
Kevin Connolly's guide to American culture - shrikant
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9294890.stm
======
jamesbressi
I think we as Americans have a very bipolar feeling about everything America
and can be very cynical and I really thought this article would feed our
cynicism.

I was pleasantly surprised and rightfully reminded about some of the greater
points of our country and culture and it was refreshing... A foreigner being
offered a ride from the airport without a stutter of consideration and being
told "this is America, son, we help each other out"... that if the fact that
the U.S. Spends as much money on defense as the whole world combined concerns
you, remember that the White House would he the first call made from your
country if you were invaded... I chuckled at the elevator comment... and so
on.

Well done. A tad too simple, but makes for a nice light quick read.

~~~
borism
_White House would he the first call made from your country if you were
invaded_

not if you were invaded by order from the White House, but I guess it doesn't
count.

------
seanalltogether
When bbc correspondent Justin Webb left america his quotes have always stuck
in my head.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspon...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8176448.stm)

"There is something about the carelessness of America that gives space for
greatness."

"If you do not like your life and you have drive and luck, you can change it
because - being American - you believe you can change it."

"But if Sonia Sotomayor is to make it big, there must be something creating
the drive, and part of that something is the poverty of the alternative, _the
discomfort of the ordinary lives that most Americans endure and the freedom
that Americans have to go to hell if that is the decision they take._ This is
the atmosphere in which Nobel Prize winners are nurtured. A nation which will
one day mass produce a cure for type one diabetes, could not, would not, save
little Kara Neumann from the bovine idiocy of her religious parents."

------
lucasjung
"But the rejoinder "you're welcome", which once greeted almost any expression
of thanks in America, is in retreat.

In its place is a sort of wordless acknowledgement, halfway between a grunt
and a hum, "mm-hmmm". It is a sound that acknowledges your thanks but implies
that no great joy has been found in helping you either."

I agree with this 100% up until the last sentence, where he clearly indicates
that he just doesn't get what's actually happening in these cases. Where I see
this happening, is when people say "Thank You" over-enthusiastically, or in
response to things that were done as a matter of course and deserve no thanks.
The person being thanked is taken off-guard and slightly embarrassed to have
been thanked for something which he would have done anyway. It feels like
saying "You're Welcome," would be to acknowledge the thanks-worthiness of the
act in question, which would be a form of dishonesty, so they can't say that.
On the other hand, it would be unambiguously rude to say nothing, so they
mumble something non-committal in a vague attempt to to say, more or less,
"Really, it's nothing." Why don't they just say that? Probably because they
are taken off guard and slightly embarrassed.

The really perplexing thing about this is that just a few paragraphs later, he
gives a prime example of this effect in action:

"It is curiously moving to see them sitting looking a little embarrassed as a
pilot or flight attendant calls on their fellow passengers to give their
service and sacrifice a standing ovation."

They don't generally think of what they are doing as some sort of great
sacrifice or heroic endeavor: they think of it as a job, and also as a way to
give back to a country which has given them much. If you look at their rank
insignia, the majority of them are very junior, unlikely to have done anything
in their thus-far short careers other than attend training. They're probably
thinking, "These people think I'm some kind of war hero, and I haven't even
done any real work yet, let alone deployed." I personally think that their
service is nonetheless praiseworthy, but I'm not talking about the actual
merits of their actions, I'm talking about their perception of those merits.
So when every ticket agent, TSA screener, gate agent, or flight attendant they
come across says, "Thank you for your service," they don't really feel
justified in saying, "You're welcome." Most eventually learn to smile
brightly, look the other person in the eye, and cheerfully say, "You're
Welcome," because they learn that this is another form of service: it makes
Americans feel good to express gratitude to those in uniform.

[EDITED a couple of typos]

~~~
hugh3
_I agree with this 100% up until the last sentence, where he clearly indicates
that he just doesn't get what's actually happening in these cases. Where I see
this happening, is when people say "Thank You" over-enthusiastically, or in
response to things that were done as a matter of course and deserve no thanks.
The person being thanked is taken off-guard and slightly embarrassed to have
been thanked for something which he would have done anyway. It feels like
saying "You're Welcome," would be to acknowledge the thanks-worthiness of the
act in question, which would be a form of dishonesty, so they can't say that.
On the other hand, it would be unambiguously rude to say nothing, so they
mumble something non-committal in a vague attempt to to say, more or less,
"Really, it's nothing." Why don't they just say that? Probably because they
are taken off guard and slightly embarrassed_

Really? Because I've scored the old "mmm-hmmm" from perfectly normal
"thankyous" performed for perfectly normal services.

"I'd like a cup of coffee" "Here you go" "Thanks" "Mmmm-hmmmmmm"

In Australia we'd just go "Sure" or "No problem" or something.

 _"It is curiously moving to see them sitting looking a little embarrassed as
a pilot or flight attendant calls on their fellow passengers to give their
service and sacrifice a standing ovation."_

I've never seen anything like this, I can only imagine that being embarrassing
all round if it ever happened. Though I certainly have seen soldiers looking
embarrassed upon being thanked by random strangers in airports.

~~~
iron_ball
People seem to hate "no problem" too. People get really touchy about the
smallest things... did you know that some people take it as a deadly insult if
you place their change on the counter instead of placing it carefully in their
hand?

~~~
Semiapies
The first is an issue of formality, but outside of genuinely formal
situations, balking at "no problem" is ungracious, even dickish. (In some
cases, it'd be the same even in a terribly formal situation.)

The change-in-the-hands thing is a little more defensible - in some cultures,
putting the change on the counter (especially when someone holds out a hand)
is considered to convey that you think your customer is too beneath you to
touch. It's been known to come up now and again in the US, especially between
people of different races/ethnicities.

------
crux
"Its newspapers - with one or two exceptions - are awful.

Endless sub-clauses roam across prairies of newsprint in search of the point,
like homesteader wagons on the Oregon trail circling around a knackered old
buffalo."

That's quite a claim for a man who seems to revel in that most hated
journalist practice.

The one of making every clause its own sentence.

And every sentence its own paragraph.

The result is that he—and his many fellows in this practice—seems really
inordinately proud of his every sentence, as though each one of these (rather
mediocre and limp, but surely not very objectionable) lines seems like it's
supposed to be a punchline. And as punchlines they all fall well short of the
mark, leaving me actively annoyed rather than the 'meh' I'd probably get
otherwise.

------
hugh3
Largely matches my experiences as a long-term visitor to the US. Particular
points that made me nod my head:

 _But the rejoinder "you're welcome", which once greeted almost any expression
of thanks in America, is in retreat. In its place is a sort of wordless
acknowledgement, halfway between a grunt and a hum, "mm-hmmm". It is a sound
that acknowledges your thanks but implies that no great joy has been found in
helping you either._

I'd almost forgotten about this, but on my first day in the US I thanked a
hotel clerk for some service and got an "mmm-hmm" acknowledgement and it felt
incredibly rude. I suppose I don't even notice it any more.

~~~
anthuswilliams
For some reason, I always thought this phenomenon was imported from Europe. I
lived in a European tourist mecca for a few years, and whenever I would thank
a European for something, they wouldn't say "you're welcome" or even an "mm-
hmm". Usually they just smiled and nodded.

I can see how it might appear a little brusque though. Americans, particularly
here out west, tend to put on an air of stoicism, so our "mm-hmm" probably
comes without a smile or even a glance in your direction. But I've interpreted
that to mean that I am being helped as a matter of course, not for the sake of
propriety or some sense of obligation.

------
andrewcooke
I've been living in the USA for 3 months now, and he doesn't mention the thing
I find most surprising / disturbing / worrying / uncomfortable, which is the
amazingly strong correlation between wealth and skin colour. Sure, this exists
in S America where I was living before, but I expected better in the "first
world".

~~~
tptacek
The Civil Rights act wasn't even 50 years ago. Exactly how does this surprise
you?

Incidentally: you want to see that correlation in Europe? Go for a walk in the
Paris suburbs.

~~~
andrewcooke
Heh. That reminds me. The other thing that surprised me is just how complacent
Americans are about the inequality.

------
alexgartrell
So far, I've really only lived (spent 2+ months) in four separate places:
Ohio, Pittsburgh, New York City, and San Jose. That said, there is no way in
hell I would ever think I could characterize "America" in one essay without
specifying a huge number of exceptions for each of Ohio, Pittsburgh, NYC, and
Silicon Valley.

Yeah, it's kind of fun to see how someone with a different perspective might
characterize us, but this isn't the kind of thing you should read and think
"well, that doesn't gel perfectly with my experience," because no account of
_all_ American people ever will.

------
ZeroGravitas
_America has enormous debts but it still spends as much money on defence as
all the rest of the world put together.

And if that makes you uncomfortable, it is worth remembering that wherever you
are, there is a good chance that if your country is ever invaded, your
leader's first phone call will be to the White House in Washington._

My first immediate thought was the remote chance of my country being invaded.
This led almost instantly to the uncharitable thought that if I found myself
in another random country, the odds are good (historically and looking to the
future) that it would be the US doing the invading. Amusingly the last
sentence of the quote still makes sense in this scenario.

~~~
lucasjung
Let's break this down a little:

If you are a U.S. ally, you are unlikely to be invaded by the U.S. (kinda goes
without saying, and you can insert pretty much any country you like in place
of U.S. and the sentence remains true).

If you are a U.S. ally, what are your odds of being invaded by someone other
than the U.S.? Very low. Why? For the same reason that your leader would call
the U.S. if you were invaded. What if you're not in a formal alliance with the
U.S.? Odds are still pretty good that any potential aggressor will, before
planning an attack, ask himself, "Will the U.S. intervene if I invade my
neighbor?" If the answer is "yes," he probably won't invade. Keep in mind that
the U.S. has fought wars because someone figured, incorrectly, that the answer
was "no."

OK, what if you're not at all friendly with the U.S.? In this case, there are
a lot of other factors that come into play. Are you a peer power? If not, have
you aligned yourself with such a power? If so, how much are you worth to them?
How about nukes, do you have nukes? If not, can you fake it credibly? Are you
generally belligerent and aggressive, or do you mostly mind your own business?
Keep in mind, these questions aren't just factors in determining your chances
of being invaded by the U.S., they are factors in determining your chances of
being invaded by anyone at all.

Summary: if your chances of being invaded are very low, it's most likely
because of the existence of the U.S. military. If that's not the reason, it's
because you have a comparable military, or have aligned yourself with somebody
who does. If you're not on good terms with the U.S. you're in a more
precarious position not just because the U.S. might invade you, but also
because everyone else knows that the U.S. won't intervene on your behalf. If
you have nukes, only crazy people will invade you, unless you act so crazy
that the sane countries decide that it's worth the risk to try and take them
away, since you'll probably use them sooner or later anyway.

~~~
gwern
And then there is Georgia, which is reading your post and going 'lolwut?'

~~~
lucasjung
Actually, Georgia fits right in:

They are on good terms with us, but not formal allies, which leads to: The
Russians assessed, correctly, that we would not intervene (militarily, at
least) on the Georgians' behalf.

The Georgians knew this, which is why they had tried so hard in the proceeding
year to get into NATO.

~~~
philwelch
There's also the old Cold War rule that as soon as one superpower deployed
forces to a given conflict, the other superpower most certainly would not.
That's why the US was so quick off the mark to get involved in Korea and
Vietnam, while the USSR was so quick off the mark to get involved in
Afghanistan. If you were the first superpower (to be blunt about it, the first
nuclear power) to get involved in a war, you would be the only superpower
directly involved in that war.

To this day, the US is willing to deploy troops for lots of reasons--sometimes
to protect allies, sometimes in response to humanitarian issues
(Yugoslavia)--but never in a situation where they will get into a shooting war
with Russia or China. And the tendency is reciprocal. When Russia sends troops
into Georgia, they do so knowing the US will not send their own troops to
Georgia. When the US sails a half dozen aircraft carriers through the Taiwan
Straits, as they did in 1996, they do so knowing China will not cross that
line and attack Taiwan, as they were threatening to do at the time.

~~~
krschultz
Excellent point. Though I believe that ties into the parent posters point of
Georgia trying to get into NATO. If they had been NATO the US would have been
legally obligated to help, which would have pushed Russian to avoid invading
knowing it would start a much bigger war. Since Russia knew Georgia wasn't
NATO, and it was up to the US to decide to engage or not, and the US would
avoid having a war with Russia, Georgia was open for invasion.

~~~
lucasjung
It actually goes even deeper than that. Georgia pushed for "fast track"
membership in NATO and got shut down, hard. The U.S. wanted it, but most of
the other members were so set against it that the U.S. backed off and Georgia
didn't get it. When NATO denied Georgia membership, they might as well have
sent a letter to the Kremlin with the following text:

"Dear Vladimir and Dmitri,

We are absolutely unwilling to risk war in defense of Georgia.

Sincerely, NATO."

The great irony is that, by taking steps intended to stave off a Russian
invasion, the Georgians instead opened the door for one. If they had instead
played a slower and more cautious game, they might have maintained sufficient
ambiguity and doubt to keep the Russians out. Maybe. Or not. I'm also playing
Monday morning quarterback here, so I can't really blame them for trying.

------
Semiapies
_"And America is, of course, an intensely religious place - something that is
not difficult to trace to its foundation by a band of hardy religious
zealots."_

This is such a wildly common bit of historical illiteracy, often reduced to "a
nation founded by Puritans".

The Puritans founded settlements in one region. Many other groups, often not
religious in structure at all, started all the _other_ settlements that
together grew into the 13 original colonies.

And whatever happened to the Puritans? Well, their descendants for the most
part _are the residents of Massachusetts_ , not exactly the most right-wing or
"intensely-religious" bunch.

------
paganel
> He left behind one or two books that are still worth reading, but his most
> important legacy was his simplest.

Was this irony/sarcasm? Because my detector is off.

First of all, I read his 2 volumes of "Democracy in America" a couple of years
ago, right after I had read Thucydides's "History of the Peloponnesian War"
and just before reading Lord Acton's essays on liberty, and I challenge any of
today's economists/political thinkers to come up with something at least 50%
better.

Second, Tocqueville's "L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution" is in my opinion the
book that best describes/explains the French Revolution, which I also think is
the event that most defines the last 200 years of Western history and
political thought, starting from Kant and continuing with guys like Marx and
Lenin.

~~~
boredguy8
It's understatement, a form of irony. Think, "'Tis but a scratch," or, "It's
just a flesh wound," from _Holy Grail_.

------
cafard
About a month ago at a train station I brought a suitcase down an elevator for
a woman with a baby. She thanked me in an English accent; I blush to say that
I said "no problem" rather than "you're welcome." I knew at once that I was at
fault there, but went on my way.

On the other hand, isn't "de rien" thought an appropriate reply to "merci"?

~~~
ekanes
I don't see what's wrong with saying "no problem" honestly. In statements like
this, so much more is conveyed with your tone of voice, facial expression and
body language. If you meant it, you could have said "have a nice day!" "sure
thing!" or "you got it!" or even "well, see you around!" and it wouldn't
matter... ultimately what you're really doing is acknowledging the thank-you,
and not leaving the person hanging.

~~~
Semiapies
Exactly - you did nothing wrong, cafard. You helped someone out, and you
acknowledged her thanks in a friendy (if informal) way.

------
Semiapies
No slight on the guy, because it's a common line, but I'm waiting another
decade or two to see someone write this:

" _For the first time in history, the current generation of Americans cannot
be certain that the generation that comes next will be more prosperous._ "

for the third consecutive generation.

------
HeyLaughingBoy
_"This is America son," he told me, "We help each other out."_

To whomever this old couple are: thank you! If we could all remember that,
where ever we are, this world would be a much nicer place.

------
scrrr
At first I thought it was Kevin Connolly, the actor from Entourage. That would
have been something! :)

~~~
araneae
Why, is he a better writer than this Kevin Connolly?

~~~
tritowntim
This Kevin Connolly is certainly a better actor.

------
FrancescoRizzi
Good read!

------
lispm
Reminds me of a Gandhi quote:

When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western Culture, he said: "I think it
would be a good idea."

~~~
snowliger
Here's another Gandhi quote:

Regarding forcible registration with the state of blacks: “One can understand
the necessity for registration of Kaffirs who will not work.” (Reference:
CWMG, Vol I, p. 105)

