4 ms·

The United States has "open borders" arround the states, because it is the _United_ States. For th emost part, most of the EU has "open borders" arround their m

by monksy 7y ago

The United States has "open borders" arround the states, because it is the _United_ States. For th emost part, most of the EU has "open borders" arround their member countries. (Sometime that flexes since it's not united) As far as the diversity in culture, I would not agree with that amongst states. Not in a way of comparing say Costa Rica to Panama or the UK to France.

Alex63 7y ago
Canada has free movement between provinces, including Quebec, which has a different language and a different legal system. Not arguing the larger point one way or the other, but wanted to add this data point.
darksaints 7y ago
It's not quite so clear cut. In WA, I feel far more cultural similarity to British Columbia than I do to California or Colorado. And Central Americans easily feel more cultural similarity to other Central Americans (they were even a united federal country, sans Panama, at one point), whereas Mexico might as well be Norway to them.
davvolun 7y ago
Having just finished re-watching Ken Burns' Civil War for the first time in 20 years or so, like a freshman psychology student who now understands the motivations of the entire world, there is a line in the documentary, stated I believe by Shelby Foote, that stuck with me > Before the war, it was said, "The United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. After the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious. That sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is." * I certainly, today, think of the U.S. as a whole, not as a collection of independent states, and consider the issue of states' rights to be a generally pointless debate. * Ignore the issues for a moment with the documentary itself and with Shelby Foote, who has stated Nathan Bedford Forrest is "one of the most attractive men who ever walked through the pages of history" -- seriously, I don't even know what to do with that. And I don't know if they did their footwork -- a textual analysis of, say, newspapers prior and subsequent to the Civil War saying "the United States are" compared to "the United States is." From what I've seen regarding issues with the documentary, I would question it, but I don't know for certain. Some things they seem to have done good scholarly work on; others, not as much.
- davvolun 7y ago
  re: issues with the Ken Burns documentary: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-we-need-new-civil-war-documentary-180971996/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-we-need-new-civil...

by monksy 7y ago

Alex63 7y ago

Canada has free movement between provinces, including Quebec, which has a different language and a different legal system. Not arguing the larger point one way or the other, but wanted to add this data point.

darksaints 7y ago

It's not quite so clear cut. In WA, I feel far more cultural similarity to British Columbia than I do to California or Colorado. And Central Americans easily feel more cultural similarity to other Central Americans (they were even a united federal country, sans Panama, at one point), whereas Mexico might as well be Norway to them.

davvolun 7y ago

Having just finished re-watching Ken Burns' Civil War for the first time in 20 years or so, like a freshman psychology student who now understands the motivations of the entire world, there is a line in the documentary, stated I believe by Shelby Foote, that stuck with me > Before the war, it was said, "The United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. After the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious. That sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is." * I certainly, today, think of the U.S. as a whole, not as a collection of independent states, and consider the issue of states' rights to be a generally pointless debate. * Ignore the issues for a moment with the documentary itself and with Shelby Foote, who has stated Nathan Bedford Forrest is "one of the most attractive men who ever walked through the pages of history" -- seriously, I don't even know what to do with that. And I don't know if they did their footwork -- a textual analysis of, say, newspapers prior and subsequent to the Civil War saying "the United States are" compared to "the United States is." From what I've seen regarding issues with the documentary, I would question it, but I don't know for certain. Some things they seem to have done good scholarly work on; others, not as much.

davvolun 7y ago
re: issues with the Ken Burns documentary: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-we-need-new-civil-war-documentary-180971996/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-we-need-new-civil...