16 ms·
I think there is a lot more subtlety to #1. I'm Australian, and despite numerous cultural shifts, when you graduate the natural place to go is Europe. The thin
by jwilliams 14y ago
I think there is a lot more subtlety to #1.
I'm Australian, and despite numerous cultural shifts, when you graduate the natural place to go is Europe. The thing young Aus/NZ people do is backpack around Europe.
When I was growing up, I knew a lot about the US from Mass Media, but it was pretty shallow. I saw the US as a mono-culture. When I finally visited the states that's what shocked me most - it's a diverse, complex place. In many ways more so than Europe.
I have my doubts about #4 too.
- sneak 14y ago> I saw the US as a mono-culture. I think the problem is that all the non-boring places to live in the US _are_ a monoculture, mostly due to the network. (Then again, most non-boring places on Earth are all converging to this point anyway.) The parts that diverge from the monoculture are places that would be horrible to live (e.g. the south, the rust belt, etc).
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- einhverfr 14y agoI entirely disagree there. Seattle is culturally different from LA and LA is culturally different from San Francisco, and none of them are really culturally the same as Portland, Oregon, and that's just the West Coast. Heck, if you go to Texas, Austin is culturally different from, say, Houston. I've lived in the Southwest, the Northeast, and the Northwest. I can say these areas are culturally different and if you don't see it, you haven't lived in enough places. I think the big problem is that culture is largely invisible to those who grow up in it. All the little things you do, how you greet people, the little micro-dialects of the language, etc. are so second-nature that they are hard to see.
- Xcelerate 14y agoThe south is a horrible place to live? Why do you say this? I live in Georgia and am quite happy with my residence.