Why European Children Are Quieter
acculturated.com
acculturated.com
Compared to Americans, e.g. most Europeans don't like to go all in with some idea or project — the want some plan B. And nobody fears nudity (there are some grades, from being all ok with it [Germany] or still having some reservations [France], but still).
I lived in Russia, Switzerland, Italy, Denmark, Spain and the US. And I see more things in common between Russians and Americans then between Americans and the rest of Europeans. Both Russians and Americans like megaprojects, enjoy standing on moral high ground, like all-ins and risky endeavors, and long for foreign culture without really immersing in it. In Europe, none of these things are common.
Someone who has lived there will doubtless correct me, but I get the strong impression that China is similar. Must be a superpower thing.
Also, while we're at it, can we also stop using "Cancer" as if it were a single disease that we can "cure"? "Cancer" is an umbrella term for a wide range of diseases that can affect vastly different parts of the body in different ways. It's not all the same thing.
Europe has a discrimination issue between what the US calls "whites". For example in France, Polish people are supposedly all plumbers and Portugese are masons.
In the US there are only two languages, English and Spanish. In Europe there's too many to count with the modern revival of local dialects.
In the US, views on race are very different in Alaska or Hawaii than in Alabama or Puerto Rico.
The US also has discrimination issues between different whites. For example, in the US you can be "White non-Hispanic" vs. "White Hispanic". While less common than in my youth, the US also has slurs and stereotypes about US-born whites based on their family's historical culture. This lead to expressions like "dumb Swede", the stereotype of the Irish cop on the beat, and many ethnic slurs, including those concerning white Jews.
"Only two languages"? What do you even mean by that? San Francisco has Chinese language TV broadcasts, and of course Chinatown. There are 40,000+ Hmong in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul area. A radio station I used to listen to had shows in Navajo. Hawaiian is an official language in Hawaii. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States :
> Tagalog and Vietnamese have over one million speakers each in the United States, almost entirely within recent immigrant populations. Both languages, along with the varieties of Chinese (mostly Cantonese, Taishanese, and Standard Mandarin), Japanese, and Korean, are now used in elections in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Texas, and Washington. ... The state government of Louisiana offers services and documents in French,
Because in Europe[1] there are 24 official languages and these are used to create the bureaucracy.
EDIT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States
> English 80%, Spanish 12.4%, other Indo-European 3.7%, Asian and Pacific island languages 3%, other languages 0.9% (2009 survey by the Census Bureau)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_European_Unio...
> The five most spoken languages in the EU are English (51%), German (32%), French (26%), Italian (16%) and Spanish (15%). At 18% of the total number of speakers, German is the most widely spoken native language, followed by Italian, English, French and Spanish.
The US has more than two languages, even in official government use. (You linked to the same source as I did, which points out both Hawaiian and French use.)
If we use the same metric, which points out the "modern revival of local dialects", then we must also accept the modern revival in the US of indigenous languages, and their use in tribal governments.
1) Nothing is homogeneous. Even a single static object is not 100% the same now compared to how it was 10 days ago. But in order to make any observation, one has to generalize to the point that has statistical significance.
2) Despite saying Europeans and Americans such articles don't mean ALL Europeans and ALL Americans. For Europeans they mostly mean Western Europe: Germany, France, Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, etc. For Americans they mostly mean the stereotypical middle class suburban American, not a Manhattanite yuppie, nor some Idaho farmer, or "white trash".
3) The idea is not to see if the article's observations hold 100%, but whether they hold more often than not.
Western Europe includes Italy, Spain, Portugal and UK, too. As soon as I read the title, I thought to children in my country (Italy) and I saw the enormous gap.
It does, but there's also the North/South division (even within a single country, like Italy, but even more so generally).
South Europe is not really "Western" in this sense (and in other senses, e.g. with respect to religious heritage and ethics, catholicism and orthodoxy vs protestants, etc).
What you wrote about religious heritage is also weird... Protestant Austria? France?
What you're meaning is just Germanic countries (except France).
To the grandparent: Luxembourg's dirty secret is corruption. France has high unemployment. Standards of living are actually pretty nice under the sun, and outside of the high-pay but nerve-wracking shitty weather of "the north". I agree on the more discipline part, but only when it comes to public behaviour.
Where in western Europe have you lived?
If you ever meet anyone from Dalmatia, ask them what their word "fjaka" means, then ask them why they have it...
And of course, terrorist is simply nothing more than a stereotype, because there is no pattern at all which could possibly correlate the string of terror acts. Those terrorists are actually Buddhists from Tibet, that's what those are!
How could I have been so wrong??? Horrible, deplorable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_geoscheme_for_E...
Being a foundation in 17th century doesn't mean it hasn't floundered since. But that's not the point either.
To quote WIkipedia:
"Western Europe is the region comprising the western part of the European continent. There may be differences between the geopolitical and purely geographic definitions of the term."
Already we were discussing here the original article, which used a more restrictive definition -- and explained that.
P.S: I guess that children in Italy were running and screaming quite a lot also at the time...
Yes. And then the reformation happened -- and the power has since long been gone from the catholic europe.
What?
{
(South != West) && (!Discipline != Discipline) && (SouthEuropeanMentality != WesternEuropeanMentality) && (SouthEuropeanValues != WesternEuropeanValues);
}I lived in 4 different countries in continental Europe (France, Switzerland, Italy and the Netherlands) and while, of course, there are differences, it is staggering the quantity of shared things, in the daily life…
No amount of calling bullshit is going to change the fact that Spain and Italy are mired by corruption scandals. The root cause of that is the mentality, the way of thinking, and lack of discipline: "to hell with everyone else as long as I have plenty to eat, guzzle, and screw". The results speak for themselves. For instance, what is the unemployment rate in Spain, especially among the younger generation? Why?
> No amount of calling bullshit is going to change the fact that Spain and Italy are mired by corruption scandals.
Germany, for example, in the last years has been known for VW, Deutsche Bank and Siemens scandals, showing links between corrupt business and political power. BER international airport is another example, and there are countless of other examples. And those were huge examples of corruption. Corruption is a systemic problem, and thinking that in central Europe there is no corruption is just a very dangerous mindset.
> "to hell with everyone else as long as I have plenty to eat, guzzle, and screw".
...
> The results speak for themselves. For instance, what is the unemployment rate in Spain, especially among the younger generation? Why?
The reasons are complex, Spain no more than 10 years ago showed fantastic grow rates, very low public debt, very low unemployment. Essentializing the problems of Spain as a problem of "mentality" just shows ignorance.
In Germany, the courts function and there will be consequences. In Italy or Spain, not so much.
It's not about wanting your home country to be part of "Western Europe", or whether it was its cradle, or whether it is "worth" it to be.
It's about whether it fits certain modern socio-economic criteria for a SPECIFIC definition of western europe.
To quote Wikipedia:
"Western Europe is the region comprising the western part of the European continent. There may be differences between the geopolitical and purely geographic definitions of the term."
Check: United Nations Statistics Division geoscheme for Western Europe (hint: no Italy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe#Modern_division...
Or others...
It's much more accurate to divide Europe between the Northern, Germanic (Germany, UK, Scandinavia, Netherlands, Austria), the Southern, Latin (France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece) and the Eastern, Slavic. Of course the separations aren't so clear-cut, but I am under the impression that when I read something about "Why are the Europeans so much better" it often matches the Northern category.
In fact, I should take it all back, for I find in the process of communicating like a normal human I've generalized the very notion of improper nouns. Not all improper nouns are the same. And I've generalized generalizations themselves; not all of them are bad. Mea culpa.
Man was it hard to get used to all the smiles and good service when I moved to the USA in 2009.
I know that sounds like a joke, but it really felt like everyone was being fake and sarcastic.
A major culture shock!
In contrast, my experiences while I was in central England as far as politeness and service have been very positive, and are a credit to your nation.
However, that all utterly pales in comparison to Japan: I didn't know what service really is until I visited there. Nowhere else did I feel like I was on top of the world as a customer; I will never look at quality of service with the same eyes again.
I'm from the UK, and find the massive smiles and "y'all have a nive day" in the US to be... just so over-exaggerated that it almost becomes ridiculous.
In Japan everyone is so incredibly polite (e.g. train conductor bowing to passengers as he moves through the train, cleaning staff waving off the train as it leaves etc), but it feels very natural and genuine.
Typical morning conversation American to American:
- Hey man how are you?
- good, and you?
- good too! See you later!
Now, that happens so fast that I have tried the following, and the answer was the same!
- hey man how are you?
- oh man my dog just died
- good too! See you later!
Basically, asking how you are is just a courtesy but frankly we don't have time for you.
- hey man how are you?
- well, you know, my wife has told me she wants to divorce me and my kids are not talking to me. It's been kind of rough you know?
- hey man sorry to hear. [starts walking away] I'd love to talk but I got a golf session to go to with my buddies. Keep it up ok? [dissapears]
sigh
- How are you doing?
- Doin' great! Everything is fine. Sally and the kids are doing great
- So how was your vacation? I heard you went to <insert-desirable-location>
- It was great. We had a fantastic time.
- So...did you have good weather?
- The weather was just perfect, could not have asked for more.
- [Resigned by now] All right, gotta run - stay in touch, man!
- So great! to see you!!!
All of the sudden, everybody says "Hey, let's take you to lunch!"
Me: "Dude, I have been here for 4 years. I have taken everybody to lunch at least 8 times. Once you came. The other times you were 'busy.' Now you want to take me to lunch on my last week? Not once you invited me before!"
It's like someone shouting in a library, whether it's my American colleague asking sometime else in the office a question, a couple of tourists on the metro, or an American family in a restaurant.
It's probably a large part of why Americans are often considered rude.
The key here is: "This allows other conversations to take place around them". I was raised (in Germany) to understand that unnecessarily loud talking or shouting at each other is considered rude. As a kid I was far more often told to speak at an adequate noise level than to shut up.
On the generalization of "Americans" and "Europeans": Yes, it is BS, but the author reveals that she is mostly drawing from experiences in Austria and Germany and I'm pretty sure that everybody in this thread unjustly generalizes when (s)he does not know better due to lack of experience. Nobody complains when somebody writes about Scottish or Welsh people even though every valley there seems to have its own flag and slight cultural and even linguistical variations that we are too uneducated to see.
I have heard very similar comparisons using Portugal/Denmark instead of America/Europe.
I'm not from Western Europe either, but it doesn't matter if they don't include us while talking about "Europe".
Most of such articles discuss the cultural core of Western Europe, even if they call it just "Europe". Europe might have 30+ countries, but it's mostly those Western/Northern few that define "Europe" for such purposes.
This stems from a lot of things, but the historical divide of the "Eastern Block" and the "North/South" also helped solidify it. Those Western/Northern European countries were large global empires and they still have the EU power, are big global economies, are members of the G8/G20, etc.
So other countries get the short end of the stick, even if nominally they are "Europe" too.
Portugal or Greece or Czech Republic, etc., might not even exist in most such treatments of "Europe" -- those, when are mentioned, are explicitly called "the south", "balkans", "eastern europe", etc.
What's a bad economy comparing to exterminating millions and causing global bloodshed.
I've travelled extensively, and Americans seem to speak so much more loudly than... well, anywhere!
I've observed this in Hungary, Germany, Spain and others.
My theory is that most Europeans, living all their life on a crowded continent, tend to move in closer to talk, and hence talk at a lower volume. Americans, used to grand amounts of space, sit back and project their voice.
Before coming here I visited and lived in many European countries and Italians for sure are the loudest in public settings (restaurants for example) - especially when there are many of them together. From my experience from Greek Islands Englishmen are the loudest of all - at home in England they are quiet and polite though . Germans are the quietest ones when traveling to other countries but loud at home sometimes.
All this is totally my subjective point of view of course.
First vs. third world problems, I guess.
What you mean to say is China is a developing country. Please leave the old out dated and irrelevant cold war propaganda terminology in the past where it belongs. Remember, Switzerland and Sweden are both canonical examples of third world countries: they were allied with neither the UK/US block or the China/USSR block. Likewise, just because a country is a first world country doesn't mean it's rich -- some of the poorest countries in the world are first world countries, like Namibia.
Third World
noun
the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
(I think Google gets this from Oxford, first world problems comes from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=First%20World...). If one wants to explore the old meaning, we have to go to wiki, and even wiki says:> Over the last few decades since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the term Third World has been used interchangeably with the least developed countries, the Global South, and developing countries to describe poorer countries that have struggled to attain steady economic development, a term that often includes "Second World" countries like Laos. This usage, however, has become less preferred in recent years.[1]
Remember that words can change meaning over the years, even if they do not remain true to their old meanings. This is just another way our language evolves. An attachment to the old meaning of a term is usually not going to sway people's opinion of the word's definition.
They have about 900 million people living on $7 or less per day. Half a billion people there are living on $3-$4 or less per day. Of the poorest two billion people on earth, more than 1/3 are in China. Their income numbers for the bottom 50% compare with the poorest nations on earth.
Granted, the problem with China is it possesses the most inequality of any major nation between the top 50% and the bottom 50%, due to the vast rural vs east coast gap in incomes. The nation with the second most billionaires, that has half a billion people living as subsistence farmers.
Please use the proper terms: developed and developing.
For instance, if an American who talks slightly louder than average converses with a European, he may start talking even louder to try to get the European to speak up a bit. The European will then talk even quieter to prompt the American to follow. Then the American will get louder, and the cycle will continue.
This is can explain how a minor difference in average actual volume can lead to a major perceived difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schismogenesis#Sociolinguistic...
It's "wilful privacy", if you will: as long as everybody respects the privacy, everything stays private, even though it takes only one person to break the illusion.
But the shame is on the person looking, who is violating the expectation of privacy.
Privacy is a spectrum, not a binary.
Consider two women sitting on a park bench and people around minding their own business, and same two women sitting on a park bench with a few nearby men staring at them, making obvious gestures, etc.
This system is efficient for citizens, but it is both fragile (requires a population of cooperators) and doesn't generate much profit for corporations. Expect to see it go.
Adults do not like unquiet children, so they become conditioned to be more quiet.
Of course, I have absolutely no idea whether this is true as I have zero data. I don't even know whether European children are more quiet, let alone all the other assumptions and assertions going on here. We live near to a school (in UK, just outside London), and the kids definitely don't use their "1 metre voices" during the lunchtime break.
Children of the age we speak of are either at home, where there 0-2 other sibling children commonly, or at school, where there are many children (as many as would be in a US school). Nowhere the relative number of children in society comes into play here.
It's not like 7 year olds play out in the streets of Paris and are told to be quiet, or they suddenly learn to be quiet when they visit e.g. restaurants.
Plus Asian children are equally or more quite, even when there are tons of them.
It's mostly about spoiling them and/or indulging them to whatever whim, rather than sssh them.
I've experienced this and I had to exert will power not to get up and move. It was very unnerving. In the US I would have thought the guy was a creeper of some sort, or needed to be shot or stabbed quickly before he got me. I also was in a hotel restaurant once and there was only one other person at a table. The hostess wanted to seat me at his table, even though there were a dozen or more empty tables. Ack.
http://lizgarrigan.tumblr.com/post/17712385923/french-childr...
Edit: Hmm, that came off snarkier than I intended. I didn't intend to imply that either approach is necessarily superior, just that surely there's a happy medium somewhere between the two extremes.
Currently we are all raising kids that will not be ready for the world in 10-20 years. I am sure of that. Kids from other parts of the world will have the advantage in pretty much all fields.
Back then a "little snowflake" was what we called our classmates who froze to death walking home from school in a blizzard!
Here's a fifties school to get an idea: http://aromalefkadas.gr/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/68.jpg
This is from around the fifties. The kids aren't doing yoga or something -- they really don't have shoes -- they usually had just an incredibly warn-out pair at most, which they wore as part of their "good outfit" (for going to important events, church, etc).
No school buses -- actually no highways between lots of rural villages until late 60s, and a single school (in the central/bigger village) catering also for 3-4 nearby villages in what could be a 10-20 km radius.
And yes, they also did that with snow.
The stories of our grandparents are stories that we would associate with a war-torn country in the third world if they happened today.
Where is this? Do you mean by law, or is this just some social expectation? I find it hard to imagine how one would go about enforcing this, and it seems pretty silly for schools in cities and urban areas where kids are often living ~5-10 minutes walk from their school...
America has a sizable population who think that beating your children is okay. That's not limited to the home - 31 states have abolished corporal punishment in schools but it's still permitted in 19 other states. Corporal punishment is widespread in Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi schools. Corporal punishment is routine in some schools in Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.
It's only in 2011 that parents had the right to prevent their children being hit at school.
(This is all public schools. Hitting children in private schools is legal in all but 2 states.)
Attempts to ban hitting children in US schools usually fail, although attempts to reintroduce hitting children in schools also fail.
In the places where hitting children is legal the rates of violence against children is possibly rising, partly because of efforts to reduce use of suspension and expulsion.
And this isn't just children: 18 and 19 year olds attending school are sometimes hit.
Not only is that totally effed up, but there is hardly anything that speaks in favour of it.