VintageJane t1_j8oxrxv wrote

My example wasn’t for India. I went for Arabic as a language in my example that has nothing more than some words in common with English (the “technical” language being spoken in Louisiana Creole) as opposed to being a root language (German or Latin) or language with shared root (French or Italian).

The point being that in India, the government official may speak two of the common languages of the country (one natively and the other regional language functionally) and if the person they are attempting to communicate with is speaking a weird bastardized version of the latter language (sorry Louisianans) which has very little in common with the language you speak fluently then it can be very difficult to decipher.


VintageJane t1_j8mwqjp wrote

From my understanding it’s less that and more that when does a dialect become so distinct that it’s it’s own language? In English we have some dialects that are so distinct that if you don’t speak English, you would never be able to tell the root language. Think that really deep English/French/Southern Louisiana creole accent. Now imagine you are a government official who speaks Arabic and a little bit of English and goes to a village with that dialect. Can you communicate?


VintageJane t1_j1e1bga wrote

How are you defining processed? You can make very authentic pizza with nothing but yeasted/sourdough fermented whole wheat flatbread, sliced tomatoes, ricotta, olive oil and basil. What in there is too processed for you?


VintageJane t1_j1doy00 wrote

I mean, pizza very much is Mediterranean. It’s wood fire baked flatbread covered in herbs, acidic fruit and preserved dairy.

Next thing you are going to tell me that pita and tzatziki aren’t Med food.


VintageJane t1_iy5m467 wrote

I probably would not have gotten that either just a few years ago but my husband is 2nd generation Scottish American and grew up watching a lot of BBC programming and we’ve been watching it together in the 6 years we’ve been together so I’ve learned a bit more of the cultural nuances than I would have known otherwise


VintageJane t1_iu7nogh wrote

It’s not just that. The footage you got in the 2000s was from the major media corporations filtered through major news outlets. So much of what we see now are from local amateur journalists, civilians and local businesses. We no longer see just the high-value 5 second shot of an explosion from the street chosen for it’s excitement value to keep viewers watching that channel. We now see intimate security footage inside a normal looking cafe that is relatable and goes viral for that reason.

Oh and there’s a ton more high-def cameras so the amount of footage is radically higher.

And surely dress and race and architecture all play a part in that distance but don’t downplay how different this footage is despite being of a “bombing”