Much of this is a function of historical population density, so it’s a given. Just as, to many people in America, geographically small, “walkable” cities are more interesting and attractive than those that are spread out. And even denser, more walkable neighborhoods within American cities, like Larchmont Village in Los Angeles, are considered hipper and more interesting than, say, Van Nuys. I agree with your statement in principle, but it’s better and more accurate to recognize it as a matter of geography, rather than blame it on the pillaging and plunder of the white people. That was what I objected to about constanze’s post.
I have to agree with you here, but in general I wonder how much it has to do with perception. Not being European I found it interesting to live in Göttingen, and visit nearby historical sites like Corvey, site of a ninth-century monastery, and Goßlar, where IIRC Friedrich Barbarossa was born in the Kaiserpfalz. Is that sort of thing generally as interesting to a person who grew up there? Conversely, I am told that foreign visitors to L.A. often make a beeline to the La Brea Tar Pits, and I think it’s one of the least attractive things we have around here. OF course the history is interesting, as is their significance to Ice Age paleontology–and now there’s a museum on the site which is quite interesting. But I heard this in reference to the time before the museum existed as well.
Keeping in mind the original intent of the thread, which means leaving out the ethical and moral implications of the American Westward Movement, I have to object. Let’s imagine that the entire Prairie region had been left unmolested, and things were the same as they were in 1600. There would still be only a sparse number people living on the land, belonging to several interrelated tribes that had largely similar cultures–over hundreds and hundreds of square miles. It would still be “flyover country” because there wouldn’t be a great deal to see. The ethnographic changes of the region didn’t alter that, so IMO the supplantation of the Native Americans isn’t terribly relevant to this discussion, but would be like someone calling him or her on the Third Reich.
I would certainly put this on my list if I ever go to England.
[/quote]
One place with fewer than 800 residents, and the history needs to be unique to that town. Go.
[/QUOTE]
It can’t be done, because such places in America usually became big cities, e.g. New York.
Mm. I can see why you’re upset about it, but I read it as a response to someone who had objected to the idea that “history worth visiting”, if you like, started when the white people came. I took Constanze to mean that there wasn’t a huge amount of older or native stuff left due to the lack of original residents and their towns/cities/religious sites etc. (as opposed to Europe where in many places each new wave of people have left their own mark, even with understandable levels of subsequent destruction/rebuilding). I might have come in and said something about nomads not really having cities, but the racist/xenophobic response Constanze received just really stuck in my throat.
Incidentally, I’m delighted you want to come to little Cawood - let me know when you’re coming, my mum will make you tea!
On an entirely unrelated note, though related to the thread more generally, I wonder if, as a European, I’m unusual in my response to the thought of the Prairies. As a child I loved all the books like Children on the Oregon Trail, the Laura Ingalls Wilder books, etc. I can’t wait to be able to afford to come and see that shit - there’s no way I’ll fly over it all!
Please do not characterize my response as racist/xenophobic. I find extremely difficult to believe that you understood constanze’s post to be about a paucity of pre-Columbian Native American settlements on the prairie when he talks about the American government’s physical destruction of Native American culture and the ensuing depopulation. This is an accusation of genocide. I responded not with the racist charge “All Germans are Nazis” (although constanze came close to saying that all Americans are complicit in and/or indifferent to their government’s physical destruction of Native American civilizations). Rather I said that I would be more reluctant to insinuate that there was some kind of American cultural hardwiring toward philistinism and imperialism if my own country had more recent and much more unambiguous crimes on its hand. A point, I think, that cannot be fairly controverted–except by willful distortion of my own and constanze’s remarks.
Furthermore, if you read his response, he contends that there are differences in the German response to the Holocaust versus the American response to its policies toward Native Americans. Nowhere did he suggest that my comparison was racist, xenophobic, or otherwise a cheap shot.
This is so true. Not so long ago, I attended a wedding, at a church a couple of miles away from where I grew up, and also from where I live now. A fifteenth-century church which I didn’t even know existed until then. That’s not coming from somebody who regards themselves as ignorant of local history, either!
Native American culture is far from being devoid of interest, but for the most part those who lived north of the Rio Grande left little in the way of tangible artifacts, beyond small crafts, arrowheads, and such. On the other hand, their social organization, religion, music, and mythology was often highly complex and quite beautiful. The Tongva who lived in my area have this legend that the universe was danced into existence by the Creator–poignant testimony to the importance of dance and music in their culture. But they didn’t leave buildings or foundations, to be built on later by others, the way in England you had the Britons, then Saxons, then Normans, and so on, all leaving extensive visible traces. So in terms of “touristy” sights brought forth by the hands of human beings, there really wasn’t that much here before the European settlers arrived.
I really would, you know. The exchange rate is rather favorable these days, only my personal circumstances unfortunately not. I regret never having made to England when I had my year in Europe. I think I’d rather see York and the North, than London.
Just wanted to point out that Constanze is a girly name, so you probably got your pronouns wrong. This is one of the main advantages of needing approval from a Standesamt for the name you choose for your children. For one thing the name has to be gender specific. Nobody here would get away with naming their poor kid “Rumer” or “Jermajesty”.
The thought had occurred, but I had been using “constanze” over and over again that I just had to stop. And let’s not forget, some of us have “girly” usernames, but the appropriate pronoun is nevertheless the masculine.
As to the Standesamt: is there no limit to the dopey shit Europeans will put up with? Germany used to be so audacious.
Can Yankes and Europeans stop arguing for a second, and address the orginal question?
The concept of “flyover country” is inherently offensive. It suggests that large chunks of your country are dull, unimportant, and not worth paying attention to.
Well, like it or not, many urban sophisticates in practically EVERY country have that feeling about their countrymen who live outside the city.
You needn’t live in Iowa to be held in disdain by chic Manhattanites! We who lived in Brooklyn or Queens or New Jersey were dismissed airily by the artsy folks in Soho or Greenwich Village as “The Bridge and Tunnel Crowd,” and we commanded no more respect from them than a Kentucky hillbilly would have.
It would have done absolutely NO good at all to point out that there is a great deal of culture and history in Brooklyn and New Jersey! The people who think nothing outside their immediate circle is important wouldn’t CARE about that!
It’s undoubtedly true that there’s a lot of history in small towns throughout Europe, and that such towns are filled by interesting people. But urban sophisticates in Europe don’t care about those towns, and hold those people in the same disdain Manhattanites show toward Midwestern or Southern rubes.
Yuppies in Dublin regard my ancestral home, county Westmeath, as a place they have to drive through on the way to Galway. Westmeath’s history, culture, and charming people mean little or nothing to them. To a Dublin hipster, Westmeath is “drive-through country,” the equivalent of American “flyover country.”
And EVERY European country has the equivalent of county Westmeath- a place that hip urbanites never think about, except when they have to drive or take a train ride through it.
I’d just like to say that I live near Washington DC, and have traveled quite a bit in the US and have never heard anyone refer to any part of the US in this manner. I find it offensive to have this represented as a common or even well-known attitude.
But… I’ve been relatively vocal in this thread, and I’m a Londoner. There have been a few comments about how people in London don’t care about/aren’t interested in the countryside. It’s bollocks. If they weren’t interested, or hated it, why would there be immovable gridlock heading out of town every Friday night, or so many second homes that it’s become a major tax issue for local councils? We’re all offering our own opinions, and I’m as guilty of generalising as anyone, I’m sure, but to say that Europeans don’t care about their countryside is going a little far.
I think we can all agree that there are stupid people who aren’t interested in anything that isn’t in town and brand new this week, but these aren’t the majority, nor are they people any of us (see, generalising!) would want to be like or be friends with. They’re boring.
Hence generalise. I even made a joke about it at my own expense. Maybe you didn’t recognise my subtle European humour. As for generalising, I’m sure you’ve never done it, being as wonderful as you are, but the person I was actually responding to had generalised about all European “urban sophisticates”. Since I am one, I felt obliged to point out that not all of us felt that way. However, one person (default gender still male in your book? Now you’re sexist as well - congratulations) could not by themself cause “immovable gridlock”, nor could they realistically own enough property to be causing tax problems. So I give a very clear example of my genuine experience, not even my opinion, of living in a European city, and you just snark back in a pointless and childish fashion. Why am I even answering you?
The ass end of nowhere is home to much surviving Art Deco, simply because wealthier, more stylish places could afford to raze it wholesale during the 1950s-60s, when it was embarrassingly ugly.
