Does he actually have to spell out for you that he is one person who screams the blindingly obvious that he can only generalize on the basis of his experience? So when he says 'All of it. The entire country' that is an expression of his impression - the 'all' he saw. If you can't get that maybe you should leave off reading accounts where meticulous ( and unnecessary fo most of us ) qualification is absent.
back
1 comments
All he has to do is give a rough impression of his sample (so we can guess how representative his impression is of the whole!), and say that every part of India he saw was overflowing with trash, or whatever.
Instead he went out of his way to emphasize that he was speaking about the entire country. All of it.
I'm not Indian, and I still found it offensive enough that I didn't even get through the entire article. I got the impression straight off that he simply went to Agra -- Agra of all places! One of the top tourist destinations in the world, and of course thus one of the top spots for people who feed on tourists -- and his travel on the route to Agra plus time in a hostel in New Delhi was the bulk of his experience.
Blargh. I've spent all of a few months total of my life traveling in India at different times, including Agra, and though I'd never want to return to Agra in particular, already my overall impression didn't match up well with his.
I'll leave people with more experience to battle over the details, but this was more than just someone omitting "I think" in front of everything they write.
Edit: the other dead giveaway that he didn't get around much is that he talked about "the Indian culture", and Indian people, as if India were small and homogenous enough that you could make useful summaries about the single Indian culture. Again, there are lots of people here who can address this better than I, but the traits he talks about vary greatly and noticeably by general region.