Disappointing tourist attractions

[Darbees]

The current debate between Creationists and Evolutionists cannot be understood without recourse to Darwin's work?)

 

Or some common sense.

[Waltheof]

Or some common sense.

 

That may be so--the Creationists, I think, find it in their interest to misinterpret Darwin's theories in order to boost their own views. However, undoubtedly there were many people with common sense before Darwin, who still never doubted the Genesis account, because they had no evidence to contradict it and science was not as developed as it was to become. Some people may even have wondered why all the creatures sprang fully formed at the word of God and were therefore immutable, but yet it was possible to alter species by selective breeding, which contradicts that proposition. (Interestingly, even in the Old Testament itself there is a reference to selective breeding--Jacob's sheep, Genesis chap.30)

[Sierra]

Not quite--what became the USA is included in that "North America" and the first settlements were on the eastern seaboard, if I remember correctly (speaking off the top of my head here) in Jamestown in the early 1600s. there had been even earlier attempts to colonise but I think they failed.

 

I am a native Californian and have lived in the US all my life. I am telling you, this is just a misunderstanding. When you ask an American about their "country", we go back to 1776 and no further, because before that, the United States didn't formally exist as a country.

 

Of course we realize that the North American continent including what is now the US, has been occupied by various indigenous peoples for thousands of years. But we always make that distinction.

 

You know, I encounter this every so often. It's a simple matter of one person not understanding exactly what the other one means. You mean one thing, they mean something else, and neither one sees the difference. So just because these tourists didn't answer you in the manner you expected, no need to automatically decide they are stupid/and or woefully ignorant of their own history.

 

Sierra

[Waltheof]

I am a native Californian and have lived in the US all my life. I am telling you, this is just a misunderstanding. When you ask an American about their "country", we go back to 1776 and no further, because before that, the United States didn't formally exist as a country.

 

Of course we realize that the North American continent including what is now the US, has been occupied by various indigenous peoples for thousands of years. But we always make that distinction.

 

You know, I encounter this every so often. It's a simple matter of one person not understanding exactly what the other one means. You mean one thing, they mean something else, and neither one sees the difference. So just because these tourists didn't answer you in the manner you expected, no need to automatically decide they are stupid/and or woefully ignorant of their own history.

 

Sierra

 

 

Do all Americans make this distinction? I take your point--from a formal point of view, USA didn't exist until 1776 (and then only consisted of the 13 states so it has of course developed more since)--but does that mean that if you ask an American about "his country" he/she isn't interested in the factors that led up to the formation of the officially designated country? Can one really have a cut-off point like that? Heritage sites like Williamsburg in Virginia don't exclude exhibitions/buildings just because they predate 1776, and they seem to imply that it is just as much a part of the history of the USA as things post 1776.

[Sierra]

Do all Americans make this distinction? I take your point--from a formal point of view, USA didn't exist until 1776 (and then only consisted of the 13 states so it has of course developed more since)--but does that mean that if you ask an American about "his country" he/she isn't interested in the factors that led up to the formation of the officially designated country? Can one really have a cut-off point like that? Heritage sites like Williamsburg in Virginia don't exclude exhibitions/buildings just because they predate 1776, and they seem to imply that it is just as much a part of the history of the USA as things post 1776.

 

I understand, and I share your view that history does not start and stop just because we say it does. And yes, we almost always make the distinction. I would never presume to know what someone else is or isn't interested in, so you'll have to ask them.

 

I have a friend whose husband collects model trains with the little people and everything. I don't know how she stays married to the guy.

 

The Colonial Period refers to the time when Europeans first set up permanent settlements on the North American continent. It started in 1607 when the first English settlers landed at Jamestown, Virginia. It ended with the Revolutionary War when the settlements were no longer colonies but part of a new nation.

 

Just as I live in California, there was a time before California was granted statehood, when it belonged first to Spain, then to Mexico. The occupants of this region were first Spaniards, then Mexicans or Californios, and finally Americans.

 

Part of the problem is that the US is so large, so each state's history is unique. Another one is (and I am making a sweeping judgement here) is that we are a forward looking people. The future is hope. You can't do anything about the past. The general feeling is that standing still, or God forbid, actually looking back, is a colossal waste of time. And the way I was raised, wasting time (yours or someone else's) was about the worst thing a body could do.

 

Sierra

[rubydazzler]

Anyway *coffs* interesting and informative as the topic of American history versus North America as a continent's history is ... back on topic ...

 

The Jorvik Centre in York ... queue for hours outside and then - biggest disappointment of my life (well not really) We could have done as well that with the Castle ruins under the market ...

[nick2]

Haddon Hall was pretty rubbish, and expensive. Actually it wasn't that it was "bad" as such, what you see is interesting, but you don't realy get to see much of the place, or the grounds, and you leave feeling like you've paid 10 quid to look at a couple of empty rooms.

[Karis]

The Golden Mount in Thailand...

 

Biggest let down ever! It wasn't at ALL what I was expecting

[Saffy]

Don't know whether anyone's said it .. but Matlock Bath Illuminations !

[Lockjaw]

Nothing to do with the discussions above but the place that has failed most spectacularly to live up to my excitement prior to visiting (and the reverence attached to it) has got to be the Alamo.