|
Grex > Agora46 > #135: What you always wanted to know about the USA and its citizens <-- For Non-US grexers | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 79 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 16 of 79:
| 
Jul 31 15:39 UTC 2003 |
Re #14:
For the road side question, see
http://www.travel-library.com/general/driving/drive_which_side.html
For the "American" question, it comes from the name "United States of
America". "American" sounds better than "United Statesian." Everyone
knows it isn't entirely accurate. There was never a sensible name for
citizens of the Soviet Union either. Some countries are just too new to
have the history of their name blurred enough that it doesn't mean anything
else.
|
dcat
|
|
response 17 of 79:
|
Jul 31 15:45 UTC 2003 |
re:14.4, 16: in Spanish (at least, the Spanish I was taught in school), the
word *is* United-Statesian: 'estadounidense'.
According to the authors of my high school Spanish texts, people in other
Western Hemisphere countries do get somewhat offended that 'American' usually
refers to residents of the United States. IMHO, though, there are other words
which refer to residents of the two continents, whereas as Jan noted there
really aren't other words for US-ers.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 18 of 79:
|
Jul 31 15:54 UTC 2003 |
It should also be remembered that, until the end of American Civil War,
people generally felt more loyalty to their State than to the United States.
The States were individual countries that joined together for common cause.
(This distinction was less clear, perhaps, in the states formed from the
Louisiana Purchase.)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 19 of 79:
|
Jul 31 16:04 UTC 2003 |
Re #14: You've already gotten answers on some of these, so...
2: It depends on the high school, and the individual. I went to a small
private school, where Prom wasn't as big a deal as it is for a lot of
people. For some, though, it's the most important event in their lives
until their wedding, or it's an opportunity to show off how much they
can afford to spend to look cool. Anyone who still thinks their Prom
was a big deal ten years after the fact, though, either had a really
unusual Prom or needs to get a life.
3: I assume you're comparing us to India, though, given the tone of your
posts elsewhere, so I'll address why the two countries are different.
Bad marriages, including abusive ones, happen everywhere. In the US,
however, the partners have the option of getting out of them *relatively*
easily (this is not to say it's necessarily easy, just easier) and with
minimal or no social stigma. In India, an abused wife essentially has
to put up with it until she dies, her husband dies, or it gets to the
point where either or both families are willing to step in.
I've heard Indians claim that their lower divorce rate proves that
arranged marriages are better. I don't buy that argument, because I
don't personally believe that an abusive marriage is an improvement
over a divorce. Indian couples are more likely to stay married
because there's tremendously strong social pressure to do so,
remarriage can be difficult, and divorce is seen as an honor issue
(especially within the Muslim community). Here, a spouse can get out
of an abusive marriage. There, they can't.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 20 of 79:
|
Jul 31 16:10 UTC 2003 |
Just remembered something else about the "50% of marriages end in divorce"
claim, too. It can be misinterpreted as meaning that, if you get married,
there's a 50% chance that marriage will end in divorce. That isn't true --
the statistic includes a large number of people who get divorced repeatedly,
for whatever reason. I know someone, for example, who is on her fourth
husband (all divorces). This skews the number.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 21 of 79:
|
Jul 31 16:28 UTC 2003 |
Re 19> I would have to agree on the reason for a lower divorce rate in
India. I've seen many marriages, that may not be abusive, but are not
what I would call marriages. The husband and wife live separately,
citing work, the kids are raised by the mom, and everyone puts up a
happy front at public occasions. I wouldn't term these marriages
abusive by any sense, all parties are quite happy with the situation,
but these aren't really marriages in my opinion. Much better to get a
divorce and move on,
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 22 of 79:
|
Jul 31 16:30 UTC 2003 |
Re 20> When you say 50% of all marriages end in divorces, it should
include repeat marriages. Doesn't matter if it's the 1st marriage or
the 6th marriage of the bride or groom in concern. It is a unique
marriage, irrespective of past marital status of either partner. I
don't see how multiple marriages skews results in this case.
|
tod
|
|
response 23 of 79:
|
Jul 31 16:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 24 of 79:
|
Jul 31 16:40 UTC 2003 |
Re #22: But it isn't a unique marriage independent of the past marital
status of the two partners. This isn't like a coin toss: the
divorce history of the partners influences the chance that the
current marriage will last. For some people, the chance that a
given marriage will end in divorce is far higher than it is for
the general population.
These tend to be people who either have a personal problem that
causes failed marriages, or a pattern of picking spouses who do.
For example, an alcoholic who becomes abusive when drunk will
often go through a series of marriages and divorces because he/she
can behave for long enough to catch a spouse, but will eventually
fall off the wagon and get dumped. Similarly, a woman who picks
abusive husbands (this is more frequent than you might think, and
usually a result of being raised in an abusive household) but has
the sense to divorce them when she figures it out could rack up
quite a list. Or someone who has affairs. There are a lot of
patterns that lead to multiple divorces and make it very likely
that subsequent marriages will end in divorce too.
Since these people are included in the statistic, it skews things.
Unfortunately, I don't remember by how much.
|
tod
|
|
response 25 of 79:
|
Jul 31 16:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 26 of 79:
|
Jul 31 17:42 UTC 2003 |
when referring to someone from the continent, you would prefix it
with "North" or "South". Anyone from Mexico, Canada or the US is
a "North American". Any one from Brazil, Argentina, or the like is
a "South American". There is not continent "America". There is
a "North America" and a "South America" (and even "Central America",
though that's not recognised as a separate continent). So it's
perfectly acceptable to call some one from the USA to call themselves
American, there's nothing to be confused about.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 27 of 79:
|
Jul 31 17:43 UTC 2003 |
Re: #2: If the president is a bigot based on the remarks he made, then please
add me to the rolls of that bigotry. In fact, add the overwhelming number
of US citizens to that roll while you're at it.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 28 of 79:
|
Jul 31 17:44 UTC 2003 |
the 50% is a statistic about marriages, not people who get married.
If there were only 20 people in the world, and they all married each other
, there would be 10 marriages.
If four of those people divorced and remarried, 20% of the marriages would
have ended in divorce. And 20% of the people would have gotten divorces.
The, those four people proceed to marry and divorce until they have all been
married and divorced in all possible combinations.
The percentage of _people_ who divorced would not change. 80% remain married,
20% got divorced.
The percentage of _marriages_ that ended in divorce would change dramatically.
67% of the marriages were stable, 33% ended in divorce.
|
dcat
|
|
response 29 of 79:
|
Jul 31 18:05 UTC 2003 |
Unless I misread something (else), the numbers in that last line were
reversed, and should've been 33 and 67, respectively.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 30 of 79:
|
Jul 31 18:18 UTC 2003 |
Re 28> Agreed. I think what Joe was trying to say was that while 50%
of all marriages end in divorce, one needs to keep in mind that that
percentage is skewed to some degree by a relatively small number of
people who have a tendency to repeatedly get into marriages that will
end in divorce.
Did I get that right, Joe?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 31 of 79:
|
Jul 31 19:03 UTC 2003 |
Re #25: uhhh....the English drive on the left.
|
tod
|
|
response 32 of 79:
|
Jul 31 19:36 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 33 of 79:
|
Jul 31 20:03 UTC 2003 |
In most of the divorces I know about one partner left because they fell in
love with someone else, or wanted to 'find themselves'. No abuse, no alcohol.
My cousin was amicably divorced twice. My uncle decided to marry someone 20
years younger. His first wife invited us all to her second wedding.
|
jep
|
|
response 34 of 79:
|
Jul 31 20:43 UTC 2003 |
We can all agree divorce is pretty common, whatever the statistics
actually are. As a divorcee myself, I think it's very unfortunate it
happens so often.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 35 of 79:
|
Aug 1 04:00 UTC 2003 |
Re #30: Yep.
Re #34: Yes, but in many cases it's better than the alternative. I'm not
speaking for your case specifically.
|
russ
|
|
response 36 of 79:
|
Aug 1 04:07 UTC 2003 |
Re #5: What's WRONG is defining the public face of the office of
POTUS as an explicitly Christian one. Government officials should
not act in any sectarian capacity while exercising their office.
Re #21: Sounds like the way officially Catholic countries handle it.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 37 of 79:
|
Aug 1 07:11 UTC 2003 |
resp:14 Well, basically why the *English* drove on the left was to
have your weapon on the ready for that pesky highwayman. We just
started driving on the right to spite them and be different, really.
We embraced Santa Claus because he wasn't that English Father
Christmas-- if I remember right, there was all sorts of things during
the 19th century that we did to distance ourselves from Britain.
|
jep
|
|
response 38 of 79:
|
Aug 1 13:52 UTC 2003 |
re resp:35: I wasn't speaking of my divorce, in particular, either,
though of course it has affected my perceptions of divorce. As a
general case, though, I bet we all know someone who has had 4 or more
marriages. I knew a guy in college who had had 5 stepdads before he
graduated from high school. He was fortunate in that his maternal
grandfather was a stable influence in his life. He certainly didn't
have any other male role models he could count on. I'm sure his mother
was unhappy with all of her various husbands, once she married them...
but at some point, this guy and his two sisters, the children, ought to
have received some consideration as well.
The American characteristic of driving on the right instead of the left
originated in the 18th century.
Santa Claus wasn't a big deal anywhere until the late 1800's in
America. I don't belive our mass giving of presents occurred until
after the Great Depression.
|
janc
|
|
response 39 of 79:
|
Aug 1 14:38 UTC 2003 |
I think the modern image of Santa Claus (jolly fat guy with reindeer) was
created first from nearly whole cloth by the author of "The Night Before
Christmas" and popularized via a series of ads for Coca Cola. Web
searching...yup...http://www.the-north-pole.com/history/ says Thomas Nast
did a lot to develop the character too, and Rudolf was invented for Montgomery
Ward advertisements. The night before Christmas was 1823, and the Coca Cola
ads were 1931. Santa is a pretty modern creation though bits of the legend
have ancient roots.
|
sj2
|
|
response 40 of 79:
|
Aug 1 20:26 UTC 2003 |
Thanks!!
What myths/images/impressions created by Hollywood movies, usually,
would you like to dispel about the US?
|