Subject:
|
Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:43:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1688 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
> Hmm, I think I could come reasonably close to pointing out the location of
> every city I've lived in without just a map of North America including major
> natural features.
Have you ever lived in Kansas? ;)
> One comment I have about people's knowledge of geography in other countries
> and such is that people are going to know and remember stuff that's
> important to them.
Exactly. And to many Americans, knowing the geography of your neighboring
States is roughly equivalent to knowing the geography of neighboring nations in
Western Europe. The big difference is that most Americans probably think of
themselves as Americans first, and X-State Residents next, whereas Europeans
probably identify with their nation before Europe. Part of what the EU is set
up to do is to help unify the whole of Western Europe the way the United States
or Canada are by default.
> To the average American who has never left his home state
Home state?!?!? I have a friend in NYC who says many people there live their
entire lives within an area comprised of a few city blocks! All across the US
there are people who, like Samwise, never leave their home town. I'd probably
qualify as "well-traveled" in the US, as I've been to both Canada and Mexico,
and set foot in more than ten States (flying over them doesn't count).
> ...the locations of many geographical features even in the US are of little
> importance, let alone some country halfway around the world.
This reminds me of an episode of Little House on the Prarie (which I watched
when I was a young child), where Mrs. Olsen takes over the school and tries
teaching all these farm-kids about classical art. IIRC, all but her own kids
end up getting called back to the farms because there wasn't any practical
purpose in giving up their labor contribution so they could sit in a room and
study pictures of "nekkid ladies".
> These tales of Europeans who totally underestimate distances are just a good
> example (actually, one would think they would be a little better seeing as
> distances for a daytrip in Europe are considerably shorter than in the US,
> we once tried to take a daytrip from a city in Yugoslavia to the beach, and
> discovered we had really forgotten about the fact that a "highway" in Europe
> (especially in Yugoslavia) is not like a US interstate).
I suppose it depends on where they're from. My friend's experience was with
Germans, and they've got the Autobahn, which was the model for the original US
highway system.
> Of course there are other countries with even bigger railroad building
> challenges, though I'm not sure if any have the extent of railroad building
> across their large expanses that the US have.
I think Australia probably has the weirdest variety. In one area they have a
railroad where the sleepers are still hand-hewn from the forest through which
the railroad travels, and with the same axe blade that was used at least 2-3
generations earlier. In another area they have the largest train in the world,
which requires such an intense level of training that it has the only train
equivalent of a flight simulator (when going over a small hill either too fast
or too slow will cause your miles-long train to decouple, on-the-job training is
a bit too risky).
> Ok, India probably actually exceeds the US for railway network across an
> expanse.
Quite possibly. The US would probably still be the king of railways if it
weren't for the interstate freeway system. Truck shipments have much more
freedom of travel, and it's a lot easier to modify shipping frequency.
> The USSR does have the Trans Siberia, but it's a single rail line, not a
> network.
Yeah, that's basically the rough equivalent to the Trans-Continental from early
US history, but they really only use the Trans-Siberia as a means to get from
Point A to Point B, whereas the Trans-Continental was also used as a means of
expanding outward from the original railway.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
|
| "Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:I0r5CA.243s@lugnet.com... (...) of (...) major (...) No, and I admit, I would have a harder time placing Kansas with just a map of natural features. (...) their (...) the US (...) (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....)
|
| "Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:I0ny3F.F5E@lugnet.com... (...) easier than (...) the (...) where (...) If it's (...) the US (...) without (...) single (...) the (...) failing to (...) of (...) Hmm, I think I could (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
