Calling on all Europeans and Britons

I am in the early stages of planning a European trip. I'm not sure exactly where or when yet, and everything depends on my saving enough money between now and August/September.

What I would like to know is this: How do I avoid looking like a dumb American tourist (which I am, but never mind)? This includes clothing/behavior/anything. What are the particular stereotypes and common annoyances associated with sight-seeing vermin in your home country? I personally have had nothing but good experiences with Europeans in this country, but then, they generally speak pretty good English. German is the only continental language I speak, and my grasp of it more than a bit tenuous.

If anyone asks, just say you're Canadian. Problems solved.

Clothing - jeans (ones which have some texture, not bright blue ones
lol) behaviour- we are usually quite quiet as britons but will voice
out opinion. Common annoyances include chavs - wearing the crappy
nike/adidas/ socks over their trousers with fake burberry caps ( note:
these "chavs" only travel in herds).

For the love of god....don't wear a bum-bag/fanny-pack (or whatever you want to call them!) :wink:

And if you make it as far as the UK, be sure to look us up :smile:

Don't call things quaint. Don't shout or speak slowly to people if you don't speak the language - most Spanish, French, German people will learn English anyway because of the breadth of it's use, and hate being patronised - the British and the Americans are particularly good at annoying Johnny Foreigner.

Also, as a rule of thumb, Europeans don't dislike Americans, they're just people like us after all. Most people dislike your Government/President and the policies associated with it, or the god damn Christian right.

I don't think you'll have any problems TBH, T_B. Just don't be too loud, stay polite and courteous (as I expect you are in the USA anyway), and you'll be fine. As Adam says, if you make it as far as this dirty little hole of a country, give a shout out and i'm sure you'll have a free bed or beer at the hands of some of our members.

And avoid anything unofficial looking, tours, tshirts etc etc - the prices may be cheaper for some things, but theres tinkers and gypsies looking to rip off tourists everywhere - especially Americans.

All I can say is that you should be careful around cab drivers,
espeically in Eastern-Europe and Turkey. They love suckering tourists.
I heard an american tourist was suckered into paying 300 dollars for a
10 dollar fare. And you should follow that "say you're canadian"
advice. Some people here (especially the ones without too many
braincells) consider americans very very rich but dumb; easy money. :biggrin:
And if you cross through contries that have 60 or 80km/h speed
limits EVERYWHERE you look (like Bulgaria has), just choose a local car
that's
going your way (you'll notice that the locals ignore the speedlimit)
and use it as a screen. The police usually stop foreigners because
they're full of travel-money. Just in case, spare some
25-50 euros; bribe money. When the policeman asks for your passport,
put a few bills in it and then hand it to him. Always works :biggrin: , the
corrupt bastards!

Congratulations Andrei, I think you just scared him out of going to Romania :biggrin:

It's the same in Poland and most former Eastern Bloc countries TBH ReNo, not just Romania. The police are as crooked as the San Andreas fault.

listen to those old interviews they did with the Beatles.. practice on your McCartney wannabee voice. everyone knows Brits have the silliest accents. you get their accent down and your in. :biggrin:

Brits have the silliest accents? I thought "Luigi" in the simpsons did :razz:

Germany:

Depends on the location you want to visit. I live in South Germany and
we expect high temperatures in August. So wear jeans and a T-shirt.
Well I think you can wear "ordinary american" clothing - It's the same
:smile:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>listen to those old interviews they did with the Beatles.. practice on your McCartney wannabee voice. everyone knows Brits have the silliest accents. you get their accent down and your in. :biggrin: </DIV></DIV>
Says he coming from Arkansas... "Hey maw! Let's cook us some vittles! Guh-huk!" :razz:

Well, I wasn't really planning on eastern Europe to begin with, and Andrei has indeed succeeded in reinforcing that opinion. On the other hand though, I hear it is allot cheaper. The scope of the trip depends on how many pennies I can pinch between now and then.

The core is going to be Italy, Austria, Switzerland, and Germany. However, my intent is to basically wander wherever the wind blows. I may spend all my time in one country, and I may hop around allot. I do want at least 7-10 days per country though, so how many I hit depends on the quantity of time and money i have to run with. Since the UK isn't part of the eurail system it's a bit harder to include... That said, if I do end up with enough money and time I'd like to make it a tail end stop and either fly in or out of London. I'll certainly be sure to look up some of you guys if I make it out there.

On the clothing/appearance front, I'd really rather avoid jeans if I can. They are heavy, bulky, and suck up water like a sponge. What else is common? I suppose the differences between the States and Europe may be pretty subtle. i haven't been able to find much information on this subject.

There isn't much difference at all. Americas contribution to culture is fast food, jeans, casual clothes etc etc - all of which have gradually been exported over to Europe, Africa, Asia, anywhere really.

You can't really go far wrong by wearing what you wore when you met Orph, TBH.

Also as you say the mainland EU countries aren't particularly well linked to the UK, but flights in and out of London are dirt cheap - keep in mind that the UK has the highest living costs in the world, so if you intend to stop by, budget for it.

If anyone asks, just say you're Canadian. Problems solved.

You will get one hell of a beating if you do. "Blame Canada" is a
strong theme in our society, next to "Blame America" then "Blame Tony
Blair".

Er, no it isn't :razz: It's a line off South Park which is used universally to mock the Canadians for being a nobody country :razz:

me runs from angry Canadians

I think about 40% of the British population wouldn't be able to point to Canada on an unmarked map, let alone know it used to be one of our colonies which didn't rebel.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Gwil</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Er, no it isn't :razz: It's a line off South Park which is used universally to mock the Canadians for being a nobody country :razz:

me runs from angry Canadians

I think about 40% of the British population wouldn't be able to point to Canada on an unmarked map, let alone know it used to be one of our colonies which didn't rebel. </DIV></DIV>

You'd think the fact that they speak english (mostly) would be a big hint on that one. I sometimes wonder what the world would be like if the British Empire had not fallen apart. Imagine a single nation that ruled all of North America, India, and elsewhere I don't even know about. Kind of a scary thought.
Thanks for the help, all. :smile:

T_B people are people....theres no denying that, they are people just like you, but generally americans are known for being "loud mouths", like everyone has said, speak softer. But all in all eveyone wants to have a good time like you :biggrin: .

Don't act like your better than anyone because your from america, like some of my stupid friends did.....ohh boy they still have scares from getting beaten up (but don't let this stop you :biggrin: ).

About the only rare time I've been talked down to was in Canida by some local whom I was asking directions from, so you have nothing to worry about in europe.

Just my 2c from my travels.

Pronounce words with "ham" on the end as "um". Its not Birming Ham, its Birmingum :razz: Use the english words for stuff too- aluminIUM, nappy, etc. Not that you'll ever use those words lol. But yer, watch out for large groups of drunk people in the whole of Europe. Their goal in life is not to steal your money, but just beat the crap outa ya!

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Leperous</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
Says he coming from Arkansas... "Hey maw! Let's cook us some vittles! Guh-huk!" :razz:

</DIV></DIV>

i do not have a native Arkansan accent lep. in fact i have little that would define an origin in my speech at all. i think that stems from my constant moving as a child maybe. i grew up in the west as a child, but spent may winters in the east in the same time period. accents are acquired in your young years i think.

far easterner notice i am not from local, but so do far westerners. but mostly its speech choices of wording. for instance. when i delivered to California, i told them "i have the bus out on the road, i need to move it" apparently they do not use the word "road" in that context. they asked me where i was from, when i told them all they could say was "figures, from the woods" :sad:

any who's ask TB, my accent, if i have one is not Arkansan. :biggrin:

If anyone asks, just say you're Canadian. Problems solved.

You will get one hell of a beating if you do. "Blame Canada" is a
strong theme in our society, next to "Blame America" then "Blame Tony
Blair".

Where is this coming from? I've never ever heard of negativity from
Brits towards Canadians, we're still practically commonwealth in a lot
of cases. And we didn't support the States/Blair's big fiasco.

Gotta love how "not supporting" is beneficial for international relations :biggrin:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting ReNo</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Gotta love how "not supporting" is beneficial for international relations :biggrin:
</DIV></DIV>

i was kinda thinking, not supporting can be worse than choosing the wrong side. mainly, you can never tell which is truly the wrong side till its all over, but you know you're wrong in advance if you fail to chose. :/
/me bows out before i get into more hot water.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Leperous</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
Says he coming from Arkansas... "Hey maw! Let's cook us some vittles! Guh-huk!" :razz:

</DIV></DIV>

i do not have a native Arkansan accent lep. in fact i have little that would define an origin in my speech at all. i think that stems from my constant moving as a child maybe. i grew up in the west as a child, but spent may winters in the east in the same time period. accents are acquired in your young years i think.

far easterner notice i am not from local, but so do far westerners. but mostly its speech choices of wording. for instance. when i delivered to California, i told them "i have the bus out on the road, i need to move it" apparently they do not use the word "road" in that context. they asked me where i was from, when i told them all they could say was "figures, from the woods" :sad:

any who's ask TB, my accent, if i have one is not Arkansan. :biggrin:

</DIV></DIV>

I don't know what an Arkansan accent sounds like... You sound like a midwesterner, Orph. I think the closest thing I've heard to it that I could identify with a specific locality would be rural Ohio. Come to that however, most people east of the mountains in Oregon and Washington have a more moderate version of your speech. Call it heartland-speak, and leave it at that.

I guess I must have a west-coast accent (if there is such a thing) because people here sounded "normal" to me when I moved here. I don't know how that happened though since my parents were from the Midwest and I grew up in New England.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Tracer Bullet</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

I don't know what an Arkansan accent sounds like... You sound like a midwesterner, Orph. I think the closest thing I've heard to it that I could identify with a specific locality would be rural Ohio. Come to that however, most people east of the mountains in Oregon and Washington have a more moderate version of your speech. Call it heartland-speak, and leave it at that.

</DIV></DIV>

good call, you know that east place i spent my time? it was indeed Ohio. my vocabulary has taken on an Arkansan slur over the years, but i do not "fit in" around here. my pronunciations are to precise for Arkansas.
as for your accent, you prolly picked yours up from your parents as a child, not so much your location at the time.

I think about 40% of the British population wouldn't be able
to point to Canada on an unmarked map, let alone know it used to be one
of our colonies which didn't rebel.

About 40% couldn't point out London on a unmarked map.

ReNo said:
Gotta love how "not supporting" is beneficial for international relations :biggrin:

i was kinda thinking, not supporting can be worse than choosing the
wrong side. mainly, you can never tell which is truly the wrong side
till its all over, but you know you're wrong in advance if you fail to
chose. :/

/me bows out before i get into more hot water.

Personally I think it's a bit foolish to think that you must choose a
"side" if there even are technical sides to pick anyway. As a third
party, what's to say there isn't a third option. I mean, there were
countries in WWII that were literally on the borders of those in the
heat of battle that were neutral. I don't hear many complaints about
them not joining in then.

i think you have a point gorby, but i also think that as a 3rd action, inactivity is not an option. by its very definition it defies the reasons.

as for the neutral countries, i wasn't alive in WW2, despite what you all may think about my advanced years. it was my understanding that those countries did not chose to be neutral, they opted for neutrality in favor of getting the s**t beat out of them. i have seen similar instances in cases like muggings. people chose to not act, in favor of not getting shot by the mugger.

may not be a fair representation, but it is accurate enough.

i do not think inaction is reason enough. sorry.

no offense intended of course.

How is cananda the most hated country is briton?

P.S. I could easily, everyone knows it's above austalia.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting $loth</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
P.S. I could easily, everyone knows it's above austalia.
</DIV></DIV>
i though London was on the bit of an island to the right of Australia?

$loth said:
P.S. I could easily, everyone knows it's above austalia.

i though London was on the bit of an island to the right of Australia?

No, that's denmark (notice the non sarcasm :razz: )

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting $loth</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

No, that's denmark (notice the non sarcasm :razz: )
</DIV></DIV>

sorry, i mean't south
my bad :heee:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>i think you have a point gorby, but i also think that as a 3rd action, inactivity is not an option. by its very definition it defies the reasons.

as for the neutral countries, i wasn't alive in WW2, despite what you all may think about my advanced years. it was my understanding that those countries did not chose to be neutral, they opted for neutrality in favor of getting the s**t beat out of them. i have seen similar instances in cases like muggings. people chose to not act, in favor of not getting shot by the mugger.

may not be a fair representation, but it is accurate enough.

i do not think inaction is reason enough. sorry.

no offense intended of course.

</DIV></DIV>

This may have been true for some countries, but I think Switzerland truly was neutral out of principal rather than fear. The Swiss used to export the most feared mercenary armies in the world, until they were banned from doing so by international treaty. I think the Vatican is the only "country" that still employs them. I don't think anyone would want to attack the Swiss if only for purely historical reasons. Plus there is that mandatory military service thing (I think) so every man in the country has military training.
In the case of Canada, they have the luxury of living to the north of the U.S. As such they don't have any imaginable national security issues. I'm sure the Mexicans would eat them for lunch if it weren't for us. :razz:

If anyone asks, just say you're Canadian. Problems solved.

It may sound crass, but people will open up to you here if you say that.

i think you have a point gorby, but i also think that as a 3rd
action, inactivity is not an option. by its very definition it defies
the reasons.
as for the neutral countries, i wasn't alive in WW2, despite what
you all may think about my advanced years. it was my understanding that
those countries did not chose to be neutral, they opted for neutrality
in favor of getting the s**t beat out of them. i have seen similar
instances in cases like muggings. people chose to not act, in favor of
not getting shot by the mugger.

may not be a fair representation, but it is accurate enough.

i do not think inaction is reason enough. sorry.

no offense intended of course.

I think you may have a different idea of what contributions Canada
truly provides. We do actually send troops and did, but as a country
our mentality is if not polar opposite to the States. In many ways
although in the world we are the most alike, we are also the most
different. We did not do absolutely nothing, but we didn't push the
agenda either. Personally I think Bush is an idiot, and his pushing of
this Missile Defence is ludicrously pathetic. We don't want to
participate in something that not only is logistically improbably but
is not cost effective in any way. We figure by not offending others you
won't get attacked. I don't fear for my life, and like most others in
Canada we don't live in an aura of fear. When I hear anything on the
news about somehow our power lines are subject to terrorist attack I
think "Of course they are, same with anything else, no s**t. But if you
don't give 'em reason to, and don't impose yourself upon them then what
reason would they have to attack?" As an outsider I find that the
reason that Americans are frowned upon is because as a country you seem
to always have a need to have at least one finger in the pie.

<div class="quote"><div class="quotetitle">? quote:</div><div class="quotetext">

sorry, i mean't south


</div></div>

In that case your talking about Tasmania Orph. It's Australia's
equivalent of your redneck back waters in the US, where inbreeding yokels abound :biggrin: .

If anyone asks, just say you're Canadian. Problems solved.

It may sound crass, but people will open up to you here if you say that.

I'm still curious as to the reasons or exactly what context you're talking in.

very typically, at least in norwich (the closest large city) the only
americans people tend to see are ones screaming biblical propaganda at
everyone and shutting down plays and all the rest of it. Its just a
stereotypical thing really, americans tend to be very big headed and
canadians always seem very neutral & thus dont really bother anyone
here. Of course these are just stereotypes.

I'm also planning a European Vacation (Hopefully bearing no resemblance
to the National Lampoon's movie :biggrin: ) when I finish uni, assuming I can
save up the doe, which is looking less and less likely in my current
job. Good thing is Australian's are pretty much loved universaly, and
I'd like to see some corrupt eastern European cops try to fleece some
one who may or may not catch, kill and skin crocodiles with nothing but
a knife :razz: .

In any case it'd be something of a battlefield tour, checking out many
of the locations from the first and second world war. I would have
liked to started with D-Day, follow WW2, then finish with the memorial
at Gallipoli, but unfortunately the dates around the wrong way. I'll
also be checking out a whole s**te load of other stuff while I'm there.

very typically, at least in norwich (the closest large city) the only
americans people tend to see are ones screaming biblical propaganda at
everyone and shutting down plays and all the rest of it. Its just a
stereotypical thing really, americans tend to be very big headed and
canadians always seem very neutral & thus dont really bother anyone
here. Of course these are just stereotypes.

Real Canadians know to reveal only as asked. :smile: Or, if mistaken for American.

I think I had just read your original post wrong. It sounded like if
you were Canadian then the locals would rip you a new one. :razz:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Tracer Bullet</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>i think you have a point gorby, but i also think that as a 3rd action, inactivity is not an option. by its very definition it defies the reasons.

as for the neutral countries, i wasn't alive in WW2, despite what you all may think about my advanced years. it was my understanding that those countries did not chose to be neutral, they opted for neutrality in favor of getting the s**t beat out of them. i have seen similar instances in cases like muggings. people chose to not act, in favor of not getting shot by the mugger.

may not be a fair representation, but it is accurate enough.

i do not think inaction is reason enough. sorry.

no offense intended of course.

</DIV></DIV>
This may have been true for some countries, but I think Switzerland truly was neutral out of principal rather than fear. The Swiss used to export the most feared mercenary armies in the world, until they were banned from doing so by international treaty. I think the Vatican is the only "country" that still employs them. I don't think anyone would want to attack the Swiss if only for purely historical reasons. Plus there is that mandatory military service thing (I think) so every man in the country has military training.

</DIV></DIV>
Switzerland doesn't get attacked for one simple reason: You don't attack where you keep your money. In a two-sided conflict, Switzerland found the third option was profit.

Not to mention the fact that it is virtually impossible for people to
invade Switzerland, since its completely surrounded by almost
impenetrable mountains. They worked out that it would be possible to
protect all of Switzerland during the war with only a couple hundred
soldiers, since the only routes in besides air were through easily
defendable mountain passes, that no large army could fit through. It's
a bit different now, but the Nazi's weren't have been able to ship in
any kind of army by air.

Oh, so that's why all they needed were those tiny swiss army knives :heee:

two things people need to consider.

1) had Hitler been successfully, he would have backtracked and taken over the supposed neutral countries at his leisure.

2) most Americans feel thats its best to act, and have the act turn out to be wrong, than to turn up dead. at least most Americans i know. no one likes what bush did, but no one i know would have had it any other way. we all keep thinking, had he been right and not acted, we could be dead now.

1) Had Hitler been successful, he wouldn't have needed to take over the neutral countries 'cause I'm sure they'd be paying enough in tribute.

2) I agree, a lot of people have the mentality that it's best to try and fail than to not try at all, myself included (except in regards to myself, because I'm incredibly lazy).

as for the neutral countries, i wasn't alive in WW2, despite
what you all may think about my advanced years. it was my understanding
that those countries did not chose to be neutral, they opted for
neutrality in favor of getting the s**t beat out of them. i have seen
similar instances in cases like muggings. people chose to not act, in
favor of not getting shot by the mugger.
may not be a fair representation, but it is accurate enough.

i do not think inaction is reason enough. sorry.

no offense intended of course.

A lot of british colonies gained their independence around the time
of WW2. I think it was at around that time that many of these countries
chose neutrality. You might want to look up the "Non-Aligned Movement"
which started up around that time.

• It was already the end of the war. The power blocs had already

formed. It wasn't neutrality out of fear, it was neutrality because
neither alternative was any good. The western bloc countries were
filled with severe consumerism, and the corporations were beginning to
control everything already. The eastern bloc countries had massive
problems with personal liberties and seemed to be destined to break
down under their own lethargy. There wasn't a clear right or wrong (to
anyone who thought of issues besides material comforts)

• Fear was not an issue. Many countries that started the NAM had

spent their years in war, they could easily hold their own despite the
nuclear threat from any superpower.

</history>

i can see this happening in some instances frag, but Europe is made up of a s**tload of fiefdoms, i just cannot see all those puny neutral countries putting up much resistance to the German might. Hitler rolled over Poland in what? 4 days or somesuch? all Poland was was a means to get from where he was to where he needed to be. it wasn't as if Poland had anything he wanted. the same would have been true for all those other tiny lands. once he succeeded un subjugating the real powers, he would have backtracked and took the rest.

anywho's i am not a military historian, nor does anyone in my family. so all i can do is guess what he might have done had things not gone south in the end.

Europe has been war torn for thousands of years, but there had been no one like Hitler in a few hundred, and no one was really prepared to deal with it. also, when there is a long time between really bad wars, people tend to forget how to react. there are damned few Americans alive today who had to deal with WW2, unlike the rest of the world whom most likely has seen a war or two in their lifetimes.

/ tangent

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>i can see this happening in some instances frag, but Europe is made up of a s**tload of fiefdoms, i just cannot see all those puny neutral countries putting up much resistance to the German might. Hitler rolled over Poland in what? 4 days or somesuch? all Poland was was a means to get from where he was to where he needed to be. it wasn't as if Poland had anything he wanted.</DIV></DIV>
Perhaps as a display of might, but Poland wasn't in the way of anything (unlike say the Netherlands and Belgium). The other side of Poland was Russia, and we all know how well that worked out for him.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Cash Car Star</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>i can see this happening in some instances frag, but Europe is made up of a s**tload of fiefdoms, i just cannot see all those puny neutral countries putting up much resistance to the German might. Hitler rolled over Poland in what? 4 days or somesuch? all Poland was was a means to get from where he was to where he needed to be. it wasn't as if Poland had anything he wanted.</DIV></DIV>
Perhaps as a display of might, but Poland wasn't in the way of anything (unlike say the Netherlands and Belgium). The other side of Poland was Russia, and we all know how well that worked out for him.

</DIV></DIV>

we know in hind sight that he couldn't take Russia. he did not. Poland was a piece of turf he needed to put him on the front lines of Russia. in other words "to get him where he wanted, from where he was."
anywho's as i said, i am not a military historian.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Tracer Bullet</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I am in the early stages of planning a European trip. I'm not sure exactly where or when yet, and everything depends on my saving enough money between now and August/September.

What I would like to know is this: How do I avoid looking like a dumb American tourist (which I am, but never mind)? This includes clothing/behavior/anything. What are the particular stereotypes and common annoyances associated with sight-seeing vermin in your home country? I personally have had nothing but good experiences with Europeans in this country, but then, they generally speak pretty good English. German is the only continental language I speak, and my grasp of it more than a bit tenuous.

</DIV></DIV>
your in you 20ies right? if you dont wanna appear as a tourist, the only think you musnt do is the combination backpack+ map in hand. for the rest act exatcly like you do at home, no-one will notice. unless if you open your mouth ofcourse.