4 ms·

US states and EU countries are generally similar in size. If you ask an Italian where they are from it would be a bit odd if they said “Europe” wouldn’t it? I

US states and EU countries are generally similar in size. If you ask an Italian where they are from it would be a bit odd if they said “Europe” wouldn’t it? I think it also speaks to the degree of autonomy and identity among the states. The US originally thought of itself more like the EU is now, a collection of sovereign nations that agreed to a very strong alliance (first confederation, then federation). The difference is when the US’ “brexit” moment happened the northern states decided the southern states didn’t have the right to leave and enforced their opinion at the cost of 1 million lives (out of a population of about 32M at the time). So that settled that and now the US is one country, not a collection of countries. But the original idea still plays a large role in how people think about things.

austinjp 5y ago
If you asked someone where they were from and without context they said "Molise", that would be a bit odd, no?
- lolinder 5y ago
  Molise has a population of 300k. The smallest state in the US is Wyoming at almost twice the size (580k). That also doesn't address the parent's observation that US states view themselves as having very distinct identities. A better example from Italy might be Naples, which has a population big enough to be a US state and which does have a very distinct identity. And I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear someone introduce themselves as from Naples.
  - Handytinge 5y ago
    > That also doesn't address the parent's observation that US states view themselves as having very distinct identities. Most countries I've been to do this. However just as you wouldn't be able to pick the (to me) obvious differences between someone from Perth and Victoria, I wouldn't be able to pick the nuanced difference between someone from Wyoming and New York. They all sound American to me.
  - Morgawr 5y ago
    Naples is not a region though, it doesn't make any sense to compare that in this conversation. Maybe Campania would work though.
    - lolinder 5y ago
      The point isn't to compare regions to regions, is to compare geographical designators by how likely someone outside your country is to recognize the name. Population size and distinctive identity are two factors that matter in that regard. In some conversations the most recognizable name will be the city. In others it will be the region. You pick the one that is most likely to be recognized.
      - austinjp 5y ago
        > Population size and distinctive identity are two factors that matter in that regard. Identity, yes. Population size, no. Vatican City? Monaco? Ireland? > In some conversations the most recognizable name will be the city. In others it will be the region. You pick the one that is most likely to be recognized. Exactly. Since this thread has been about international identities, it would be useful to consider how a nation is perceived by those from outside that nation. The name of the country is way more accessible than regional specifics.
  - austinjp 5y ago
    Since when does the population size of a nation (especially in comparison to a region in another country) have anything to do with its status as a nation? Should Andorra be on this list, or just merged into France, perhaps?
    - lolinder 5y ago
      It's not status as a nation, it's recognizability as a distinct place. When someone asks where you're from, you're likely to reach for the most specific unit that you think that they will recognize. In some conversations that will be the nation. In other conversations that will be the region. In other conversations that will be the city or even the neighborhood. One major factor that affect how recognizable a placename is is population size.
      - austinjp 5y ago
        > When someone asks where you're from, you're likely to reach for the most specific unit that you think that they will recognize. Agreed. Considering this thread was international in scope, I've been disappointed by the apparent lack of awareness some people have of the way the rest of the world sees their nation.
amilios 5y ago
The US is still far more culturally homogenous than the EU, so this comparison falls kind of flat. Even if the US began as you say, with large cultural differences, it isn't really the case anymore. You could make the argument that there is a cultural divide between cities and the countryside for sure (in the sense that someone from Austin and someone from Boston are more similar than someone from Austin and someone from the Texas countryside), but this divide exists within individual EU countries as well, and is not limited to the US.
- albrewer 5y ago
  > The US is still far more culturally homogenous than the EU U.S. cities, maybe. But get gather natives from the rural parts of any state and you'll find a ton of cultural variation. Saying rural Louisiana and rural Oregon are culturally homogeneous is just wrong. Sure, we all speak one language, but so do France and half of eastern Canada.
- xeromal 5y ago
  You can be culturally homogenous and still have different identities. Put a Georgian (US) and California in the same room and they will not have much in common.
  - selestify 5y ago
    > Put a Georgian (US) and California in the same room and they will not have much in common. What? If they're both from major cities in the two states, they have way, way more in common than a Belgian and a Slovenian in the same room.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Same language, same culture ( books/TV shows/movies/music, cuisine ), a lot of shared history. A Serbian and a Portuguese are much farther apart ( language, cuisine, history ( even if there are some small parallels like both being occupied by a foreign neighbouring power, independence being won by blood, and an oppressive regime in recent history, Ottoman occupied Serbia , world wars, Yugoslavia couldn't be farther from seafaring trade and colonialism Portugal).
foxrob92 5y ago
Dunno if your geographic size argument holds much water. Australia is about the same size as the continental US, but we always get lumped in as one entity. Canada appears to get the same treatment.
- burlesona 5y ago
  Population is a factor. Canada has slightly less population than California. Australia has less than Texas. As I understand it the US states also have more legal autonomy and thus a lot wider divergence in local laws and policies compared to the internal divisions of most other countries (but I’m not an expert on that). But my point was mostly psychology… whether they ought to or not, most Americans think of the state they live in as an important distinction, while my experience is that in most other countries that isn’t seen as very important.
legutierr 5y ago
> The difference is when the US’ “brexit” moment happened the northern states decided the southern states didn’t have the right to leave and enforced their opinion at the cost of 1 million lives. It was over a century and a half ago, but we still owe the union soldiers who died in the US Civil War a debt of gratitude for their sacrifice in ending the scourge of slavery in the United States. Their lives paid for the freedom of millions of men and women. Their sacrifice saved us all from the debasement of living in a society in which one person can be owned by another person. You do disservice to their memory when you characterize their primary motivation as being to "enforce the opinion" of the northern states with regards to the southern states' right to secede. Not all of them were motivated primarily by the abolitionist cause, obviously—many fought because they were conscripted into the army—but those union soldiers knew that they were fighting to end slavery, and they knew what they were risking to fight for that cause. As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy6AOGRsR80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy6AOGRsR80 It's also worth pointing out that the Civil War started after the South Carolina Militia, cheered on by the civilian population of Charleston, bombarded Fort Sumter with artillery until the US Army forces that had peaceably occupied the fort surrendered. Who was it that enforced their opinion on whom?
- sofixa 5y ago
  > peaceably occupied Isn't that an oxymoron?
- burlesona 5y ago
  I largely agree with your comment, and did not mean to in any way to disrespect the value of the Union victory and resulting end of slavery. Re-reading my comment I wish I had said the North choose to enforce their _decison_ rather than _opinion_. FWIW I think the history is actually complex and interesting. The southern succession was clearly driven by slavery, but the historical record shows that the war was not initially pursued by the north on abolitionist grounds. If you read Lincoln’s inaugural address[1], which came after the first states succeeded, he promised not to end slavery. Rather he argued he had a legal duty to keep the states together. Regarding Fort Sumter, what’s actually unusual there is that 35 soldiers who were likely all locals decided they didn’t want to be part of succession and tried to hold out rather than do what virtually all other US forces in the south did and change allegiance. The much larger confederate force did besiege and bombard them, but no one died in combat, and they eventually surrendered[2]. The first combat fatality occurred when a mob in Baltimore ambushed US troops marching through [3]. Recall that Maryland did not succeed so the first “Union death” was caused by “Union civilians” who didn’t want the army to continue further south. Also recall that the Emancipation Proclamation[4] did not end slavery in the Union states that still had it (Maryland, Missouri, and the newly formed West Virginia), so it wasn’t until the thirteenth amendment passed after the war that slavery truly and fully ended. Most historians I’ve read argue that abolition rose in importance over the course of the war, specifically as a way to reframe the war as a moral imperative and maintain support for it (which flagged early on). So by the end, the characterization as a war to end slavery is true, but it’s difficult to argue that was true from the outset. At the start the war was very controversial, and Lincoln’s stated objectives were merely to hold the Union together, which he saw as his legal duty. 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_first_inaugural_address https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_first_inau... 2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter 3: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861 4: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_first_inaugural_address https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_first_inau...
anikan_vader 5y ago
> The difference is when the US’ “brexit” moment happened the northern states decided the southern states didn’t have the right to leave and enforced their opinion at the cost of 1 million lives (out of a population of about 32M at the time). An interesting analogy, but it downplays two key differences. Firstly, the confederate states opened fire on union troops, whereas Britain did not start a shooting war when it left the EU. Secondly, there is no provision in the constitution of the United States for a state to leave the union, unlike in the EU. As a final point, I would note that the United States of America by that point had a history of using military force to expand (in line with Thomas Jefferson's "empire of liberty" doctrine), including two attempted invasions of Canada, the Mexican-American War, as well as successful wars (and massacres) against the Native peoples. So if you do take the position that the confederacy had the right to secede from the United States, it is hardly a surprise that the USA then took the opportunity to use military force to annex a smaller neighboring nation with a weaker military, limited infrastructure, and insufficient foreign support to defend itself.

austinjp 5y ago

If you asked someone where they were from and without context they said "Molise", that would be a bit odd, no?

lolinder 5y ago
Molise has a population of 300k. The smallest state in the US is Wyoming at almost twice the size (580k). That also doesn't address the parent's observation that US states view themselves as having very distinct identities. A better example from Italy might be Naples, which has a population big enough to be a US state and which does have a very distinct identity. And I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear someone introduce themselves as from Naples.
- Handytinge 5y ago
  > That also doesn't address the parent's observation that US states view themselves as having very distinct identities. Most countries I've been to do this. However just as you wouldn't be able to pick the (to me) obvious differences between someone from Perth and Victoria, I wouldn't be able to pick the nuanced difference between someone from Wyoming and New York. They all sound American to me.
- Morgawr 5y ago
  Naples is not a region though, it doesn't make any sense to compare that in this conversation. Maybe Campania would work though.
  - lolinder 5y ago
    The point isn't to compare regions to regions, is to compare geographical designators by how likely someone outside your country is to recognize the name. Population size and distinctive identity are two factors that matter in that regard. In some conversations the most recognizable name will be the city. In others it will be the region. You pick the one that is most likely to be recognized.
    - austinjp 5y ago
      > Population size and distinctive identity are two factors that matter in that regard. Identity, yes. Population size, no. Vatican City? Monaco? Ireland? > In some conversations the most recognizable name will be the city. In others it will be the region. You pick the one that is most likely to be recognized. Exactly. Since this thread has been about international identities, it would be useful to consider how a nation is perceived by those from outside that nation. The name of the country is way more accessible than regional specifics.
- austinjp 5y ago
  Since when does the population size of a nation (especially in comparison to a region in another country) have anything to do with its status as a nation? Should Andorra be on this list, or just merged into France, perhaps?
  - lolinder 5y ago
    It's not status as a nation, it's recognizability as a distinct place. When someone asks where you're from, you're likely to reach for the most specific unit that you think that they will recognize. In some conversations that will be the nation. In other conversations that will be the region. In other conversations that will be the city or even the neighborhood. One major factor that affect how recognizable a placename is is population size.
    - austinjp 5y ago
      > When someone asks where you're from, you're likely to reach for the most specific unit that you think that they will recognize. Agreed. Considering this thread was international in scope, I've been disappointed by the apparent lack of awareness some people have of the way the rest of the world sees their nation.

amilios 5y ago

The US is still far more culturally homogenous than the EU, so this comparison falls kind of flat. Even if the US began as you say, with large cultural differences, it isn't really the case anymore. You could make the argument that there is a cultural divide between cities and the countryside for sure (in the sense that someone from Austin and someone from Boston are more similar than someone from Austin and someone from the Texas countryside), but this divide exists within individual EU countries as well, and is not limited to the US.

albrewer 5y ago
> The US is still far more culturally homogenous than the EU U.S. cities, maybe. But get gather natives from the rural parts of any state and you'll find a ton of cultural variation. Saying rural Louisiana and rural Oregon are culturally homogeneous is just wrong. Sure, we all speak one language, but so do France and half of eastern Canada.
xeromal 5y ago
You can be culturally homogenous and still have different identities. Put a Georgian (US) and California in the same room and they will not have much in common.
- selestify 5y ago
  > Put a Georgian (US) and California in the same room and they will not have much in common. What? If they're both from major cities in the two states, they have way, way more in common than a Belgian and a Slovenian in the same room.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Same language, same culture ( books/TV shows/movies/music, cuisine ), a lot of shared history. A Serbian and a Portuguese are much farther apart ( language, cuisine, history ( even if there are some small parallels like both being occupied by a foreign neighbouring power, independence being won by blood, and an oppressive regime in recent history, Ottoman occupied Serbia , world wars, Yugoslavia couldn't be farther from seafaring trade and colonialism Portugal).

foxrob92 5y ago

Dunno if your geographic size argument holds much water. Australia is about the same size as the continental US, but we always get lumped in as one entity. Canada appears to get the same treatment.

burlesona 5y ago
Population is a factor. Canada has slightly less population than California. Australia has less than Texas. As I understand it the US states also have more legal autonomy and thus a lot wider divergence in local laws and policies compared to the internal divisions of most other countries (but I’m not an expert on that). But my point was mostly psychology… whether they ought to or not, most Americans think of the state they live in as an important distinction, while my experience is that in most other countries that isn’t seen as very important.

legutierr 5y ago

> The difference is when the US’ “brexit” moment happened the northern states decided the southern states didn’t have the right to leave and enforced their opinion at the cost of 1 million lives. It was over a century and a half ago, but we still owe the union soldiers who died in the US Civil War a debt of gratitude for their sacrifice in ending the scourge of slavery in the United States. Their lives paid for the freedom of millions of men and women. Their sacrifice saved us all from the debasement of living in a society in which one person can be owned by another person. You do disservice to their memory when you characterize their primary motivation as being to "enforce the opinion" of the northern states with regards to the southern states' right to secede. Not all of them were motivated primarily by the abolitionist cause, obviously—many fought because they were conscripted into the army—but those union soldiers knew that they were fighting to end slavery, and they knew what they were risking to fight for that cause. As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy6AOGRsR80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy6AOGRsR80 It's also worth pointing out that the Civil War started after the South Carolina Militia, cheered on by the civilian population of Charleston, bombarded Fort Sumter with artillery until the US Army forces that had peaceably occupied the fort surrendered. Who was it that enforced their opinion on whom?

sofixa 5y ago
> peaceably occupied Isn't that an oxymoron?
burlesona 5y ago
I largely agree with your comment, and did not mean to in any way to disrespect the value of the Union victory and resulting end of slavery. Re-reading my comment I wish I had said the North choose to enforce their _decison_ rather than _opinion_. FWIW I think the history is actually complex and interesting. The southern succession was clearly driven by slavery, but the historical record shows that the war was not initially pursued by the north on abolitionist grounds. If you read Lincoln’s inaugural address[1], which came after the first states succeeded, he promised not to end slavery. Rather he argued he had a legal duty to keep the states together. Regarding Fort Sumter, what’s actually unusual there is that 35 soldiers who were likely all locals decided they didn’t want to be part of succession and tried to hold out rather than do what virtually all other US forces in the south did and change allegiance. The much larger confederate force did besiege and bombard them, but no one died in combat, and they eventually surrendered[2]. The first combat fatality occurred when a mob in Baltimore ambushed US troops marching through [3]. Recall that Maryland did not succeed so the first “Union death” was caused by “Union civilians” who didn’t want the army to continue further south. Also recall that the Emancipation Proclamation[4] did not end slavery in the Union states that still had it (Maryland, Missouri, and the newly formed West Virginia), so it wasn’t until the thirteenth amendment passed after the war that slavery truly and fully ended. Most historians I’ve read argue that abolition rose in importance over the course of the war, specifically as a way to reframe the war as a moral imperative and maintain support for it (which flagged early on). So by the end, the characterization as a war to end slavery is true, but it’s difficult to argue that was true from the outset. At the start the war was very controversial, and Lincoln’s stated objectives were merely to hold the Union together, which he saw as his legal duty. 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_first_inaugural_address https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_first_inau... 2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter 3: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861 4: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_first_inaugural_address https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_first_inau...

anikan_vader 5y ago

> The difference is when the US’ “brexit” moment happened the northern states decided the southern states didn’t have the right to leave and enforced their opinion at the cost of 1 million lives (out of a population of about 32M at the time). An interesting analogy, but it downplays two key differences. Firstly, the confederate states opened fire on union troops, whereas Britain did not start a shooting war when it left the EU. Secondly, there is no provision in the constitution of the United States for a state to leave the union, unlike in the EU. As a final point, I would note that the United States of America by that point had a history of using military force to expand (in line with Thomas Jefferson's "empire of liberty" doctrine), including two attempted invasions of Canada, the Mexican-American War, as well as successful wars (and massacres) against the Native peoples. So if you do take the position that the confederacy had the right to secede from the United States, it is hardly a surprise that the USA then took the opportunity to use military force to annex a smaller neighboring nation with a weaker military, limited infrastructure, and insufficient foreign support to defend itself.