I don't think this is right. What do you Brits think?
The United Kingdom = The United States, the whole country, 50 States plus DC. Or in our case, 4 countries.
The UK is four countries, the US one country.
Great Britain = The 48 contiguous states. In our case, 3 contiguous countries, England, Scotland and Wales.
The states of one country are surely different to three countries.
England = Texas, the biggest of those contiguous states/countries. Actually Texas and DC combined, because we are not only the biggest, we also have the Government and the Capital City.
That can't be. England is a country. Texas is a US state. To note, England and Texas are as different as South Africa is to Sweden.
I am with you, but will be interested to see what commentators from either the USA or the UK think.ReplyDelete
It will be EC, if they do.Delete
I think I don't know what the hell this blogpost is all about. I am totally confused. Who manages this blog anyway?Delete
Perhaps the blog needs a moderator YP.Delete
You lost me at the first few words. Sounds gobbledygookReplyDelete
I kind of agree Cathy. It seems like a load of nonsense.Delete
A complicated mess it seems.ReplyDelete
Sure is Margaret. Who can make sense of it.Delete
Oh please :( Capital punishment, guns, no universal health care, a head of state who can overrule Parliament etc.. etc..ReplyDelete
Hels, the list would be long.Delete
The UK is almost exactly the size of Oregon. The UK and Oregon are both about 98,000 square miles. But, while the UK has close to 67 million people Oregon has a population of a little over 4 million.ReplyDelete
Strayer, then perhaps your complaints about Oregon being overpopulated are off the mark?Delete
We're all concentrated up and down the valley, along the interestate, with almost nobody anywhere else. High desert in eastern Oregon make it sparsely populated. The coast has a relatively low population, then there's coast range mountains, through which there is barely cell coverage. The valley is the place that is fertile with usually plentiful water for agriculture and flat enough land for building. Then going east come the cascade mountains, with very difficult terrain not really suited much for building and development. Central and eastern Oregon, all high desert, have their water issues, sparsely populated, much of the land federally owned, vast cattle ranches, etc. The towns in the valley are densely populated and getting denser, but no, we're not crowded on top of each other like many states and countries.Delete
I've certainly learned something new. Ohio is way different from Oregon. ~nods~ Other than being far from the ocean, Ohio's not bad, especially in our suburban community. I'd like to visit Strayer, though, as I've never seen that part of the United States and she's awesome (not too mention the coastline). :D Best wishes, Andrew.Delete
Darla, yes Strayer's comment was informative indeed. I think the coastal area must be wonderful.Delete
I would be interested to know where that came from!ReplyDelete
JayCee, I suggest not a very authoritative source.Delete
It's taken me a while to figure out what's being compared, but I guess we're talking about political makeup (as opposed to size or population). I don't think the UK can be likened to the USA, because as you said, the UK is made up of distinct countries which have devolved governments and can make their own national laws (and even speak different languages). States and countries are not the same.ReplyDelete
And as you said, England and Texas are not at all similar, in size, population, GDP, climate or culture -- or anything else! While Texas is the largest US state (in the lower 48) it doesn't dominate the USA economically, but England definitely has the dominant economy in the UK.
Steve, thanks for trying to interpret what increasingly seems to be nonsense.Delete
Under the old Articles of Confederation, which were in effect--I just now looked this up--from 1781 to 1789, the states were considered to be sovereign nations that were members of but still independent from this larger organization called the United States, in much the same way present-day Australia is a member of the British Commonwealth. That changed when the Articles were scrapped and replaced by the Constitution, which, though much amended, remains in force today. After 1789, states were more like provinces, though they're still nominally considered "sovereign". One huge difference is under the old Articles, the Continental Congress did not have the power to tax the states and could only ask for funds, and since the states tended to be stingy, the national government was often on the verge of bankruptcy. Under the Constitution, Congress can and does tax the states, thus increasing the power of the federal government. The North's victory in the Civil War further strengthened the federal government. For instance, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted soon after the war ended, extended federally guaranteed rights to the states. In other words, whereas originally the federal government couldn't, say, censor a newspaper but a state government could, now neither government was allowed to do so.ReplyDelete
I imagine Texas is indeed probably very different from England. Still, it's interesting to note the states that comprised the old Confederacy, including Texas, are ethnically the most Anglo-Saxon part of the country. It's been speculated (by no less than "reformed southerner" Mark Twain) that the reason for so much racial conflict before and even a long time after the Civil War, is the South patterned itself after medieval England, with blacks its "serfs".
Interesting and complex Kirk. Most outside of the US wouldn't know any of this. That open discrimination against blacks in the south so late into the 20C has always been quite shocking.Delete
The UK is nothing like the US.ReplyDelete
What? Who wrote that? It doesn't make sense to me.ReplyDelete