# National character



## Morrus (Jul 20, 2015)

"Unamerican" is a word I see a lot on social media, at least weekly. How many countries have "un-[nationality]" as an insult? I've never heard anyone use the phrase "un-British", I don't think. Do the French say "un-French"? The Russians? The Japanese? Is a national character a common thing?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 20, 2015)

I haven't heard anyone use "un-British" per se, but I have seen numerous appeals to the British character in both fiction and politics.  The "stiff upper lip", etc.

While the positive implies the negative, I can't really think of an example of someone formulating an appeal to avoid the negative as directly as we do when we say "un-American."  I can only come up with persons defining the positive, with the dangers of the negative left implied.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 20, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I haven't heard anyone use "un-British" per se, but I have seen numerous appeals to the British character in both fiction and politics.  The "stiff upper lip", etc.




That's very old fashioned. I don't think I've ever heard the phrase used outside of a comedy sketch.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 20, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I haven't heard anyone use "un-British" per se, but I have seen numerous appeals to the British character in both fiction and politics.




There is Mark Twain:

"I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a little his way, on account of his not having a fair show. All religions issue bibles against him, and say the most injurious things about him, but we never hear his side. We have none but evidence for the prosecution and yet we have rendered the verdict. To my mind, this is irregular. It is un-English. It is un-American; it is French."


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 20, 2015)

I've heard "un-Canadian" on rare occasions and it is generally used as an insult against someone who doesn't share the speaker's political views, rather than to describe someone who doesn't fit some vague national image.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 20, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> I've heard "un-Canadian" on rare occasions and it is generally used as an insult against someone who doesn't share the speaker's political views, rather than to describe someone who doesn't fit some vague national image.




What would you say constitutes the Canadian character if you had to?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 20, 2015)

Morrus said:


> That's very old fashioned. I don't think I've ever heard the phrase used outside of a comedy sketch.




What can I say?  Much of what I watch & read from/about England is either Sci-Fi, history or period fiction!  The rest regards music or modern global politics.

(But I was just using it as a well-known example.)

When the modern politicians I seen discuss it, they're circumspect.  Like I said, they hold up an example of the proper British way of doing things, and leave the negative unsaid.


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 20, 2015)

As an Englishman living abroad, the reserved English character is perhaps more visible to me. The English (and Scots of my acquaintance) just don't get as excited as other nationalities, either about good things or bad things. Do you remember the UK version of Pimp My Ride? You could always tell that the car owner had been primed by the producers to jump up and down and get excited when the new car was revealed -- reactions that always seemed to come very naturally to peope on the US version. But that would be it. The whole exposition of all the amazing features would be greeted by a slight nod and perhaps a bit of a smile. The more wonderful the gimmick, the less reaction there would be.

"And if you press this button, your car turns into a solid gold TARDIS with Shakira at the controls!"
"Hm. Nice."
"Your boot includes a fridge full of food by Heston Blumenthal that is restocked every morning!"
"Yeah, I can see where that would be useful."
Etc.

It might not be "stiff upper lip", exactly, but this is a very English thing.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 20, 2015)

Morrus said:


> What would you say constitutes the Canadian character if you had to?




A very good question that the answer to will, of course, be coloured by the background of the person who answers. To me our traditional character would be summed up by the following:

- a nation of consiliators born of diplomacy, not rebellion.
- who don't jump to rash conclusions, but rather think important things through
- who will stand with our friends
- who won't start a fight but, by God, will bloody well help finish one
- who won't stand idle while our neighbour suffers hunger or illness

Or you could say that we have a plodding nature that tends to be hidebound by tradition, over innovation. Not quite true given our technological contributions, but not necessarily too far off either.


----------



## Rune (Jul 20, 2015)

Dioltach said:


> You could always tell that the car owner had been primed by the producers to jump up and down and get excited when the new car was revealed -- reactions that always seemed to come very naturally to peope on the US version.




The reactions on US shows like that always seem pretty fake to me. Worst is/was probably Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, in which every response was exactly the same, right down to the phrasing. Children always said, "Oh my gosh!" And adults always said, "Oh my God!" 

Every. Single. Time.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 20, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> A very good question that the answer to will, of course, be coloured by the background of the person who answers. To me our traditional character would be summed up by the following:
> 
> - a nation of consiliators born of diplomacy, not rebellion.
> - who don't jump to rash conclusions, but rather think important things through
> ...



What about the inhumanly high tolerances for maple syrup & beer?


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 20, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What about the inhumanly high tolerances for maple syrup & beer?




I took the urban racial variant that switches those out for inhumanly high tolerance for international cuisine (still keep the maple syrup tolerance). It also let me switch out Language: French for Increased Resources at level 3.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 20, 2015)

Clever!


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2015)

It's interesting that you mention tradition. One thing I think we in the U.K., and probably in Europe, see that word differently simply based on the age of our countries. Not that any definition is less valid than any others, but it's how it's perceived. It's kinda like buildings in the US being described as 'historical' when they're younger than my house. Well, not my current house.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 21, 2015)

Morrus said:


> One thing I think we in the U.K., and probably in Europe, see that word differently simply based on the age of our countries.




In the Boston area, we have something approaching history, but still, yes.

The saying I recall is, "The difference between Europeans and Americans is that Europeans think 200 miles is a long drive, and Americans think 200 years is a long time."


----------



## pedr (Jul 21, 2015)

I think that part of it may be that to be (United States) American has had an element of theory or philosophy in it - revolution, then manifest destiny, later anti-Communism. So there can clearly be people within the polity who do not share those views - who believed revolution was a mistake, or who thought the U.S. should focus on the East Coast, or who were Communist, etc - and that can potentially create a clearer internalised sense of national identity - which others can be judged against - than is necessarily the case in countries with more organic development of modern society. 

Though Brits will often judge people against stereotypical regional characteristics and attitudes and (mockingly) argue that others aren't Yorkshire enough, or Cockney enough, etc.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 21, 2015)

Morrus said:


> It's interesting that you mention tradition. One thing I think we in the U.K., and probably in Europe, see that word differently simply based on the age of our countries. Not that any definition is less valid than any others, but it's how it's perceived. It's kinda like buildings in the US being described as 'historical' when they're younger than my house. Well, not my current house.




A fair bit of that tradition is hand-me-down from The Motherland, as tempered by our original status as a wilderness colony. I would say split the difference between the UK and the USA, and you have Canada.

.... or Australia.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 21, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The saying I recall is, "The difference between Europeans and Americans is that Europeans think 200 miles is a long drive, and Americans think 200 years is a long time."




I never head that one, but I have said something like that more than once.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2015)

Umbran said:


> In the Boston area, we have something approaching history, but still, yes.
> 
> The saying I recall is, "The difference between Europeans and Americans is that Europeans think 200 miles is a long drive, and Americans think 200 years is a long time."




I have an unreasonable distaste of that hoary old chestnut. Mainly caused by endless repetition. Who originally coined it? They're on my TARDIS assassination list. 

The travel radius for most people is identical in most Western countries. Nobody drives 200 miles to work, or to watch a movie, or to do any of the things people do.  

Population density reduces the distances a little in the U.K. and Western Europe, but not drastically. The average person's radius is the same in the US as everywhere else - you might be in an area five time larger, but you don't habitually wander across deserts and mountains to visit the local supermarket. 

There are exceptions, of course. Some people live out in the sticks. Then again, lots of people live in London or New York or Tokyo and have everything they'll ever need within a few yards.

The main difference is family visits after relocation.  There, in the US you're probably talking a plane flight if it's a cross-country move. But that's not everyday activity.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I never head that one, but I have said something like that more than once.




That surprises me. I've heard it literally thousands of times. Always by Americans; which leads me to suspect it was coined by an American. Most every American I know has said it at some point. I'm sure I could Google it and find out in about 3 seconds.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 21, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Population density reduces the distances a little in the U.K. and Western Europe, but not drastically. The average person's radius is the same in the US as everywhere else - you might be in an area five time larger, but you don't habitually wander across deserts and mountains to visit the local supermarket.




The post apocalyptic wastelands of suburbia, yes, but no deserts nor mountains.

I did once have to explain to some Cuban government officials why we couldn't go to Montreal for the afternoon after visiting Niagara Falls though. Yes. Seriously.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 21, 2015)

> The travel radius for most people is identical in most Western countries. Nobody drives 200 miles to work, or to watch a movie, or to do any of the things people do.




Depends on what you do and where you live.  I'm in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex, which covers at least 4 counties and is comprised of a couple dozen municipalities.  Our public transportation system is nascent.

And I've worked with people whose daily commute is a 2 hour drive, each way.  Now, that IS distorted by traffic, but that just shows how much people are willing to travel around here.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 21, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> I did once have to explain to some Cuban government officials why we couldn't go to Montreal for the afternoon after visiting Niagara Falls though. Yes. Seriously.



I had to explain to some Europeans that a 2 week road trip would not be sufficient to cover their goal of seeing NYC, Washington DC, the Grand Canyon, and San Francisco.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 21, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I have an unreasonable distaste of that hoary old chestnut. Mainly caused by endless repetition. Who originally coined it? They're on my TARDIS assassination list.
> 
> The travel radius for most people is identical in most Western countries. Nobody drives 200 miles to work, or to watch a movie, or to do any of the things people do.




This will be anecdotal, of course.  But, how often (say, how many times a year) do you leave a 50 mile radius of your home?  100 miles?  200 miles?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Depends on what you do and where you live.  I'm in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex, which covers at least 4 counties and is comprised of a couple dozen municipalities.  Our public transportation system is nascent.
> 
> And I've worked with people whose daily commute is a 2 hour drive, each way.  Now, that IS distorted by traffic, but that just shows how much people are willing to travel around here.




I know people with 2 hour commutes, too. Heck, my wife takes at least 90 minutes to get to work, and that's not a major deal to us. Honestly, radius is the same.  People have the same number of hours in their day.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2015)

Umbran said:


> This will be anecdotal, of course.  But, how often (say, how many times a year) do you leave a 50 mile radius of your home?  100 miles?  200 miles?




Oh, I'm a terrible example. I work from home, and am something of a hermit.  

I read that 90% of people in Western countries only leave their city 3 times a year. I'm way beyond that, thank goodness. I'll leave the country once a year on average (many times to the US, so 3000 miles or so?)

Went to Rome last month. Not sure how far that is. 900 miles? 

Other than that, I'm a terrible hermit. Not a good example! My family is about 100 miles away, so not far.  I do that once a month or so, but that's more about scheduling than distance.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 21, 2015)

If you're willing to spend 4 hours going to and from work, the distance is, in a sense, immaterial.  IOW, of you're willing to drive 2 hours in rush hour to go from Allen to North Dallas (@30 miles) to work, you might also be willing to drive 120 miles* to do likewise, if the time investment were the same.





* more, if you're a lead foot.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I had to explain to some Europeans that a 2 week road trip would not be sufficient to cover their goal of seeing NYC, Washington DC, the Grand Canyon, and San Francisco.




Yeah, that's the other anecdote that gets repeated constantly. I'm not sure who these Europeans are that Americans keep having to keep explaining basic geography to! 

I think there's this single family who travels round America expressing rube-like amazement at everything for some kind of reality show that we'll all see one day. 

We know. We have maps and things.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you're willing to spend 4 hours going to and from work, the distance is, in a sense, immaterial.  IOW, of you're willing to drive 2 hours in rush hour to go from Allen to North Dallas (@30 miles) to work, you might also be willing to drive 120 miles* to do likewise, if the time investment were the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sure. I agree with that. Time is the issue, not distance.  At rush hour, I'll take 45 minutes to drive 5 miles. Narrow roads, dense populations.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 21, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, that's the other anecdote that gets repeated constantly. I'm not sure who these Europeans are that Americans hero having to keep explaining basic geography to!




You may have maps, but that doesn't mean everyone USES them.  (For the record, the ones I was talking to were Belgians...and no, they hadn't actually looked at their maps' scales.)

I mean, look at how we Americans are about history books!


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You may have maps, but that doesn't mean everyone USES them.  (For the record, the ones I was talking to were Belgians...and no, they hadn't actually looked at their maps' scales.)




Do you know those Belgians well? They sound.... special! I do so apologise if they are friends or family. 

I feel bad now.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 21, 2015)

Nah, they were just some dudes I knew in college, and not that well.  Well, more accurately, I knew one, and the other was his younger brother coming for a visit.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 21, 2015)

Morrus said:


> "Unamerican" is a word I see a lot on social media, at least weekly. How many countries have "un-[nationality]" as an insult? I've never heard anyone use the phrase "un-British", I don't think. Do the French say "un-French"? The Russians? The Japanese? Is a national character a common thing?




As I see it, the whole Un-American comment isn't really about not fitting any national character. It's about fitting national ideals. As an amalgam of highly diverse immigrants, American culture is really weird and patchy. I don't think there's any single national character and studies have pointed out a number of distinct broad "nations" within the US, some highly informed by particular immigrant groups, others not so much. But, theoretically, we're bound together by the ideas that established the US as expressed by the founders. The Un-American comment is usually thrown out because someone thinks the target has failed to uphold or is running counter to those ideals.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 21, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> A very good question that the answer to will, of course, be coloured by the background of the person who answers. To me our traditional character would be summed up by the following:
> 
> - a nation of consiliators born of diplomacy, not rebellion.
> - who don't jump to rash conclusions, but rather think important things through
> ...




I feel fairly certain that Tim Horton's has been omitted from that list somewhere.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 21, 2015)

Morrus said:


> That surprises me. I've heard it literally thousands of times. Always by Americans; which leads me to suspect it was coined by an American. Most every American I know has said it at some point. I'm sure I could Google it and find out in about 3 seconds.




I'm also an American, and I've also never heard that before.  Maybe its use is regional.


I do want to point out though that while most Americans do not travel more than 200 miles to work, we do tend to have relatives a significant distance away that we may travel to for holidays and special occasions.  For instance, I live in Michigan, and my relatives are in Kentucky, California, and even 175 miles away within the same state.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 21, 2015)

Morrus said:


> "Unamerican" is a word I see a lot on social media, at least weekly. How many countries have "un-[nationality]" as an insult? I've never heard anyone use the phrase "un-British", I don't think. Do the French say "un-French"? The Russians? The Japanese? Is a national character a common thing?




I think it's important when considering the term "Un-American" to consider that there is a precedent in the U.S. for labelling activity as American or Un-American.  To be specific, look at senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Committee on Unamerican Activities, which was intended originally to catch people with Nazi ties but evolved to catch communists and communist sympathizers.  It also dug up dirt on a lot of people and ruined plenty of lives by outing people's sexuality and getting them blackballed in their industries.

Many elder Americans may have notions of what is and is not American that were influenced, at least in part, by the Committee.


----------



## 1of3 (Jul 21, 2015)

I think the notion of having superior values in your own community, had been common throughout history.

Don't stick to the official name of the nation. Germans for example will usually appeal to European or Western values, although the of course mean German.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 21, 2015)

Morrus said:


> The travel radius for most people is identical in most Western countries. Nobody drives 200 miles to work, or to watch a movie, or to do any of the things people do.




Lots of people in my home town (which is 90 miles from Chicago) work in Chicago where the pay is better, but locally home rent/purchase is way cheaper (20%). I couldn't do it (180 miles round trip 5 days a week), but many people I know, do, even my Dad did for a while.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 21, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> I feel fairly certain that Tim Horton's has been omitted from that list somewhere.




Do you include air and water when enumerating your national character?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Lots of people in my home town (which is 90 miles from Chicago) work in Chicago where the pay is better, but locally home rent/purchase is way cheaper (20%). I couldn't do it (180 miles round trip 5 days a week), but many people I know, do, even my Dad did for a while.




Yeah, I'm about 90 miles from London, and I know loads of people who commute there every day without a second thought.


----------



## nerfherder (Jul 21, 2015)

Morrus said:


> "Unamerican" is a word I see a lot on social media, at least weekly. How many countries have "un-[nationality]" as an insult? I've never heard anyone use the phrase "un-British", I don't think. Do the French say "un-French"? The Russians? The Japanese? Is a national character a common thing?




I think the nearest I've heard is "that's not cricket" - with the implication that the English are honest, moral, and sporting (and that being more important than winning).


----------



## nerfherder (Jul 21, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I never head that one, but I have said something like that more than once.




I've heard it with 100 years/miles over a dozen times on message boards.

In my limited experience, I've found it easier to drive long distances in the US than the UK simply because you will be lucky to drive more than an hour here before hitting some kind of hold-up.  Obviously there are densely populated parts of the US that have terrible traffic, but when I drove from NYC to Tampa FL in a day I don't think we were held up once.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2015)

nerfherder said:


> I think the nearest I've heard is "that's not cricket" - with the implication that the English are honest, moral, and sporting (and that being more important than winning).




I think that's pretty accurate (in the sense that we like to think that of ourselves; not that we necessarily achieve it). Plus we hate boasters. Success has to be quiet and modestly received.


----------



## nerfherder (Jul 21, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I think that's pretty accurate (in the sense that we like to think that of ourselves; not that we necessarily achieve it). Plus we hate boasters. Success has to be quiet and modestly received.




Absolutely - anything else would be un-British.

No, it doesn't work, does it!


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 21, 2015)

Interestingly, during the Ashes just the other day one of the England batsmen (Job Buttler) received some criticism from England fans for walking without waiting for the umpire's decision.


----------



## Janx (Jul 21, 2015)

Morrus said:


> That's very old fashioned. I don't think I've ever heard the phrase used outside of a comedy sketch.




all we americans know of British culture comes from your comedy sketches.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 21, 2015)

Janx said:


> all we americans know of British culture comes from your comedy sketches.




For some, it is *old* comedy sketches.  So, you all argue, walk funny, have dead parrots, and run around with saxophones playing sprightly music in the background.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 21, 2015)

nerfherder said:


> I've heard it with 100 years/miles over a dozen times on message boards.
> 
> In my limited experience, I've found it easier to drive long distances in the US than the UK simply because you will be lucky to drive more than an hour here before hitting some kind of hold-up.  Obviously there are densely populated parts of the US that have terrible traffic, but when I drove from NYC to Tampa FL in a day I don't think we were held up once.




Toronto to Huntsville, Alabama in under 15 hours here. That's almost exactly 1000 miles, by the route I used to take.



Umbran said:


> For some, it is *old* comedy sketches.  So, you all argue, walk funny, have dead parrots, and run around with saxophones playing sprightly music in the background.




Except for Lancastrians. Watch out for those guys. They know Ecky Thump.


----------



## Janx (Jul 21, 2015)

Umbran said:


> In the Boston area, we have something approaching history, but still, yes.
> 
> The saying I recall is, "The difference between Europeans and Americans is that Europeans think 200 miles is a long drive, and Americans think 200 years is a long time."




I swear I've seen some similar reference from out east (where all the old stuff is in America) regarding antique furniture (because Europe has furniture that is many centuries old).  Could have sworn it was on TV or something.

I suspect its some sort of jab/reminder of humility that nothing in America has proven longevity, history or pedigree.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 21, 2015)

Janx said:


> I
> I suspect its some sort of jab/reminder of humility that nothing in America has proven longevity, history or pedigree.




Except, perhaps, Harvard.  And even that is still considered "new money" so to speak


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 21, 2015)

Re: America's youth as a nation:

When I lived in Germany, we used to travel a lot.  I got to see a lot of historical locations and art up close & personal.  One thing that struck me was that we could go into a small European town, and find out that the "new" city hall was 450+ years old.  Or a particular festival was 800+ years old.  Etc.

For many Americans, that's mind boggling.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Re: America's youth as a nation:
> 
> When I lived in Germany, we used to travel a lot.  I got to see a lot of historical locations and art up close & personal.  One thing that struck me was that we could go into a small European town, and find out that the "new" city hall was 450+ years old.  Or a particular festival was 800+ years old.  Etc.
> 
> For many Americans, that's mind boggling.




Want something really weird?  Oxford University predates the Aztecs!  It opened in 1096, and was a full university by 1249.  The Aztec civilization dates back to the 1300s.


----------



## nerfherder (Jul 21, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> One thing that struck me was that we could go into a small European town, and find out that the "new" city hall was 450+ years old.




Yeah, I work in a city called Newcastle (of Brown Ale fame).  It is named after the new castle, that was built in 1080AD.  I guess that the main fortifications before that would have been part of Hadrian's wall, 1000 years previous.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 21, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Want something really weird?  Oxford University predates the Aztecs!  It opened in 1096, and was a full university by 1249.  The Aztec civilization dates back to the 1300s.




I know!

A buddy of mine has a degree from Oxford (Harvard, too, BTW), and he loves that bit of history.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 21, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> For many Americans, that's mind boggling.




The one that boggled me:  Rome.  When I visited, one of the walking tours we went on featured an obelisk near the Parliament building (I think it is now called the Obelisk of Montecitorio).  It was brought to Rome in like 10 BC.  It later collapsed (probably in an earthquake), was eventually buried as things lying on the ground will be, and was forgotten.  Parts of it were rediscovered hundreds of years later while other construction work was going on, and they didn't know what they'd found, as the records of its existence had been lost.  Here was a major structure that nobody knew had ever existed.  You couldn't even look up that it had existed!

The records were eventually reconstructed, as well as most of the obelisk, and it stands in Rome today.

The point being that Rome is a still-living city old enough to have history that it has forgotten, and could be dug up at any time in the present!

Separate note:  a wonderful dichotomy in Rome - the Colosseum, which is something like 1900 years old, in horrible disrepair having been heavily damaged by earthquake and weather.  The Pantheon is contemporaneous (being only about 40 years younger, depending how you count), lived through the same earthquakes, and is today in *gorgeous* condition, and is still an active church.  The building of death and blood is in ruins, and the building of spirituality is still in use today.  That's karma for you!


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The Pantheon is contemporaneous (being only about 40 years younger, depending how you count), lived through the same earthquakes, and is today in *gorgeous* condition, and is still an active church.




I adore that building.  It is utterly breathtaking.  I'm not religious, but man do I admire Catholic religious buildings.

Though I did manage to fall asleep in it last time I visited.  Just sat down for a moment...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 21, 2015)

Haven't been to Rome in a few decades, but I'm going back in late September.  Well, more Vatican City than anything else.  Probably NOT going to see the stuff I've seen before- depends in part on the people I'm going with, obvs- but even if I don't, the deep age of that city will be in evidence EVERYWHERE in that city.

One thing my companions are considering doing is very Italian...a cooking class.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Haven't been to Rome in a few decades, but I'm going back in late September.  Well, more Vatican City than anything else.  Probably NOT going to see the stuff I've seen before- depends in part on the people I'm going with, obvs- but even if I don't, the deep age of that city will be in evidence EVERYWHERE in that city.




I'm jealous. Rome is my favourite city in the world.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 24, 2015)

There's a pretty sweet Idea Channel video looking at the American character via the road trip:

[video=youtube;wdOkedy02KU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdOkedy02KU[/video]

Mobility, Progress, Escapism, Nomadism, Transience

_America_.

Un-American is thus halting mobility, being caged, limiting progress...?

Yeah, I'd say this does dovetail at a high level with accusations of being Un-American - of inhibiting progress to some goal, and of thus rebelling against our national agenda in some way (depending on that individual's definition of what our national agenda is, which is not necessarily aligned with reality).


----------



## Umbran (Jul 24, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I adore that building.  It is utterly breathtaking.  I'm not religious, but man do I admire Catholic religious buildings.




Well, the building itself was built under Hadrian (about AD 126), and it didn't become a Christian church until 609 AD.  So, it's form and design are distinctly pagan.  The name is "Pantheon", not "Monotheon" after all. 

And, that makes this another point of historical perspective - the Pantheon was already twice as old as the United States when it became a Christian Church!



> Though I did manage to fall asleep in it last time I visited.  Just sat down for a moment...




I don't blame you.  Rome can be warm.  And if yo spent a day walking around, and entered the cool shade of the Pantheon, with maybe some of the sonorous tune of a hymn in Latin echoing gently about the hushed place?  Yeah, naptime!


----------



## Umbran (Jul 24, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> One thing my companions are considering doing is very Italian...a cooking class.




Oh, my wife and I did that while in Rome!  It was awesome!

Well, we didn't do it in Rome, per se.  We were taken out to a little village some distance outside Rome, in steep hills - you could still see the caves used as housing in Medieval times (and still used by artists in the summer) across the valley.  We shopped for groceries in these *tiny* little stores in the village, and then retired to a small apartment for cooking. 

We made several kinds of pasta, sauces, a chicken dish, bruschetta, and a fine tiramisu variant (which, given that I don't like coffee, is saying something).

A couple of pics:

The village:



The pasta (including ravioli, gnocchi, "strangled priests" aka strozzapreti, and fettuccine):


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 24, 2015)

Hmmm...looks good.

I may yet find myself in eternal servitude to cookware after this.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 24, 2015)

Briefly back to that whole "raveling 200miles for work" thing: just found out today that 2 sisters I know- and their families- are planning on moving to Durant, OK., but are keeping their jobs here in the Dallas/FW Metroplex.

That's a 100 mile one-way trip, daily.  For work.

Peeps be cray-cray.


----------



## Janx (Jul 24, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Briefly back to that whole "raveling 200miles for work" thing: just found out today that 2 sisters I know- and their families- are planning on moving to Durant, OK., but are keeping their jobs here in the Dallas/FW Metroplex.
> 
> That's a 100 mile one-way trip, daily.  For work.
> 
> Peeps be cray-cray.




that's nuts.  Surely Denton is hick town enough and still closer than anything in OK.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 24, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Briefly back to that whole "raveling 200miles for work" thing: just found out today that 2 sisters I know- and their families- are planning on moving to Durant, OK., but are keeping their jobs here in the Dallas/FW Metroplex.
> 
> That's a 100 mile one-way trip, daily.  For work.
> 
> Peeps be cray-cray.




See, you find that crazy; I know tons of people who commute that far without a second's thought. Maybe that saying should be reversed!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 24, 2015)

Well, consider that a 26 mile commute to their jobs would be @2hours of driving, one way, during rush hour.  Their jobs are in law enforcement and medicine, so they'll be in rush hour traffic for at least some shifts.  Even assuming that most of that drive is going to be out in the countryside, that's still going to add close to another 1-2 hours each way.

IOW, they're going to be in the car 6-8 hours a day just going to and from work.  Add an 8 hour shift plus 6-8 hours of sleep, and what do you have left?

And they have kids...


----------



## Morrus (Jul 24, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, consider that a 26 mile commute to their jobs would be @2hours of driving, one way, during rush hour.  Their jobs are in law enforcement and medicine, so they'll be in rush hour traffic for at least some shifts.  Even assuming that most of that drive is going to be out in the countryside, that's still going to add close to another 1-2 hours each way.
> 
> IOW, they're going to be in the car 6-8 hours a day just going to and from work.  Add an 8 hour shift plus 6-8 hours of sleep, and what do you have left?
> 
> And they have kids...




Yup. That describes it about right. I couldn't do it. Some people just don't even think about it. It's a particular skill, I think!


----------



## Staffan (Jul 25, 2015)

Here in Sweden, the term "un-Swedish" is considered _positive_. We see ourselves as fairly stiff, regulated, and dull, so when someone does something spontaneous, straight-forward, or exciting, we exclaim "how brilliantly un-Swedish!"


----------



## tuxgeo (Jul 25, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Briefly back to that whole "raveling 200miles for work" thing: just found out today that 2 sisters I know- and their families- are planning on moving to Durant, OK., but are keeping their jobs here in the Dallas/FW Metroplex.
> 
> That's a 100 mile one-way trip, daily.  For work.
> 
> Peeps be cray-cray.




Yeah, I couldn't do that either. 

I know -- I was faced with exactly that dilemma: I had bought my house in _Springfield_, OR ("Hi, _Simpsons_!") in 1979, but got a job in Hillsboro, OR in 1992. Yes, that's more than 100 miles each way. 

I kept the house, but _rented_ an apartment in Washington County so my daily commute would be sane. 
I rented that apartment for 10 years before I was downsized out of a job.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 25, 2015)

Depending on the job, doing that makes sense.  One of my cousins' dad is a master carpenter currently living in Lancaster, Texas.  He relocated there from New Orleans a few years post-Katrina.  While he does do work in Texas, he still does a lot of jobs in New Orleans.

But it isn't a daily thing.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 25, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Depending on the job, doing that makes sense.  One of my cousins' dad is a master carpenter currently living in Lancaster, Texas.  He relocated there from New Orleans a few years post-Katrina.  While he does do work in Texas, he still does a lot of jobs in New Orleans.
> 
> But it isn't a daily thing.




Compensation helps, too.


----------

