America = Whole of Europe?

Remove all ads!

I would just like to question Blackhawk's statement in a certain topic

i do no agree with this, America is a country, albeit a large one, but to say it is equivalent to Europe is just wrong IMO.

America is like any other country, it is divided into states/counties and has a central goverment body. Just like Scotland, although you may see it as part of U.K us scotish people see it as its own country, Scotland for example is divided into counties, which have there own part of the goverment, like Aberdeenshire, Lothian, Angus or Perthshire, these can be comprared to States like California, Texas, Alaska or Florida, each of these has there own part of the goverment, there may be a size diffrence when comparing a state like California to a county like Angus, but if you take the size of Scotland to the size of USA, then there sizes are in proportion. While if you take the whole of Europe and compare it to USA, then you have many countries compared to one, each of these countries has there own counties, so each can be compared to USA indivdualy. Anyone else agree/disagree with Blackhawks Statement?

I also do not like him refering to European countrys as "State", we are not states, we are recognised countries, calling us a state of Europe, is like calling USA a state of North America.

 

I completely disagree with his statement. California is simply not a country. Europe is a continent. The only comparison that works is North America vs. Europe.

 

European countries are sovereign states, separate subjects of international law and, most importantly, separate sovereign nations. States within the US are only called sovereign. A practical lesson lasted four years and was given in 1861-65. That was the last lesson ever needed.

There is no backing whatsoever for treating California as equal to Europe. California is counterpart of, let's say, Estramadurras is Spain, Languedoc in France or Bavaria in Germany.

In this regard knowledge of reality should prevail over gut feelings, I guess. I don't know if they teach this in US schools, but European countries have developed from various different and independent tribes, nations and states over more than two millennia. That is not exactly the same as a thirteen colonies, of one and same former empire, that decided to join up two centuries ago, each preserving a degree of independence from federal authorities and actually all forming one nation and one federal state.

While I could possibly excuse a comparison between the US and the European Union, a comparison between the US and Europe is a sign of arrogance. I sincerely hope that it is realised that the United States is not America, which means it is not a continent which Europe is.

Therefore valid counterparts are:

North America - Europe
United States - UK, France, Spain, Italy...
states in the US - autonomous provinces of European countries

Hope this helps.

 

Thats exactly what i was saying Chev, except i used a smaller example than you to get my point across.

 

I agree completely with Dalveen and Chevalier (for once - it doesn't happen very often).

I consider it to be the height of arrogance for anybody to consider one sovereign nation to be the equivalent of a whole group of nations simply because they are bigger. Are we now saying that the USA should have 50 seats in the United Nations instead of just one? I find that idea to be, quite frankly, laughable.

 

When we're talking about sheer equality and respect, then yes, every nation should be seen equally - maybe. Actually, no. Nations with higher populations are more important. Anyone trying to say that Sweden is as important as China obviously needs to think a little bit harder, since that would make one Swede equivalent to thousands upon thousands of Chinese. This doesn't mean that China can or should bully Sweden, but in the grand scheme of things, China is simply a bigger deal.

Like it or not (I don't and I'm American) the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world. The EU is comparable to the U.S. in terms of size and economic power; Italy is not. To say that one European country equals the whole of the U.S. is just silly in practical terms. They don't have the population, economy, or military power to support that claim. Comparing Italy to California doesn't work on a cultural level, but it does work on an economic level. In reality, I believe California's economy is larger than Italy's. And on a cultural power level, there's Hollywood... so maybe California isn't the best example here.

The fact that Europeans may be insulted by comparing their country to a state doesn't make such a claim any less true. However, states are such completely different entities from countries that any comparison falls rather flat. But comparing Illinois, or any other large American state, to a province or state in a European country, also doesn't really work. American states have more sovereign powers than their European counterparts, and states like Illinois have as much or more economic clout than many countries in Europe.

 

Um, we're not comparing bushels of apples here to see which is larger... Any country, regardless of it's size, can command respect in the world community, through its leaders, it's exports and its ideologies. Economically speaking, a small country, with the right resources, can maintain a very real chokehold on another, much larger, country's economy through pricing and export manipulation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the number of people within its borders.

 

In many ways, this is a debate without an answer because there are so many different criteria by which to measure countries. Some people here seem to think that 'economic clout' is most important, or population, while other say that independent sovereignty is the critical factor. There is no right or wrong answer to this. Even 'economic clout' is a nebulous concept. I won't claim to be an expert at economics but I wouldn't be surprised if there are many 'small' countries who are in a much better economic condition than, say, the state of California (which I understand has enormous debts).

And if economic clout is more important that sovereignty, then does that mean that Wal-Mart and Microsoft should be considered to be equal to nations?

This debate is interesting not because it has an answer but because, through it, I am learning a lot about the way people see the world.

 

Saying a country "regardless of its size" can command the same amount of attention as a large country is simply not true. I don't care how good Luxembourg's leaders are, comparing their country to India in importance makes no sense.

Small countries CAN disrupt larger ones if they go out of their way to do so. But that doesn't mean the playing field is equal. If the U.S. government wants to de-stabilize a weak country to the point of anarchy, it can, single-handedly. (I'm talking about countries like Haiti here.) If the same weak country wants to do anything to the U.S., they need the help of the EU, China, or another large "protector" to do so. These small countries CAN protect themselves from large countries to a certain extent (i.e. Venezuala's rejection of the U.S.-supported coup), but they don't have the offensive tools to what has been done to them by any measure.

The size of an economy and its health are two different things. Which leads me to the point that an American economic crisis would affect the world far more than an economic crisis confined to, say, Portugal. Look at Argentina: it's a not-small country in the throes of economic horror, but the ripples the rest of the world feels from that are comparatively small. If the same thing were to happen in the U.S., the world would fundamentally change.

 

Hmmm, this topic (like many) is drifting off the orginal point. It started off as a response to blanket generalisations about lumping Europeans together into one mass when describing government policies, military strategies, and public opinions. The general nature of the response was that this was not an appropriate way to view Europe as it is in actual fact made up of different countries.

I, personally, have never denied that the USA has enormous military and economic power so will not debate the points made in the previous point because I don't disagree (although I am interested in these 'fundamental' changes to the world that would arise from the US economic crisis).

 

Imagine this: USA attacks the full of Europe, Europe defends itself, who will win? Not a hard guess, as Europe is many times stronger with their tactics and sensibility than the American army, even though their is very strong.

 

Agreed, but that would mostly be because it is actually quite difficult to 'attack' any major nation or land area. If USA attacked Europe I would back Europe - but if Europe attacked USA, I would back USA. Defenders usually have a huge advantage (imagine trying to invade a mountainy country like Switzerland, for example).

Anyway, as stated before, I'm not sure 'who could beat who in a war' was really the point of the original discussion.

 

Okay, then which would affect us more if it just stopped to exist: USA or Europe? Once again, not worthy of an answer.

 

Agreed. Impossible (and pointless) to try and answer.

 

As was stated, there are many attributes to a nation.

These attributes can be irrelevant to one another depending on the discussion. For example, the size of Britain did not prevent it from becoming a world power centuries ago. Control of the seas allowed it to overcome its small relative size. At one point in time, half of the continent of Africa was divided among European rulers. The same statements can apply to Mongolia under the Great Khans except it was control of land routes rather than sea routes that allowed them to overcome nations.

In other discussions, one could compare the United States to Europe. Both contain people from many different origins. Both have political divisions, which with respect to certain policies like environmental protection, would affect each other.

 

Again.....it depends on what CRITERIA is being used for the comparison and what the particular scenario is that we're discussing. I mentioned economic criteria, which is quite different from militaristic or political criteria....unless you think the US could never be intimidated by an economic threat from a "small" country -- hell...we can just invade them and wipe them off the face of the earth.

 

One comparison to think about would be China vs. Japan. In many ways China is larger than Japan:

Military
Area
Population
Political influence?
Control of sea and land routes
Raw materials

However, Japan has a very large influence on technology and economics.

Deciding which country has more influence on the nations around the world depends on the discussion.

 

So does China.

The terms for this depend on your criteria for country, as has been stated many times. If we're speaking about Economic or Military power, then yes, the U.S. is easily the equivalent of the European Union.

If you're speaking of a sovereign entity, then any individual nation, be it US, UK, Germany, etc. is the equivalent of any other.

It's foolish to believe that there would be no significant changes to other countries if the US experienced an economic crisis. The United States both imports and exports more than any other nation in the world. Our GDP (total production) massively dwarfs that of any other nation. The Middle East would especially be devastated by such a situation if they lost their primary customers. All other countries would lose significant income.

 

Also, other countries might lose out on the enormous amount of money that the USA now owes them, arising from its colossal trade deficit over the last few years. The impact of this is already being felt. Witness the fall in value of the US$ lately as many other nations become nervous about holding US$ reserves and move to what they perceive to be safer reserves in gold or Euros.

My curiousity was not about WHETHER there would be a significant impact or not, but just how 'bad' you considered that impact to be, and whether this perception differs between those of you inside and those of you outside the USA.

 

Just on the China vs. Japan issue - China would wipe the Pacific Floor with Japan. More people, more nukes, more money.

I think a country should only be held more important by it's population - what is more valuable than one human life? Two.