Ye Olde Pub (The English Pub)

[2ball_]

Happy new year

[A. Blaine]

 

..what the book is about, it's rather complicated.. So I just grabbed this off wikipedia:

 

The story is narrated by a man in his mid-twenties who suddenly becomes disillusioned and confused by life and therefore quits university. The narrator becomes fascinated by both modern scientific theories of time and relativity (by reading a book by Paul Davies) and also by repetitive childish activities such as playing with wooden BRIO children's toys and repeatedly throwing a ball against a wall. In the end, the narrator visits his brother in New York City and returns to Norway with a renewed sense of meaning in life.

 

As for honing my English skills.. I don't rightly know

 

It's a combination of things, I guess. When I was a child we only got CartoonNetwork in English, through the satellite. And since then I've been constantly exposed to it through movies, games, computer-software and the likes.

 

I've always liked the English language, because it gives you such a large vocabulary to work with. I often find Norwegian translations lacking, simply because there's no proper word for this or that particular thing.

 

In later years I've read a lot of books and, for the above-mentioned reason, I prefer English unless it's by a Scandinavian author.

I have always thought the main reason English has so many words is British history, it's seafaring and colonization history, engagement with many cultures. I'm not sure if that makes sense though given the exploits of the Vikings and the seafaring history of Norwegians

 

Any better ideas? I speak Spanish and Norwegian but found norwegian much easier

 

 

There are a myriad of reasons that English has so many loanwords when compared to a language like Norwegian. The biggest factor is the fact that it has been ruled many times by many different peoples. It was originally settled by the ancestors of the Welsh, they would be the true "Britons" if we cared to go so far back. The Romans came in the first century AD and conquered most of Britain with Hadrians wall existing as the terminus - this introduced the first major foreign influence on the language. The Romans left when their own internal problems made their sprawl unsustainable and the Britons were back in charge.

 

The Anglo-Saxons come next and they conquer most of Britain in short order. The story of their introduction to Britain and eventual conquest is also really interesting, but not pertinent. So here Old English totally supplants the "native" language except for in the most remote areas. Now the language has shifted from entirely Celtic (with some Latin influence) to entirely Germanic.

 

Then the era of the Danelaw comes. More Germanic influence. 

 

Their rule slowly disintegrates and is totally finished off on October 14 1066 by William the Conqueror. Enter French. King William makes French the language of the court. This rule lasts quite a long time and the influence it had on the formation of English is staggering. Look at the difference between Beowulf (Old English) and Chaucer (Middle English). The former is essentially a foreign language to modern English speakers, but the latter is very legible with a tiny bit of instruction. In fact, one of the greatest things about English - and why I am a staunch prescriptivist - is that one can read 15th century English with very little instruction. Anyway, the reason we can read Middle English with little difficulty is because the French influence has been exacted by then. And that is what truly separates Old for Middle. 

 

The evolution from Old to Middle was EXTREMELY rapid. Just look at Layamons Brut (link below) and compare it to The Squire of Low Degree. The difference is massive, but the differences between the Squire of Low Degree and this post are not so great. It would stand to reason that if one could read this, he could read the Squire with little difficulty. 

 

English more or less stopped taking on massive grammatical changes after Middle English. The changes that do follow are really just the slow meandering that one could expect to occur in a language when writing, printing, and schooling are uncommon.

 

English, in my opinion, has been fairly constant for the last six centuries. Spelling has standardized with the invention of the printing press and many turns of phrase have come and gone, but we have, for the most part, only added to the English vocabulary. This means that older writings are still quite accessible as words are rarely completely lost.

 

Anyway, that was far longer than I meant it to be.

 

Brut - http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/LayCal/1:1?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

 

Squire of Low degree - http://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/kooper-sentimental-and-humorous-romances-squire-of-low-degree

 

EDIT - Grammar

Endret 8. august 2015 av A. Blaine

[jjkoggan]

 

 

..what the book is about, it's rather complicated.. So I just grabbed this off wikipedia:

 

The story is narrated by a man in his mid-twenties who suddenly becomes disillusioned and confused by life and therefore quits university. The narrator becomes fascinated by both modern scientific theories of time and relativity (by reading a book by Paul Davies) and also by repetitive childish activities such as playing with wooden BRIO children's toys and repeatedly throwing a ball against a wall. In the end, the narrator visits his brother in New York City and returns to Norway with a renewed sense of meaning in life.

 

As for honing my English skills.. I don't rightly know

 

It's a combination of things, I guess. When I was a child we only got CartoonNetwork in English, through the satellite. And since then I've been constantly exposed to it through movies, games, computer-software and the likes.

 

I've always liked the English language, because it gives you such a large vocabulary to work with. I often find Norwegian translations lacking, simply because there's no proper word for this or that particular thing.

 

In later years I've read a lot of books and, for the above-mentioned reason, I prefer English unless it's by a Scandinavian author.

 

I have always thought the main reason English has so many words is British history, it's seafaring and colonization history, engagement with many cultures. I'm not sure if that makes sense though given the exploits of the Vikings and the seafaring history of Norwegians

 

Any better ideas? I speak Spanish and Norwegian but found norwegian much easier

 

 

There is a myriad of reasons that English has so many loanwords when compared to a language like Norwegian. The biggest factor is the fact that it has been ruled many times by many different peoples. It was originally settled by the ancestors of the Welsh, they would be the true "Britons" if we cared to go so far back. The Romans came in the first century AD and conquered most of Britain with Hadrians wall existing as the terminus - this introduced the first major foreign influence on the language. The Romans left when their own internal problems made their sprawl unsustainable and the Britons were back in charge.

 

The Anglo-Saxons come next and they conquer most of Britain in short order. The story of their introduction to Britain and eventual conquest is also really interesting, but not pertinent. So here Old English totally supplants the "native" language except for in the most remote areas. Now the language has shifted from entirely Celtic (with some Latin influence) to entirely Germanic.

 

Then the era of the Danelaw comes. More Germanic influence. 

 

Their rule slowly disintegrates and is totally finished off on October 14 1066 by William the Conqueror. Enter French. King William makes French the language of the court. This rule lasts quite a long time and the influence it had on the formation of English is staggering. Look at the difference between Beowulf (Old English) and Chaucer (Middle English). The former is essentially a foreign language to modern English speakers, but the latter is very legible with a tiny bit of instruction. In fact, one of the greatest things about English - and why I am a staunch prescriptivist - is that one can read 15th century English with very little instruction. Anyway, the reason we can read Middle English with little difficulty is because the French influence has been exacted by then. And that is what truly separates Old for Middle. 

 

The evolution from Old to Middle was EXTREMELY rapid. Just look at Layamons Brut (link below) and compare it to The Squire of Low Degree. The difference is massive, but the difference between the Squire of Low Degree and this post are not so great. It would stand to reason if one could read this, he could read the Squire with little difficulty. 

 

English more or less stopped taking on massive grammatical changes after Middle English. The changes that do follow are really just the slow meandering that one could expect to occur in a language when writing, printing, and schooling are uncommon.

 

English, in my opinion, has been fairly constant for the last six centuries. Spelling has standardized with the invention of the printing press and many turns of phrase have come and gone, but we have, for the most part, only added to the English vocabulary. This means that older writings are still quite accessible as words are rarely completely lost.

 

Anyway, that was far longer than I meant it to be.

 

Brut - http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/LayCal/1:1?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

 

Squire of Low degree - http://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/kooper-sentimental-and-humorous-romances-squire-of-low-degree

 

Linguist or historian by trade or avocation?

[A. Blaine]

 

 

 

..what the book is about, it's rather complicated.. So I just grabbed this off wikipedia:

 

The story is narrated by a man in his mid-twenties who suddenly becomes disillusioned and confused by life and therefore quits university. The narrator becomes fascinated by both modern scientific theories of time and relativity (by reading a book by Paul Davies) and also by repetitive childish activities such as playing with wooden BRIO children's toys and repeatedly throwing a ball against a wall. In the end, the narrator visits his brother in New York City and returns to Norway with a renewed sense of meaning in life.

 

As for honing my English skills.. I don't rightly know

 

It's a combination of things, I guess. When I was a child we only got CartoonNetwork in English, through the satellite. And since then I've been constantly exposed to it through movies, games, computer-software and the likes.

 

I've always liked the English language, because it gives you such a large vocabulary to work with. I often find Norwegian translations lacking, simply because there's no proper word for this or that particular thing.

 

In later years I've read a lot of books and, for the above-mentioned reason, I prefer English unless it's by a Scandinavian author.

 

I have always thought the main reason English has so many words is British history, it's seafaring and colonization history, engagement with many cultures. I'm not sure if that makes sense though given the exploits of the Vikings and the seafaring history of Norwegians

 

Any better ideas? I speak Spanish and Norwegian but found norwegian much easier

 

 

There is a myriad of reasons that English has so many loanwords when compared to a language like Norwegian. The biggest factor is the fact that it has been ruled many times by many different peoples. It was originally settled by the ancestors of the Welsh, they would be the true "Britons" if we 

 

SNIP

 

Brut - http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/LayCal/1:1?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

 

Squire of Low degree - http://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/kooper-sentimental-and-humorous-romances-squire-of-low-degree

 

Linguist or historian by trade or avocation?

 

 

I've always enjoyed history, but I'm actually a geologist by training. I'm American, so the history of English is something I had to learn in high school (though few bother to retain it past exam day). 

[jjkoggan]

 

 

 

 

 

..what the book is about, it's rather complicated.. So I just grabbed this off wikipedia:

 

The story is narrated by a man in his mid-twenties who suddenly becomes disillusioned and confused by life and therefore quits university. The narrator becomes fascinated by both modern scientific theories of time and relativity (by reading a book by Paul Davies) and also by repetitive childish activities such as playing with wooden BRIO children's toys and repeatedly throwing a ball against a wall. In the end, the narrator visits his brother in New York City and returns to Norway with a renewed sense of meaning in life.

As for honing my English skills.. I don't rightly know

 

It's a combination of things, I guess. When I was a child we only got CartoonNetwork in English, through the satellite. And since then I've been constantly exposed to it through movies, games, computer-software and the likes.

 

I've always liked the English language, because it gives you such a large vocabulary to work with. I often find Norwegian translations lacking, simply because there's no proper word for this or that particular thing.

 

In later years I've read a lot of books and, for the above-mentioned reason, I prefer English unless it's by a Scandinavian author.

I have always thought the main reason English has so many words is British history, it's seafaring and colonization history, engagement with many cultures. I'm not sure if that makes sense though given the exploits of the Vikings and the seafaring history of Norwegians

 

Any better ideas? I speak Spanish and Norwegian but found norwegian much easier

There is a myriad of reasons that English has so many loanwords when compared to a language like Norwegian. The biggest factor is the fact that it has been ruled many times by many different peoples. It was originally settled by the ancestors of the Welsh, they would be the true "Britons" if we

 

SNIP

 

Brut - http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/LayCal/1:1?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

 

Squire of Low degree - http://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/kooper-sentimental-and-humorous-romances-squire-of-low-degree

Linguist or historian by trade or avocation?

I've always enjoyed history, but I'm actually a geologist by training. I'm American, so the history of English is something I had to learn in high school (though few bother to retain it past exam day).

Ok, the puzzle fits. You wrote like a native speaker like myself.

I went to alpena high school in MI but lost track of the details f English history. I also went to the norwegian gymnasium and learned a bit of norwegian. I'm a chemist by vocation

What's the interest in a norsk forum?

[A. Blaine]

 

 

 

 

 

..what the book is about, it's rather complicated.. So I just grabbed this off wikipedia:

The story is narrated by a man in his mid-twenties who suddenly becomes disillusioned and confused by life and therefore quits university. The narrator becomes fascinated by both modern scientific theories of time and relativity (by reading a book by Paul Davies) and also by repetitive childish activities such as playing with wooden BRIO children's toys and repeatedly throwing a ball against a wall. In the end, the narrator visits his brother in New York City and returns to Norway with a renewed sense of meaning in life.

As for honing my English skills.. I don't rightly know

 

It's a combination of things, I guess. When I was a child we only got CartoonNetwork in English, through the satellite. And since then I've been constantly exposed to it through movies, games, computer-software and the likes.

 

I've always liked the English language, because it gives you such a large vocabulary to work with. I often find Norwegian translations lacking, simply because there's no proper word for this or that particular thing.

 

In later years I've read a lot of books and, for the above-mentioned reason, I prefer English unless it's by a Scandinavian author.

I have always thought the main reason English has so many words is British history, it's seafaring and colonization history, engagement with many cultures. I'm not sure if that makes sense though given the exploits of the Vikings and the seafaring history of Norwegians

 

Any better ideas? I speak Spanish and Norwegian but found norwegian much easier

There is a myriad of reasons that English has so many loanwords when compared to a language like Norwegian. The biggest factor is the fact that it has been ruled many times by many different peoples. It was originally settled by the ancestors of the Welsh, they would be the true "Britons" if we

 

SNIP

 

Brut - http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/LayCal/1:1?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

 

Squire of Low degree - http://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/kooper-sentimental-and-humorous-romances-squire-of-low-degree

Linguist or historian by trade or avocation?

I've always enjoyed history, but I'm actually a geologist by training. I'm American, so the history of English is something I had to learn in high school (though few bother to retain it past exam day).

Ok, the puzzle fits. You wrote like a native speaker like myself.

I went to alpena high school in MI but lost track of the details f English history. I also went to the norwegian gymnasium and learned a bit of norwegian. I'm a chemist by vocation

What's the interest in a norsk forum?

 

 

Ah, that's cool. I've spent a lot of time in Michigan, barring Detroit and Flint, it's a wonderful state. I suppose my interest in Norwegian primarily stems from an interest in the literature that was originally written in it. I've also been thinking about moving to Europe for a few years just for fun. And Oslo and Paris being me favorite cities, I'll probably split the time between the two. I highly doubt it would be permanent, though - it's really hard to match American salaries. 

[jjkoggan]

Ah, that's cool. I've spent a lot of time in Michigan, barring Detroit and Flint, it's a wonderful state. I suppose my interest in Norwegian primarily stems from an interest in the literature that was originally written in it. I've also been thinking about moving to Europe for a few years just for fun. And Oslo and Paris being me favorite cities, I'll probably split the time between the two. I highly doubt it would be permanent, though - it's really hard to match American salaries.

Have you been to Oslo? There are many american geologists in western norway. I interviewed for a job in oslo when younger but work permits are hard to come by

What norwegian literature have fascinated you to read?

[A. Blaine]

 

Ah, that's cool. I've spent a lot of time in Michigan, barring Detroit and Flint, it's a wonderful state. I suppose my interest in Norwegian primarily stems from an interest in the literature that was originally written in it. I've also been thinking about moving to Europe for a few years just for fun. And Oslo and Paris being me favorite cities, I'll probably split the time between the two. I highly doubt it would be permanent, though - it's really hard to match American salaries.

Have you been to Oslo? There are many american geologists in western norway. I interviewed for a job in oslo when younger but work permits are hard to come by

What norwegian literature have fascinated you to read?

 

 

Not for any meaningful amount of time, unfortunately - something that I am looking forward to rectifying. I imagine that the application process for us foreigners would be rather tedious. No doubt a byproduct of the preference for intra-EU seekers, something with I reckon I agree (I mean, getting into the USA isn't a cakewalk either unless you were born south of the border!). 

 

My first exposure to Norwegian literature was Erlend Loe of all people. Naiv. Super, being the first book I read in Norwegian. Then I moved on to Ibsen et al. I'm actually going back to Erlend Loe as soon as Doppler arrives. 

[jjkoggan]

 

 

 

Ah, that's cool. I've spent a lot of time in Michigan, barring Detroit and Flint, it's a wonderful state. I suppose my interest in Norwegian primarily stems from an interest in the literature that was originally written in it. I've also been thinking about moving to Europe for a few years just for fun. And Oslo and Paris being me favorite cities, I'll probably split the time between the two. I highly doubt it would be permanent, though - it's really hard to match American salaries.

Have you been to Oslo? There are many american geologists in western norway. I interviewed for a job in oslo when younger but work permits are hard to come by

What norwegian literature have fascinated you to read?

Not for any meaningful amount of time, unfortunately - something that I am looking forward to rectifying. I imagine that the application process for us foreigners would be rather tedious. No doubt a byproduct of the preference for intra-EU seekers, something with I reckon I agree (I mean, getting into the USA isn't a cakewalk either unless you were born south of the border!).

 

My first exposure to Norwegian literature was Erlend Loe of all people. Naiv. Super, being the first book I read in Norwegian. Then I moved on to Ibsen et al. I'm actually going back to Erlend Loe as soon as Doppler arrives.

I find your choice of oslo interesting. Since I lived there it became kind of a second home but to pick Oslo as a favorite without a similar connection is about like a European tourist picking Columbus Ohio as a top destination. Not uninteresting but relative to San francisco, ChicagoLA,NYC.... Anyways-to each his own!

Norway is not a EU member but does make it easier for EU citizens to work there. Many poles ply there trade there to the consternation of many norwegians who think they are too culturally different, especially their religious side

Also, it appears easier to seek asylum inNorway than for an American to secure a work permit.

Americans are assigned interesting stereotypes by the way these days, and they are not kind, so this can be something to overcome if you choose to live there

[A. Blaine]

 

 

 

Ah, that's cool. I've spent a lot of time in Michigan, barring Detroit and Flint, it's a wonderful state. I suppose my interest in Norwegian primarily stems from an interest in the literature that was originally written in it. I've also been thinking about moving to Europe for a few years just for fun. And Oslo and Paris being me favorite cities, I'll probably split the time between the two. I highly doubt it would be permanent, though - it's really hard to match American salaries.

Have you been to Oslo? There are many american geologists in western norway. I interviewed for a job in oslo when younger but work permits are hard to come by

What norwegian literature have fascinated you to read?

Not for any meaningful amount of time, unfortunately - something that I am looking forward to rectifying. I imagine that the application process for us foreigners would be rather tedious. No doubt a byproduct of the preference for intra-EU seekers, something with I reckon I agree (I mean, getting into the USA isn't a cakewalk either unless you were born south of the border!).

 

My first exposure to Norwegian literature was Erlend Loe of all people. Naiv. Super, being the first book I read in Norwegian. Then I moved on to Ibsen et al. I'm actually going back to Erlend Loe as soon as Doppler arrives.

I find your choice of oslo interesting. Since I lived there it became kind of a second home but to pick Oslo as a favorite without a similar connection is about like a European tourist picking Columbus Ohio as a top destination. Not uninteresting but relative to San francisco, ChicagoLA,NYC.... Anyways-to each his own!

Norway is not a EU member but does make it easier for EU citizens to work there. Many poles ply there trade there to the consternation of many norwegians who think they are too culturally different, especially their religious side

Also, it appears easier to seek asylum inNorway than for an American to secure a work permit.

Americans are assigned interesting stereotypes by the way these days, and they are not kind, so this can be something to overcome if you choose to live there

 

 

I like the Columbus comparison! It is an uncommon choice, to be sure. We've seen how well lax asylum policies work combined with a generous welfare state in Sweden, so hopefully they're pulling back on that kind of thing (it's also technically  requirement to claim asylum in the first safe place you arrive, so how the hell anyone is claiming asylum in Norway is beyond me).

 

When I move it will hopefully be more as an extended vacation/maybe work from home kind of things, so I'll probably just apply for an extended tourist visa in France and then spend the summers up north.

 

What kind of interesting stereotypes are these? I've traveled fairly extensively (although mostly in the New World) and the usual stereotype I find is loud, rude, and uneducated. Though we tip well, so I suppose that makes up for a lot. 

Endret 12. august 2015 av A. Blaine

[jjkoggan]

 

 

 

 

Ah, that's cool. I've spent a lot of time in Michigan, barring Detroit and Flint, it's a wonderful state. I suppose my interest in Norwegian primarily stems from an interest in the literature that was originally written in it. I've also been thinking about moving to Europe for a few years just for fun. And Oslo and Paris being me favorite cities, I'll probably split the time between the two. I highly doubt it would be permanent, though - it's really hard to match American salaries.

Have you been to Oslo? There are many american geologists in western norway. I interviewed for a job in oslo when younger but work permits are hard to come by

What norwegian literature have fascinated you to read?

Not for any meaningful amount of time, unfortunately - something that I am looking forward to rectifying. I imagine that the application process for us foreigners would be rather tedious. No doubt a byproduct of the preference for intra-EU seekers, something with I reckon I agree (I mean, getting into the USA isn't a cakewalk either unless you were born south of the border!).

 

My first exposure to Norwegian literature was Erlend Loe of all people. Naiv. Super, being the first book I read in Norwegian. Then I moved on to Ibsen et al. I'm actually going back to Erlend Loe as soon as Doppler arrives.

I find your choice of oslo interesting. Since I lived there it became kind of a second home but to pick Oslo as a favorite without a similar connection is about like a European tourist picking Columbus Ohio as a top destination. Not uninteresting but relative to San francisco, ChicagoLA,NYC.... Anyways-to each his own!

Norway is not a EU member but does make it easier for EU citizens to work there. Many poles ply there trade there to the consternation of many norwegians who think they are too culturally different, especially their religious side

Also, it appears easier to seek asylum inNorway than for an American to secure a work permit.

Americans are assigned interesting stereotypes by the way these days, and they are not kind, so this can be something to overcome if you choose to live there

 

 

I like the Columbus comparison! It is an uncommon choice, to be sure. We've seen how well lax asylum policies work combined with a generous welfare state in Sweden, so hopefully they're pulling back on that kind of thing (it's also technically  requirement to claim asylum in the first safe place you arrive, so how the hell anyone is claiming asylum in Norway is beyond me).

 

When I move it will hopefully be more as an extended vacation/maybe work from home kind of things, so I'll probably just apply for an extended tourist visa in France and then spend the summers up north.

 

What kind of interesting stereotypes are these? I've traveled fairly extensively (although mostly in the New World) and the usual stereotype I find is loud, rude, and uneducated. Though we tip well, so I suppose that makes up for a lot. 

 

Fat, stupid, hyper-religious, ignorant, loud, rude, arrogant, cheap, materialistic, shallow.

 

It is said that Norwegians have been so conditioned to see the USA a certain way that to say something like "americans are intelligent" is nearly impossible for them to do.  Here is an excerpt from a book written by norwegian Stian Bromark which explains this phenomenon. Many norwegians see the USA as a country that is not very far from being a third world nation.

 

Today, Anti-Americanism is the closest we come to a common ideology in Europe. And this ideology is not primarily about American foreign policy. During the 1990s Europe has demonstrated, and most recently during the 2003 Iraq war, that the countries on the continent choose their own ways when the big challenges pile up. On the other hand, most countries in Europe agree about the necessity to protect the continent's specific culture, whether the challenges come from the US or Muslims. If we are to chose a loaded term like 'anti-Americanism' then this is the source for it.

The stereotyping of Americans as fat, stupid and ignorant about the rest of the world is practically universal in Europe, and it is stated openly with a flat face (comparable stereotypes about e.g. Pakistanis are also common, but is hidden and considered unacceptable to express in polite company, and suicidal to express for a respectable politician). 

 

Instead of challenging this perception by investigating America, Bromark and Herbjørnsrud ask us to look at ourselves. Are Europeans really so much more healthy, intelligent and knowledgable about the world outside?

 

The authors were interviewed in the local newspaper Bergens Tidende:

 

- It is impossible to make a Norwegian say that Americans are intelligent. Our prejudices against Americans are much greater than against both Muslims and Africans, Stian Bromark argues.

 

- And we don't benefit by calling them ignorant and superficial, Dag Herbjørnsrud adds.

 

It is writers, journalists flim critics and professors that spearheads the arrogant attitude towards the USA, they think.

 

We abuse them time and again, and use the USA as a scapegoat.

 

And in this context it doesn't mean anything that 70 % of the Nobel Prize winners in history have been Americans?

 

- No, it doesn't help. Even if all American citizens had been professors, we would call them stupid.

 

- Why?

 

- Because by speaking negatively about them, we elevate ourselves. It confirms that we are the opposite. Us Europeans have refinement, culture and intellectual life. To think this way elevates our self-image, Herbjørnsrud believes

[Slimda]

The USA is a fairly large country, containing a lot of diversity and different cultures. While I agree that we love to poke at the "stupid overweight American", we are well aware that this is a stereotype.

 

Sure, there are a lot of stupid overweight Americans there, but every country has a bunch of stupid people. Maybe not as overweight as Americans though, but still stupid!

 

Can you name a single country where we don't laugh at their stereotype?

[jjkoggan]

The USA is a fairly large country, containing a lot of diversity and different cultures. While I agree that we love to poke at the "stupid overweight American", we are well aware that this is a stereotype.

 

Sure, there are a lot of stupid overweight Americans there, but every country has a bunch of stupid people. Maybe not as overweight as Americans though, but still stupid!

 

Can you name a single country where we don't laugh at their stereotype?

Stereotypes exist everywhere but acceptance of them is varied. Making fun of muslim stereotypes in norway will get a very different reaction than making fun of americans (f eks)and it serves the interests of politicians and media elite to distort and caricaturize americans. Thirdly, Bromark believes some of the overzealous negative stereotyping comes out of resistance to american influence.

You know, making fun of the enemy is not the same as making fun of friends. People are rarely stopped from exaggerating and misrepresenting enemies and myths more easily accepted.

One only needs to define the term "amerikanisering" to understand the norwegian relationship with the usa. It could have been a term of inspiration for that perfect liberal democracy americans aspire to, but instead it is a term for all that is bad about the most successful multicultural, multiethnic society in the world

Endret 27. august 2015 av jjkoggan

[Moraelyn]

The biggest problem is that of perspective. Most americans have never actually left America. They have no sense of scale, and no sense of 'culture' and what a broad term that is; yet they presume to speak on worldly matters and demand that their words be given the weight of importance. This is where they earn the descriptor arrogant american.

I suppose this can be said of any citizen of any nation, however; before commenting on any issue that originates beyond your own borders, one should meet the requirement of having lived beyond said borders for a few years, to gain a better sense of perspective, placement and role.

[jjkoggan]

The biggest problem is that of perspective. Most americans have never actually left America. They have no sense of scale, and no sense of 'culture' and what a broad term that is; yet they presume to speak on worldly matters and demand that their words be given the weight of importance. This is where they earn the descriptor arrogant american.

I suppose this can be said of any citizen of any nation, however; before commenting on any issue that originates beyond your own borders, one should meet the requirement of having lived beyond said borders for a few years, to gain a better sense of perspective, placement and role.

Actually more americans travel to europe than the reverse, but because europeans are continually bombarded by filtered news about the usa, many wrongly believe they are experts. This produces an anti-american arrogance about americans

rooted in ignorance.

Our words ARE more important because we carry the biggest stick, like it or not, deservedly or not. This is an artifact of all superpowers throughout history

 

Otherwise I agree wholeheartedly we all could benefit from walking in other moccasins.

[Moraelyn]

Ah, but I did say "live" beyond their borders, not just "go be a tourist".

 

A deeper understanding requires commitment.

[jjkoggan]

Ah, but I did say "live" beyond their borders, not just "go be a tourist". ;)A deeper understanding requires commitment.

Yes, which is why more europeans should live a while here before passing judgement.

[Moraelyn]

I've spent 30 (of my 38) years there, over the coarse of my life. I'm not sure the average person would be willing to invest that kind of devotion though. There are clowns and freaks lined up for the presidency again. Nothing changes there. My opinion of the USA is harsh, granted; I believe it must be brought to its knees in revolution, before it can be saved.

[jjkoggan]

I've spent 30 (of my 38) years there, over the coarse of my life. I'm not sure the average person would be willing to invest that kind of devotion though. There are clowns and freaks lined up for the presidency again. Nothing changes there. My opinion of the USA is harsh, granted; I believe it must be brought to its knees in revolution, before it can be saved.

One can always focus on the negative, no matter how informed one is. Not enough Americans agree with you or each other-so no revolution is coming for now. It has been one of the most stable democracies in the world for a reason ...

 

Also, to voluntarily stay in a hellhole for 30 years seems a bit masochistc-or perhaps it is not really that bad. The puzzle doesn't quite fit...

Endret 1. september 2015 av jjkoggan

[Moraelyn]

There is a simple solution to that puzzle: I lived in ignorance.

 

It wasn't until I was abroad for a couple of years that I was able to realize what a 'hellhole' America was, and how small a part it actually plays in the worldstage. It is a flailing child throwing a tantrum, in need of discipline, but it has no parents to administer that discipline, so it never learns. It is no longer a world power, but rather an arrogant bully which more and more people ignore.