Big countries vs. small countries

[Bullgrit]

I just saw a news headline that says, "U.S. Braces for Hurricane". My first thought was, "Really? The whole U.S.?" (The hurricane in question might hit Texas. My state probably won't see a drop of rain from it.)

The U.S. is so big, it's a rare thing (natural disaster or man-made tragedy) that affects *all* of it. Earthquakes, hurricanes, plane crashes, mine collapses, etc. only affect a small percentage of the country. (Though the media will play it up as a national concern.)

I mean, even the Gulf oil thing is only a direct problem for 2 or 4 states (out of 50!).

I'm not trying to make light of any issues, I'm just framing perspective.

This got me thinking about how such things affect smaller nations. For instance, there are some countries for whom a bad weather incident is, indeed, a national event. A plane crash at an airport might disrupt all air travel in that country.

I wonder if we correctly perceive/understand events in other countries that are of drastically different sizes. I mean, when say, Italians hear of a hurricane hitting Brazil, do they think *all* of Brazil is affected? When Chinese hear of an earthquake in Netherlands, do they not realize that *all* of Netherlands is shaken up?

Do you live in a particularly big or small country? Do you think you understand the relative effect that "national" problems cause a country on the opposite size scale from yours?

Bullgrit

 

[nerfherder]

I live in the UK, but after driving from NYC to Tampa FL in 22 hours, I think I now have a good grasp of the scale of a country the size of the US!

 

[Umbran]

There is a saying that a major difference between Americans and Europeans is that Europeans think 200 miles is a long distance, while Americans think 200 years is a long time.

 

[Dioltach]

I just want to point out that even our most severe earthquake in the Netherlands (March 1992, I believe) really only affected an area with a radius of about 75 km. I was about 65 km from the epicentre, and the worst damage was some fallen rooftiles.

That said, I've travelled round the American Southwest and Australia, and the distances are hard to conceive for to someone living in a small country. The idea that you can drive for days and days and still have only crossed a tiny part of the country is very strange. In Europe, if you drive for even a day you're in a completely different country with a completely different culture.

 

[Bullgrit]

I just want to point out that even our most severe earthquake in the Netherlands (March 1992, I believe) really only affected an area with a radius of about 75 km. I was about 65 km from the epicentre, and the worst damage was some fallen rooftiles.

I don't know what kind of natural disasters Netherlands experiences. I just took a guess.

At least I didn't call it "Holland".

Bullgrit

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Logically, I think I can grasp what a "national" problem means in a much smaller country. Emotionally, probably not.

Additionally, understanding of a disaster goes beyond just scale; I have to consider everything else I know about the country in general. For example, Haiti and Belgium are both small countries with similar areas and populations. But I know that a given event (say an earthquake) is almost certainly a nation-wrecking disaster in Haiti but not necessarily in Belgium, just by virtue of the fact that Belgium is so much better developed.

On top of that, my understanding is only as good as the information I have. Whatever media I follow is bound to color my perceptions, despite the fact I have a fairly broad base of experiences and am reasonably good about digging for "real" info.

 

[El Mahdi]

I don't know what kind of natural disasters Netherlands experiences. ...

...leaking dikes?

 

[Bullgrit]

...leaking dikes?

I literally LOLed! I must spread some xp...

Bullgrit

 

[Viking Bastard]

Additionally, understanding of a disaster goes beyond just scale; I have to consider everything else I know about the country in general.

This is key, I think. Every decade or so we get an earthquake here that might level a 3rd world city, but we just shrug it off with minimal damage, some split roads, a bridge or two collapses and a few houses at the center of the quake get condemned. We build our houses with this in mind; we have strict building regulations and emergency plans that are meant to ensure minimal damage, and usually do.

The recent eruption in Eyjafjallajökull inconvenienced the rest of the world more than it did the majority of Icelanders*. We have the infrastructure to deal with it swiftly.** I imagine the Netherlands (because it has already been mentioned) have such infrastructure to deal with, say, flooding, or whatever their main natural foe is.

A 3rd world country probably wouldn't have such infrastructure. Even though the problem might have plagued them for centuries. Iceland got decimated by a quake in the late 1800s which would merely inconvenience us today.


* The exception being the farming communities south of the eruption, who saw the deaths of crops and animals.
** But give us something we don't have any experience of—hurricane, a financial meltdown—and we're frelled!

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Some of this goes on within the US as well. I knew someone who lived in Utah. She and her mother did a vacation to the Northeast. They spent a couple of days in Vermont and then were going to drive to Maine. They looked at a map and saw that they had to drive across the entire state of New Hampshire to get there! The left at the crack of dawn the next morning, and were in shock when they crossed the Maine border in just a couple of hours.

For them, driving 6-8 hours to go someplace is fairly routine. For me and many others here in the Northeast, the complaining about how far away something is starts if it is more than two hours.