Why don't Americans travel abroad?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Letum

I meant that it is false to say something like:
"Americans don't need to leave the country because you can travel so far within it
whilst Europeans are obliged to leave their countries when they travel because their
countries are so small."

I say that is true. You can't turn around in Europe without leaving your country.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I say that is true. You can't turn around in Europe without leaving your country.

Oh dear! you have missed my point again.
Lets see...this is a little messy, but:


1) American tourists seek new experiences in new places
2) To have new experiences in new places you must travel long distances
3) American tourists must travel long distances

4) American tourists must travel long distances to have new experiences in new places
5) You can travel long distances in America
6) American tourists can have new experiences in new places without leaving America

I disagree with '2'. I would replace '2' with:

2) To have new experiences in new places you must travel to new places that are unlike the old/familiar place(s).

With my '2'; 3,4,5 and 6 do not follow.

[clive bradbury]

Thanks for all the input gentlemen. Is it possible to draw a few conclusions (or at least further talking points), from all this?

1. Wanting to spend time seeing your own country is of course a valid reason for not travelling abroad, but even small countries can take a lifetime to explore. I am 51, and have not seen all the UK by any means. That does not stop me wanting to explore other countries, too. So is it more of a cultural thing?

2. Travel distance required doesn't seem to bother the Aussies, who if anything have to travel much further than most Americans, yet still do so. Admittedly, most are young people just out of university etc who probably take six months or a year to do so - often working in bars to subsidise the trip. So does the US have a 'backpack culture' in the same way?

3. Holidays. This seems to me to be the big one. Almost worth a separate thread. How do you US guys feel about your low number of holidays? Do you think you get enough (ooh er, missus!)? Do you think that the low numbers of breaks are counter-productive anyway? Tired and jaded workers tend to make more mistakes. As holidays are often one of the few chances for quality family time, does the US quota affect that too? For example, this year I have decided not to work for more that six weeks together as I find that I work more effectively that way. Admittedly, I am self-employed and overpaid for what I do, so I can award myself more holidays (3 months this year) - not always been that way, so I am making the most of it whilst I can!

Again, please leave the politics out of this if possible, I'm much more interested in personal experiences here.

[Letum]

I want your job.

[clive bradbury]

Can't have it until I retire.

[Letum]

Unless some little 'accident' where to happen...
/prepares banana skins

[Jimbuna]

You make the most of it and good luck.

One of the eternal hopes for the working class has got to be the option of retiring at an age where you are young enough to enjoy it, whilst still healthy and with sufficient income.

[Schroeder]

No way Jim, this would be socialism!

Sorry couldn't resist.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Letum

2) To have new experiences in new places you must travel to new places that are unlike the old/familiar place(s).

Yeah yeah, and to do that in America you have to travel farther than in Europe. We're going in circles.

I still don't understand you, Letum. But you can explain it to me in Copenhagen, you traveler, you.

Originally Posted by goldorak

This is spot on.
I live in northern italy. In less than 200km I can be in France, Switzerland or Austria.

That's a good place to live in, good food and mountains near by. Food from Italy & France and mountains in Switzerland and Austria. Have watched some of the winter games from Liberec on tv, nice scenery. Would like to visit that region.

As for Americans abroard, more and more visit Lapland, and also many exchange students etc. I remember giving one young American woman a guided tour of a city I used to live in.

I guess the Americans on the whole are aware that the reputation of US isn't that high right now. I haven't talked to many tourists but I know some people through university who've told me about it. I guess not all want to admit any of it, and the British get down right angry when I even suggest anything like that. Oh well, I suppose it's the lost empire they are pining after or something...:rotfl:

Edit. Ok I checked, Liberec is in Czech and not in the Swiss-Austria - region.

[Skybird]

I think that in America you can travel longer disdtance to see smaller changes in habits and living styles, while in eurppe you travel smaller distances and nevertheless already see a greater change in places and habits.

Just considering language alone you would realise that it makes a smaller difference to travel from Boston to Seattle, then it makes a a difference to travel from Kiel to Kopenhagen.

Now consider history. Laws. Currency. Cuisine. You can see a "huge difference" when comparing Bavaria in germany's south with friesland in the north, at the coast to the Northern sea. And still it is the same country, and the difference does not match the scale of the difference you see when leaving you8r country and going to a completely di9fferent one.

Have you realised that you just gave evidence by your example, probably without realising it, for what I described as the "empirial attitude" that thinks the empire's heart already includes all that is worth to be seen, in my first reply, on the very top?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think that in America you can travel longer distance to see smaller changes in habits and living styles, while in eurppe you travel smaller distances and nevertheless already see a greater change in places and habits.

Just considering language alone you would realise that it makes a smaller difference to travel from Boston to Seattle, then it makes a a difference to travel from Kiel to Kopenhagen.

Now consider history. Laws. Currency. Cuisine. You can see a "huge difference" when comparing Bavaria in germany's south with friesland in the north, at the coast to the Northern sea. And still it is the same country, and the difference does not match the scale of the difference you see when leaving you8r country and going to a completely di9fferent one.

Have you realised that you just gave evidence by your example, probably without realising it, for what I described as the "empirial attitude" that thinks the empire's heart already includes all that is worth to be seen, in my first reply, on the very top?

Somehow I can clearly picture you with a group of people watching Americans on TV and laughing at us. The heart may not be all there is to be seen but it certainly gets a higher priority than other places.

I agree with your first sentence. When one says "travel", we cannot discount the distances. Travel = miles covered.

Speaking of Kiel, I plan to be there Sept 16, you going to meet me there visit the U-995 with me?

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Yeah yeah, and to do that in America you have to travel farther than in Europe. We're going in circles.

No, no. One can not go from one part of America to another, however far apart and
claim that the two places are as distinct as London is from Moscow.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Letum

No, no. One can not go from one part of America to another, however far apart and
claim that the two places are as distinct as London is from Moscow.

I never said that.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Speaking of Kiel, I plan to be there Sept 16, you going to meet me there visit the U-995 with me?

Ah, you are there because of the subsim meeting in Kopenhagen. Strange coincidence that I have chosen that example, I did not think of the meeting.

I don't promise anything, but I made a mark in my calender. But the meeting in Kopenhagen I will not attend. I once was in Kiel when I was very young, and as far as I remember, the city was no tourist attraction one needs to see, nor has it that reputation. Except that insider's tip you mentioned