Uniquely Distinct Americanisms

Factual Questions
101

lightingtool writes:

> I just wanted to say (as a New Englander) that this is (IMO) absolutely brillant.
> Nicely done.

I should point out that I didn’t make up that statement myself. I read it somewhere years ago. Also, I should really clarify it. The major point I was making was that no one calls themself a Yank or a Yankee. When I said that:

> Someone from outside the U.S. calls any American a Yank.

I didn’t mean that everyone outside the U.S. call all Americans Yanks. In fact, some non-Americans would never call anybody Yanks. But if they do call anyone a Yank, it’s an American.

Similarly, when I said that:

> Someone from the southern U.S. would only call a person from the northern
> U.S. a Yankee.

I didn’t mean that anybody in the southern U.S. would call everyone a Yankee. Some southerners would never call anybody Yankees. But if they do call anyone a Yankee, it’s a northerner.

Similarly, when I said that:

> Someone from most of the northern U.S. would only call a person from New
> England a Yankee.

Again, they might not call anyone a Yankee. But if they do call someone a Yankee, it’s someone from New England.

Similarly, when I said that:

> Someone from most of New England would only call a person from Maine a
> Yankee.

Again, they might not call anyone a Yankee, etc.

And, finally, when I said that:

> Someone from most of Maine would only a person from certain area in Maine a
> Yankee.

Again, they might not call anyone a Yankee, etc.

I think the terms “Yankee” and “Yank” is gradually becoming less and less used. It’s only likely to irritate people, and it’s kind of silly using a term that no one uses of themself.

102

Interestingly enough, this subject came up at dinner tonight. My BIL is a born and raised Floridian. He is college educated, well read, and a world traveller. The guy could be said to be fairly well rounded.

He was of the impression that New England was a town in Massachusetts. His reasoning?

The New England Patriots (an American football team, for those unfamiliar) play home games in a stadium in Mass. QED, they must be in New England, Mass.
[sub]I asked him if he’d never had one of those puzzles of the continental 48 states as a kid, where almost always, NE is a single puzzle piece, that fits northeast of New York State. He threw a dinner roll at me.[/sub]

103

[QUOTE=boofy_bloke]
The “World” Series featuring one country.

I admit the name “World Series” may be a bit overstated. But it will come as a surprise to residents of Toronto and Montreal to learn that the series features only one country.

104

Because most of the really good 20-22 year-old talent is in the minor leagues. It always has been, and even now I’d say probably most of the really hot high school players opt to get drafted and go to Rookie league or A ball instead of college first.

105

When did they gain admittance? Do any other countries play?

106

Toronto and Montreal field teams in the major leagues. Toronto even won back-to-back World Series championships in the 90s. That’s what he meant.

107

Electoral votes are the same as the number of representatives in the House and the Senate. Granted, the Senate seats do give a slightly disproportionate power to the small states, but is that really what you got so mad about?

108

Not in my (American living abroad) experience. I still hear “Yank” used as a matter of course. More so in Britain than in Ireland, though.

A couple comments about other posts:

  1. I’ve found most people over here have a vague idea where New England is, although a lot of them think that New York is part of it.

  2. All this stuff about knives and forks and napkins - whaaaah? I honestly don’t think I’ve ever thought or been taught anything about it.

  3. I’m born and raised in America and don’t remember a time when I didn’t know Australia was about the same size as the U.S. I’m a bit shocked to learn there are other Americans who honestly thought the place was “postage stamp sized”.

109

Brownies are now fairly ubiquitous outside the US. But in the 1980s, before they were widely available in England, I was on vacation in Texas and I asked my hostess if she could give me a brownie recipe so I could make them when I got home.

“Sure honey,” she replied, and wrote a recipe out on a sheet of paper. When I got back to England, I went to make them, and found that the first ingredient was “One pack Betty Crocker Brownie Mix”. I’ve since found this problem with several US recipe books.

So I’ll add: “from scratch” recipes that presuppose a factory has already done most of the work for you.

110

I wrote:

> I think the terms “Yankee” and “Yank” is gradually becoming less and less
> used. It’s only likely to irritate people, and it’s kind of silly using a term that no
> one uses of themself.

I changed what I was saying here several times before posting, and I succeeded mostly in screwing up the grammar thoroughly. What I meant was:

> I think the terms “Yankee” and “Yank” are gradually becoming less and less
> used. They’re only likely to irritate people, and it’s kind of silly using terms
> that people don’t use about themselves.

ruadh writes:

> Not in my (American living abroad) experience. I still hear “Yank” used as a
> matter of course. More so in Britain than in Ireland, though.

I didn’t hear it much in the U.K. while living there for three years in the late '80’s, nor in five visits back there since then. Maybe people deliberately avoided it because I was American. Some people there knew that many Americans never used it for themselves. It’s my distinct impression that it sounds a little old-fashioned when used in the U.S.

111

After reading this thread, I think that one thing that distinguishes many of my fellow Americans is that we cannot tell the difference in observations and criticism.

There’s no need for us to get huffy. These comments have, for the most part, been dead-on accurate.

I will add my own comment about Americans. We tend to be easily brain-washed against socialism and equate it with communism.

112

My current theory on guns and Americans:

There are three legitimate reasons for owning guns. They are:

  1. Hunting
  2. Target practice
  3. Protection

Hunting has been important for most of our history, particularly in rural areas. It is still important to some folks today. Griffith, Indiana is only 40 miles outside of Chicago, yet it has a dozen families who are quite proud of the fact that they never buy meat, they hunt all the meat they eat in the course of a year. They’re also quite proud of their skill, and that they do all this in full compliance with the law and kill limits. (They also take advantage of the bow-hunting seasons as well as the gun seasons).

Target practice is like archery contests - it’s a demonstration of skill, and many consider it a sport

Protection is perhaps the most problematic reason. In the past, in rural areas, on the frontier, or in the wilderness if you couldn’t protect yourself it was unlikely help would arrive in time, if at all, to assist you. Which makes a powerful argument for being armed. After a couple centuries this self-reliance in defense has become part of the culture at large, whether it makes sense in a modern, heavily urban landscape or not. Ant that’s where I think the biggest problems show up. Dense populations, poverty, and guns are a bad mix.

I don’t know if that makes things any clearer or not.

113

Farming is also a legit reason - crow shooting etc. In places like Ireland and the UK, it is perfectly legal to own a gun for hunting, farming, or sport - you just have to get a license, which involves not being a crook and proving your legitimate reasons.

114

On the subject of US politics, many parts of it do seem to be quite unique;

  • Limiting Presidential terms to a maximum of 2 (or 8 years)
  • The formal and widely understood split of the 3 branches of the government
  • The electoral college

Age limits for drinking and sex exist almost everywhere but are very high in the US compared to the rest of the world, and especially compared to Europe.

The “American Dream” is obviously uniquely American, but no other country has such a well defined equivalent in my experience.

115

This “Americanism” is strongest in the Mid-West. For some reason, despite being Midwesterners, it never took hold in my family and I continue to eat with a knife in my right hand and a fork in my left to this day. However, I remember an unpleasent interlude at summer camp where a camp counselor was extremely upset at my “lack of manners” and engaged in verbal abuse and even slapping my hands to “teach” me proper manners. This would have gone a heck of lot better if she had just freaking told me what she wanted instead of the “stop being rude!” SLAP (fork and knife fly out of my hands and onto the floor) - repeat from “stop being rude!”. I was finally rescued by the camp director who was curious about the growing pile of cutlery in one corner. She sized up the situation, then asked me where my family was from. I said “Russia”. She then gave the counselor a tongue lashing, saying that how I handled my silverware was considered perfectly acceptable in Europe and that my family had probably kept that custom. The stupid little cu-- >cough< counselor absolutely refused to believe anyone would utilize utensils in such a deviant manner, but I did notice that she, for some reason, left the camp the next day and was not seen again.

Ah… childhood…

Anyhow, that was 30 years ago, I hope camp counselors are less uptight about these things today.

116

This subject has come up in many threads. The fork-switching method is also very common in the south. What is more, when using both knife and fork, the method is in a way I have never seen outside America. Put your hand out as if to shake hands, insert fork between fingers and thumb vertically, and that’s pretty close.

Another uniqeness, common GD subject: I read that America is the only country that circumcises the majority of its males for other than religious reasons.

117

I occassionally get some good-natured teasing from my in-laws about my Yankee origins, but that’s completely in keeping with them being from below the Mason-Dixon line (Tennessee and Virginia). The ocassion is usually when we abruptly realize we have discovered yet another cutlural difference between North and South. But it’s very much a joking thing with us. We probably get more worked up about whether to call that unplesantness between 1860 and 1865 the “War Between the States” or the “Civil War”

I woud never, ever, call someone from Texas a “yankee”

118

No, the World Series features zero countries. It features two representative departments of one commercial enterprise.

This has nothing to do with a “liberal” judiciary. It has to do with conservative legislators who keep passing mandatory minimum sentencing laws to show the public that they’re tough on drugs. The current conservative attorney general, in fact, is trying to take away any discretion judges do have in determining sentences appropriate to the danger a particular convict is likely to pose to society (or any other factor, for that matter).

I was once in the company of a genius in Athens, Ohio. At a Chinese restaurant she ordered “tea” and then was in high dudgeon when she got hot Chinese tea.

I’ve never heard an American of any kind refer to someone as a “Yank.” It’s always “Yankee,” whatever the context.

[quote]
Electoral votes are the same as the number of representatives in the House and the Senate. Granted, the Senate seats do give a slightly disproportionate power to the small states, but is that really what you got so mad about?{/quote]

“Slightly disproportionate”? The 34 million people of California get 54 votes (1 vote for every 630,000 people) and the 500,000 people of Wyoming get 3 votes (1 vote for every 167,000 people). Actually, it’s even worse than that, because the people who voted for anyone but the first-place candidate in a state get zero electors.

119

You’ve given the number of electoral college votes (actually, I think CA has gone up to 55 since the 2001 census). It’s worse than that in that in terms of representation in the senate, CA has one senator for every 25 million people, WY one for every 250,000. A one hundred-fold difference.

120

That is why we don’t have just a Senate. We also have a House of Represenatives and President. The House is proportional per population. The Senate is not, the “President” (or votes for president) almost is but not quite.

           I have to say I don't understand the fascination with guns.  I may be one of the few males in Indiana that has never had any interest in fishing (boring), guns, hunting (shooting a defenseless animal is not my idea of fun) or owning a pick up truck, so count me out on explaining these.

          I don't understand the fasincation with Baseball, either.  Going to game, that is fun.  Watching on TV....no interest at all.  Then again, I don't get the fanatical following of soccer/football by most people in every other country on earth, either.  I should add, however, that while Baseball is called "America's game," I don't think its true that it is the favorite spectator sport in America.  That would be American football.

        Is voter turnout in other countries similar to what it is in the US?  It tends to run about 40-50% for the national elections.  DO other countries do much better?  IF so, do those countries make it a national holiday to encourage better voter turnout?  I always wondered if this would make a difference or if the 50% of the people that don't vote just don't carea and won't vote no matter what.  Or everyone would just take a big vacation then on election day and no one would be home to vote.