the big bonus points that the U.S. get in other areas.
As an American, I can't help but find your listed "fears" quite humorous (and irrational). The US is a huge country with 300M people, and there is pretty much something for everyone. For example, Portland, OR is extremely bike friendly (as are many other cities), and I've never seen a gun brandished by someone I didn't know. I've never locked my house in the 3 years I've owned it, and my car keys stay in the ignition with my garage door open 90% of the time.
Starting a company is a risky endeavor no matter where you do it, but I would advise starting a company in a country with which you are familiar, or with cofounders you trust that are.
That list was definitely not intended as a list that applies to all of the U.S.; quite the opposite: some of the points apply to some of the U.S. (I didn't make that clear though). You're right, there's something for everybody. One problem is that this also works the other way; I have to pick from the places where I find an interesting job and where the employer wants to employ me. So far those places have been places where several of the above criteria are unfortunately met. I do know that some of those things are definitely irrational, and would not be a problem in practice (especially gun ownership).
Unless you are coming from the Netherlands or Denmark, I don't think this is really the case.
The US has changed vastly on this front and I would rank it more cycling friendly than most places. Mind you many municipalities are still quite unfriendly to bicycles, but San Francisco and New York City (just to name two) have changed vastly.
San Francisco has taken street lights that were timed for cars (so a car would drive down the street and get all green lights if it were to drive straight) and changed them to 13 miles per hour, so that a bicycle will get all green lights.
It's certainly no Amsterdam, and there is still a long way to go, but I'd rather pedal there than most places.
(NL, DK, parts of BE and DE are still more bicycle friendly than anywhere else I've been on a scale that simply won't make sense to a person who hasn't been to those places. Caveat, I've never been to China, rumor has it that there a lot of bicycles there too.)
Well, I am coming from the netherlands ;) San Francisco and New York are definitely nice cycling cities from what I've heard (and also don't have many of the other issues I listed). However, I was under the (perhaps wrong) impression that in a substantial area of the US, drivers are either inattentive of or actively against cyclists? But probably only the bad news gets out.
You seem quite knowledgeable about these issues. If you have time, I'd love to get your perspective and advice about U.S. cities (though this might not be the appropriate place, I put my email in my profile in case you have time).
Then like I said, with that standard, everywhere else is bicycle unfriendly. :(
An email is coming, but I think that one of the big things (and San Francisco has this badly) is that the US is has been so car focused for so long that it is not exactly something that easily changes. But, compared to what it used to be, I think it has changed and still is changing.
I don't think it is unique to USA. When I was in London in the late 90s, I was told "You want to ride a bike? You'll get killed!" Now there are bike lanes and bike share programs and all sorts of things, and while there are still places to avoid and even back in the day there were bike-able places, it's gotten much better.
As an immigrant, I definitely agree with the "[Americans] Are Poor At Expressing Gratitude And Affection".
Every single ex-girlfriend has pointed out to me that I am very affectionate, whereas all I was doing was being myself. I guess this is because where I come from (Turkey), people are expected to show their affection and appreciation with lots of touching and hugging. For example, when you run into a friend, you usually kiss each other on both cheeks as a greeting. In the US though, this would be considered aberrant behavior - might even be perceived as "gay" if it's two guy friends. Instead it's either handshake or fist-bump.
Suppressing affection is pretty hard. Often times I find myself with an urge to give people hugs, but refrain from doing so.
What it sounds like is not that Americans are worse at expressing affection, but rather express affection in different ways. Fist-bumps, handshakes, high fives, even a head bob is a very obvious way to show someone you recognize their existence and are glad to see them. In America, kissing is not a sign of friendly affection, but a sign of romantic affection. It's a small cultural difference, but the feelings expressed are exactly the same.
Making the claim that Americans are not affectionate because they don't kiss as a friendly greeting is the same as saying the Germans can't communicate just because I can't understand their language. Insisting on speaking English to a non-English-speaking person would be just as rude and out of place as insisting on kissing an American acquaintance.
No, indeed not, but to someone in whose culture this is not the norm that's how it seems, overly affectionate.
What the OP was saying was that for him, he was acting just normal but people perceived it as very affectionate, and that's exactly the point. He may have not been displaying affection but that's how it got interpreted.
Keep in mind that Turkey is an outlier in this regard, sleeping in the same bed or on a friend's shoulder, kissing, holding hands in the street (though I heard this is changing especially in the cities?). Many peoples are even less affectionate than Americans. I've heard exactly the same complaints from Turks in western europe.
I've lived in four different states over the past ten years, and found that most people I have met are indeed like that. The difference becomes especially obvious when I hang out with visitors or other immigrants. European women for example are much more comfortable with holding hands or throwing their arms around my waist when walking down the street, and they do it even when we are just friends. Americans are the opposite: they seem to have "touch-phobia".
Different parts of the US have different customs. Some folks are very personal space (myself and a lot of my family) and some are very - well - "huggy" (my brother's in-laws errr).
> We are poor at expressing gratitude and affection
This is not exclusively (or even originally) an American thing. The author makes the same mistake he complains about: it's not all about America! (Corollary: do not blame the Americans for what the British are actually responsible!) Apparently we inherited "phatic" conversation from the same people we took our language from. For example, in German, unlike in English, there is no word for "small talk": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13545386
"Small talk" is commonly used as a loan phrase in modern German. One might as well say that American English has no word for the first year of school. "Quatschen" is also pretty close to the meaning of "small talk" (with a slightly more negative / playful connotation -- "blabbing"):
That struck me as odd, like the author has not really traveled extensively. I spent some time in Sweden recently and was surprised by the the lack of warmth even by the customer service workers.
I've been to several countries that do not "express gratitude and affection" and don't see it as an exclusive US trait. It seems like his only travel experience is with west/southern europe and south america.
Visit scandanavia, germany, holland, britain. On the warmth/openness scale, they feel similar to America (at least to me). Go a bit farther south (belgium/france/italy/spain) and people open up more. The persians I know are warmer still. I don't see these differences as better/worse - you can be perfectly happy in any of these cultures.
From my experience (German, studied and worked in the states, traveler) the list is pretty spot on. BUT I think it applies mostly to Joe Sixpack. Most of my friends and people I met are not really like that. Maybe just enough so that you can tell them apart from Canadians ;)
Don't beat yourself up about it, it is what it is and you are who you are. And I personally like the American mentality, mostly because I can't take most of it seriously. And Joe Sixpack isn't any better in other countries. So keep on shouting U - S - A, U - S - A, I'll even join in :)
One I'd like to add from my travels across the US. 'Freedom' is not just freedom. Less so in the north-east, but in the south and southwest in particular, you can hear the capital F when people say it. It's a political entity that you can either love (with us) or hate (against us). You can't be pro-Freedom if you're not pro-American sort of stuff.
Elsewhere 'freedom' is definitely a desirable quality, but it's not a concept that has a life of its own and must be tended to like a pet. 'freedom' isn't something that will stir in your breast and make you fight harder. 'Freedom' seems to be a word that has been incorporated into the US religion of state, and seems to have a tangibly different meaning there.
As an American who has spend over a decade (most my adult life!) abroad, I really can't agree with most of this list.
Living in China (and being able to speak and read Chinese) made it abundantly obvious to me that #1 and #2 are completely wrong. I often encountered either nationalist jabs royal treatment from strangers simply due to what was on TV at the time. In quite a few people I encountered both views. Some told me point blank that they thought that the US was the best place in the world and that they didn't understand why I left... only to change gears minutes later and tell me what a dangerous, terrible country America is. A love-hate relationship with America and Americans is very common in China. In Taiwan, where I lived for 7 years, I pretty much only encountered love. In Guatemala, I saw both, but very muted compared to China. I did encounter some serious hate from some Canadians there, though... I spent hours helping them translate and apartment hunt, after which they realized I was American, not Canadian. Amazingly, this was such a big deal to them that they pretty much forgot my kind deed and blew me off!
As for affection, I think pretty much everywhere I lived in Asia saw Americans as outgoing and affectionate. In Guatemala, we were seen as reserved. I'd put us at the middle of the continuum, not at the extreme non-affectionate end.
Americans aren't that status obsessed. Just look at sales of luxury cars and handbags. Chinese people tend to be status-obsessed. Rich people in the US are surprisingly restrained by comparison.
Ditto on unhealthiness. After moving to the US 2 months ago I find there's very little drinking, people never smoke in offices, not many people smoke at all, and I haven't seen a single scuffle outside a restaurant yet. It's certainly not as health-focused as someplace like Japan, and food portions are too big, but there is a culture of exercise. On the whole I'd say Boulder, Colorado is the healthiest place I've ever lived. SF isn't bad.
I agree that the health care system leaves a lot to be desired. I do miss Taiwan's quite a bit. It amazed me how it was cheap, high quality and somehow supported by a very low tax rate. I prefer the US system to China's or Guatemala's though.
One constant I've found over the past 10 years is that no matter where I live, I encounter American movies at the theaters, news about the US on TV, American restaurants and businesses in the streets, and a lot of people who very much want to understand my home country better. Sometimes it was frustrating when I was looking for total immersion and an experience living someplace completely different from home. My Swedish and Argentinian classmates in Taiwan could go weeks without hearing their mother tongues or seeing anything about their countries in any media, but I could not. Even a single day would be almost impossible because in truth the US is exceptional among countries.
In short, I think this list is closer to a European caricature of the US than it is to reality.
>In short, I think this list is closer to a European caricature of the US than it is to reality.
I think this is a pretty good assessment. It's not as if any of what he says is untrue, in some place, at some time, but they do not hold as generalizations. As generalizations, they are way off. It's like stepping into a country for a couple of weeks and trying to write a definitive review of a country --and writing that which was most impressive (glaring differences, for example) in an exaggerated way.
>I do miss Taiwan's quite a bit. It amazed me how it was cheap, high quality and somehow supported by a very low tax rate.
This impressed me too. Altho I understand that one way they were able to afford it was by capturing medical students for like 7 years (or something, like that. i.e. pay for schooling, but then have them under contract for 7 years at below market wages) In addition, salaries were cut several times and now the system is looking to be reformed because its becoming indebted.
One other thing I never quite understood was the big packets of 20 pills for a cold you'd take several times a day for several days. I can't imagine what was in them.
"I did encounter some serious hate from some Canadians there, though..."
This is a very unfortunate side-effect of the cultural and physical proximity between these nations. Most Canadians don't travel to the states, but they do get almost all American media on their radios and TVs, producing a distorted (and somewhat negative) view of America and the average American. What the media portrays and the reality on the ground are often quite different.
> In America, women usually get incredibly nervous and confused when I do this. They’ll make jokes to defuse the situation or sometimes ask me if I’m part of a TV show or something playing a prank.
Hm, I see this as largely part of the way the media in the U.S. portrays random communication between strangers: it must be malicious behaviour. When I'm in the U.S. striking up conversations with strangers and my friends there think I'm crazy. I'm just not american, which maybe gives me a buffer (and something to talk about).
My guess is that the people who were insanely friendly lived in areas where they didn't get to meet too many foreigners.
Familiarity breeds contempt as they say.
>The point is we don’t really get perspective on what’s close to us until we spend time away from it.
This is so true for so many aspects of our lives, particularly with respect to culture -- whether it be the "America, Fuck Yeah!" attitude or the "Silicon Valley coolaid".
Could say most of these things about any first-world country's people, IMO. Australian's probably inflate our country's world value, can be fairly unhealthy, strive for status, etc.
> most people in the world don’t really think about us or care about us
The only times I've glanced an eye across the pond is when something incredible stupid happens.
Examples:
George bush gets elected,
George bush gets elected again,
Vote against free health care,
Illegal wars for resource grabbing.
Gonna be down voted massively for this but its important to understand we don't always pay attention because your doing something right, quite often its the opposite.
This is a pretty foolish statement from an otherwise reasonable article. Parliament in England was not remotely representative until 1867 by the most generous measure, and more reasonably not until the early 20th century. So far as I know, the only modern government of consequence which could lay claim to being a "democracy" prior to the US is probably San Marino, and its representation is, shall we say, odd.
I think that the US can indeed lay claim to being the first modern democracy: its government was absolutely radical at the time, and more importantly it stood as an example to other later movements (starting with the French).