It is absolutely wrong, ignorant and probably fascist to include Belgium and the Netherlands in the same geographic subdivision. The line between Northern and Southern Europe is somewhere between Rotterdam and Antwerp. Belgium is on the northern outskirts of the Mediterranean region.
I understand it was an attempt at humor, but there is no line that divides Northern and Southern Europe. Western Europe is in between both (like Central America is in between North and South America).
Also, ‘the Mediterranean’ is not the same as Southern Europe. For instance, France, Monaco, and Corsica are not part of Southern Europe, even though they are in the Mediterranean. Portugal is in Southern Europe, but it isn’t in the Mediterranean.
This post-Cold War classification is somewhat oversimplified.. The category of Central Europe (or Middle Europe) is more helpful in understanding the divisions. Vide "The stolen West..." by Kundera, for example
I can absolutely guarantee that this is not the case in France. Try comparing Île-de-France and similarly sized Limousin for example.
I spend a lot of time both in the EU and the US, and find the US remarkably culturally homogeneous compared to Europe. In a country the size of a continent, from coast to coast, you find the same dominant language, traditions, politics, religion, holidays, sports, restaurant chains and stores.
What is the case I imagine, is that one is trained from birth to differentiate the tiny differences within one's own culture and values those so highly, that they look like remarkable diversity, while one doesn't recognize the differences between strangers, and automatically doesn't value them very highly. Can you tell a significant difference between a Slovene and a Hungarian, for example?
This is how 'latin americans' seem like one uniform group, or even 'sub saharan africans' or 'asians', while objectively Amhara from Ethiopia, Hausa from Nigeria and San from South Africa differ far more from each other than say Americans, Italians and Danes differ from each other.
Every country has more and less developed regions, even super rich mini and micro states like Monaco, Lichtenstein and Luxembourg. And inside these regions, every town has more and less developed areas, and inside these towns, every street does, and on these streets, there are more and less developed homes. Inside these homes, there are more and less developed rooms.
You can keep zooming in, to the most highly developed desk in the most highly developed building in the most highly developed street, in the most highly developed town, etc, and then be content with the absolutely stellar performance if it wasn't for the periphery dragging us down.
"America's school kids have historically scored low on international assessment tests compared to other countries, which is often blamed on the diversity of the population and the high number of immigrants."
America's diversity is a creation myth. Outside of New York, it isn't very diverse at all, and compared to Western Europe it doesn't have a very high number of immigrants.
Or does the American definition of 'diversity' only refer to the number of black people? In that case, blaming their numbers for lower test scores is kind of ... racist, isn't it?
> compared to Western Europe it doesn't have a very high number of immigrants.
This is true. America has an immigrant population of about the same size as Germany or Sweden (at about 12-13% of the population).
> Or does the American definition of 'diversity' only refer to the number of black people? In that case, blaming their numbers for lower test scores is kind of ... racist, isn't it?
I believe that is the main demographic difference between western Europe and America. We do not have a large population of former salves who historically have suffered heavy discrimination. Pointing out the results of historical (and current) racism is not racist.
It is racist if the meaning is "we'd be scoring fine if it wasn't for them dragging us down with their genetic inferiority about which nothing can be done" rather than taken as a reason for improving schooling for the poor and otherwise disadvantaged.
and compared to Western Europe it doesn't have a very high number of immigrants.
I suppose if you mean "people who've immigrated within the past two generations". Because, um, historically the US is where Western Europeans immigrated to.
"What drove the two groups apart was a killing. Some of the Norse men killed a skraeling who was attempting to steal weapons, which Thorfinn had forbidden as trade items."
The Skraelings, being mammals, and observers of other mammals such animals they hunted, would have been familiar with milk, even without owning livestock.
If they bought raw milk, they probably intended to use it for their children, but it seems a rather difficult trade item, as a liquid, and having a shelf life of only a day or two.
They probably were trading butter or cheese, neither of which contains enough lactose to cause problems. Fresh cheese would have been known from the stomachs of suckling animals, and might have been a prized delicacy before they were aware it could be manufactured. Butter would have been completely new to them.
What it changes is that it requires (non-US) banks to keep track of which of their accounts are owned or co-owned by someone who may have a (dual) US citizenship, and may have made an error in their tax returns, or risk having some of their US assets seized. Some banks just prefer not to take the risk.
The non resident citizen tax returns can become very complicated in the situation where the non resident US citizen is married to a non resident foreigner. The tax forms don't even support this configuration - the spouse must have a social security number. The foreign spouse must then apply for a special "non resident alien" social security number, for the special purpose of being able to file taxes in a country they are not even allowed to enter without a visa.
And how exactly do you determine the value of your shared assets in dollars? Have you made capital gain every time the dollar fluctuates against the local currency? Since we bought our home, our property has dropped significantly in value in the currency we earn our wages in, but theoretically gained a bit in dollars, so how can we be sure this doesn't add up to exceed $50,000? The only way to be sure is to hire an expert figure it out for you, for several thousand $. They are now charging more for their services because of the higher risks and responsibilities involved.
The net amount we have to pay in that country one of us isn't allowed to enter without a visa has always added up to $0 because the extremely high taxes we already pay locally (50+ percent income tax, 20+ percent sales tax, 80+ percent excise tax on fuel etc) can be deducted.
The funny thing about the Netherlands, (or at least 90% of it) is that there is no natural stone to build with. No rocks, no pebbles, no stones, nothing. Just sand, clay and peat. In most places, the bedrock is hundreds of feet below the surface. Constructions were made of wood and mud, because everything else had to be imported.
That is very easy to answer: Other than churches and castles, pretty much all buildings up to the 17th century were made of wood, and did not survive. Only a few buildings predate 1800.
