America = Whole of Europe?

Remove all ads!

Well, I fancy myself as well acquainted with the shape of the US-political system. I just pointed out that it is factually wrong to say it's an unique American system. As many other countries are federations too or have atleast the typical tripple-structure of a federal system (municipality/member-state/federal goverment). That's why I linked my link. So the statement "it's different from any other system in the world currently" is factually wrong. That wasn't linked to "American exceptionalism" in anyway, just a facutal correction. (But of course, the broader topic of this thread is, if I remember correctly, is it insulting to a big country to be compared to a smaller country).

As for federal structure of the US, in my view, the federal goverment is much to strong. "Energetic goverment", I think is the euphemism for it. By the way, If I am correct there's another one of those upside-down differences in the US dictionary compared to the European dictionary. "Federalism" means in American "centralism", because the founding fathers, as far as I know, took the word "federalists" for themselves (as in "federalist papers") for marketing reasons, even though they were centralists, which turned the meaning of the word in American English. But that's a matter for another thread.

 

There are countries in Europe that are just as subdivided as the US.
For instance, the Federal Republic of Germany is divided in different Lander with each their own laws and politics...

 

I'm assuming you're responding to my post here, as I was the one who originally brought it up. I never said it was unique or different from all other or any specific other system in use currently. In fact, I said quite the opposite - that in having a local government at the county level was one of the ways Europe and the United States were similar.

The difference was at the state level. Most Europeans don't have the equivalent of a state - you have counties. Counties are counties, but states are made up of dozens (in some cases many dozen) counties. It's not unique, but it is different from most places in Europe. If you want to compare European counties to our states, that's fine. If you want to compare European counties to our counties, fine. But it seems unrealistic to compare them to both, simultaneously and equally.

 

Hm, okay, I might cede that I have read something into your lines, or better said, added something you did not say. Yet, to my excuse, uniqueness has the tendency to be usually added, as the next answering post showed. Ok, that's not an excuse but an possible explanation for my mistake.

Well, ok, true but to general therefore wrong, yet with the salvating clause "different from most places in Euroe". I happen to live in a confederation and am European, so I surely wouldn't hesitate to compare the Republic of Zürich with the Republic of California, for example. In deed, the Valley of Uri (state name) is often compared to Rhode Island, as they have similar weight in the federation they are in, i.e. the smallest state.

Oops, I mixed up Maryland with Rhode Island... I mean they both have an "and" in them.

 

I think we are actually in agreement here, we're taking the same approach from different sides of the spectrum.

Let me try to make the comparison this way. Let's take a pretty big sized European country - Germany seems pretty appropriate. Now lets subdivide it into 50 parts - like the U.S. is - and call them states. Now, let's further subdivide those 50 states dozens of times over, and call them counties. And that's where we hit a snag. Because of the area that Germany covers, compared to the area that the U.S. covers, it's simply not practical for Germany to divide things up that way. Some of the "counties" we would make would be only several city blocks in area...

I have no idea how many counties there are in the United States, but the number has to be in thousands. Heck even if we only had an average of 20 per state, we'd have 1,000. However, I know the number is much larger than that, as Maryland alone has about 20 counties, and it is one of the smallest states in the union. (The smaller states would include - in no particular order here - Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusettes, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Hawaii.) So 42 of the 50 states are bigger than Maryland, most are significantly bigger than Maryland, and presumably have many more counties.

Here's the point I'm trying to make (not to mention I'm finally getting back on topic): Size matters. Population matters. Resources matter. Buying power matters. It is safe to say that if a country is bigger, is more populous, has more resources, and has greater buying power, it is overall a more powerful and greater country than one that is the lesser in those areas. Furthermore, when a country is the equal to a collection of several countries combined in those statistics it is fair to say that one country is the equal to all of those countries in question.

It doesn't detract from what it means to be a citizen of France or Germany or any other European country, it's just a fundamental difference of how the world works.

EDIT - I didn't feel like looking up the number of counties in the U.S., but I looked up what the area is for those countries and came up with:

United States: 9,629,091 sq. km
Germany: 357,021 sq. km

So, the U.S. is about 27 times bigger than Germany in area. So, if we divided up Germany the way we divided the U.S. the average size of a county in Germany would be 27 times smaller than a county in the U.S. Which would essentially mean, it wouldn't be very big at all.

EDIT #2: Found it! There are 3,086 counties in the U.S., meaning that the average U.S. county has an area of 3,120 sq. km. The average county in Germany would be only 116 sq. km by comparison...

[ March 24, 2004, 15:31: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Well... I don't think political weight should be mesured up in kilometers. If that was the case, dear old Russia (my motherland), would have more political weight than any other country and thus be ruler of the world, you must agree with me: that would be verrry bad!

 

@LL

Not just kilometers. And, as a matter of fact, Russia is one of the most prominent countries in the world...

 

Can a US state make treaties with another country?

 

@Aldeth

Really? I never thought of Russia as a prominent country, especially with all the **** happening there lately... But then again, powerful countries are not necessarily democratic or respectful of the human rights (> China).

Anyway, my dear Aldeth, I guess you have checked your facts so thanx for beaming me up!

 

Yes, size matters if you ask about size, population matters if you ask about population, economical influence matters if you ask about economical influence, power matters if you aks about power. Besides that this implicitly includes comparision to smaller countries, the question still remains, why would you feel "insulted" by being compared to a smaller country ? It's clear, that you (for the time being) play in the Indian-Chinese league, (hm, maybe they would feel insulted to be compared to clearly less populated countries). And the last part, "equal to all those countries in question". The problem is, you only lump those countries together on a fictional basis. They are not lumped together in reality. Like the earth could have so and so many moons inside of it. So, a horse is obviously bigger than a cat. That doesn't mean that there is automaticly a 15-cats cat.

It could also mean, that the usual US-district is generally oversized and should be split in four. Or in other words, I don't get the relevance of number of internal subdivisons, when your point seems to be that the US is some factors bigger then Germany, which is true.

 

No. That is a power reserved to the federal government only. The Constitution delineates which powers the states have, and which the federal government has. Another example would be the mail. It's also controlled by the federal government. A one ounce letter costs 37 cents to mail, regardless of if it's going across the street or across the country.

Prominent or notorious, take your pick...

My point exactly.

My apologies, Iago. There is a definite failure to communicate here. I'll try again, but it is frustrating to keep repeating myself, have you shoot holes in my arguments, but yet don't offer a counter example to show how YOU would compare the countries. Arguments work a lot better when you assert your own point to refute mine, rather than just say that I'm wrong. Just trying to make a helpful suggestion there.

The main reason I failed to answer that question was I didn't think that WAS the question. I thought we were discussing why the U.S. was considered (by some) to be the equivalent of Europe (as in the topic's title).

EDIT - Oh I did find the part about it being "insulting" to be compared to another country - but it was in a thread so far back, I had forgotten about it - my response was simply doing a comparison of the U.S. the Europe. (END EDIT)

First of all, it depends upon the country we're being compared to. I would feel less insulted if we were compared to say, Japan, as if we were compared to say, Cuba. (And yes, I realize that neither Cuba or Japan is located within Europe. I don't want to get accused of bashing any one particular country, so I'm deliberately using non-European examples in this case.) There is a large element of American pride at work here. I certainly won't deny that. Once again, I know this is going to sound elitist, but for the most part, if you compare the U.S. to just about any other country in the world, we're better than them. To say that America is the equal of a single European country I believe dwarfs the accomplishments of the U.S. and the American people, and as such, is insulting.

What you need to explain to me is the fictional setting I'm putting this in. You mention everything from multiple moons inside the earth to comparing a horse to a cat, which is far different from what I'm doing. I was comparing the U.S. to Europe, so if anything it is the topic starter that lumped those countries together, not me. Furthermore, you seem to have a problem that I limit my comparison to population, land area, economic power, military power, and political clout. What other significant comparisons can be made? Sure, Germany I'm sure can beat the pants off the U.S. in a brautworst cooking contest, but that's not at all relevant.

I think the difficulty here (and I really was trying to make the last extended post I did as polite as possible) is not what I'm saying, but that you refuse to see or admit that just as all people aren't created equal (regardless of what treaties, memorandums or constitutions the world over say), that all countries aren't created equal either. Some are better than others.

[ March 24, 2004, 22:27: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

And there you have it. A US state is not the equivalent of a European country.

 

YYYYAAAARRRGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!

Show me where in any of my posts I claimed that. In fact, I clearly stated the opposite that it isn't fair to compare an individual U.S. state to an entire European country. I said it's fair to compare the ENTIRE U.S. to the European continent.

EDIT: I also said we shouldn't compare a county in another country to a U.S. state as there are many powers that states have that counties don't. I just checked my previous post to make sure I didn't type "countries" where I meant to type "counties" as in this case, one letter makes a huge difference. I do not believe that Germany is the equal of California, or any other U.S. state. I do not believe that any European nation is the equal of any U.S. state. The nation in question is clearly superior in almost every way, as individual U.S. states cannot (generally) act unilaterally. If I ever said anything that implied otherwise, I sincerely apologize.

[ March 24, 2004, 22:31: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

I meant "you" in general, not you specifically, Aldeth.

 

Me thinks so too. I remember that Blackhawk, as indirect maker of this thread, mentioned low-high subtexts and the problem subtexts can create in understanding matters. So, I think your subtext is to strange to me, I don't get it.

Well, it could be for cooks. Why do you limit comparisions ? One can't limit comparisions. You could compare the size of the economical sectors or the degrees per population or the water consumption per head or the political rights and civil freedoms. The health-system. The school system. The average height of the population. The most used car-type. Languages spoken. Why limit comparisions ?


I don't think anything special about it, I just compare them.

I thought it was about that and why it should be "insulting". As for the US is the equivalent to Europe. It just doesn't make sense. Europe is a continent, the US is a country. So it would be a leap into fantasy, as there is no country Europe to which another country (i.e. the US) could be equated.

Ah, yes, and the first post goes in a similar direction as I think. Only because there is a horse, there isn't a 15 cats cat. Even if you'd like to compare the US to Europe, there is still no country Europe.

Hm, and that's a part of that strange subtext. So, what would be the individual advantage of an ant if it lived in an ant-hill that was bigger then other ant hills ? Why would that ant be better of than any other ant ? Or are you saying, there is only one USA and it can never be compared to anything else, because... because of what actually ?

 

Creation is equal, our opportunities are varied, the mores of any society usually decide the outcome of it's people

How is it that all men are not created equal?
We're all born equally human.
Is there such a thing as a "better" human born? and that doesn't mean smarter or prettier or stronger those are differences, they don't make people better they make people interesting.
It's just like saying because you're not strong, you are inferior and that's just discriminatory.

But I'm straying here.

As for "better" than other countries its completely a matter of perspective eg.

American citizen- we are the best because of our resources/military/economy/whatever.

French citizen- we are best because of our wines/cuisine/tourism/whatever else.

Chinese citizen- we are best because of our heritage/population/culture/whatever else as well.

There is no point in my view that saying "my country is better than your country" because the "better thans" are what makes us different to the other countries.

 

I agree with Amatorius. We'll be getting into all sorts of trouble if we start claiming that one country is 'better' than another. That would be dodgy territory even for the AoDA. 'Better' is far too vague and emotive a word.

 

OK, this is what I'm talking about Iago. Well done indeed - it is your best argument so far. It is ludicrous to compare a country to a continent, because a continent is a collection of countries and does not function as a single country. I can't argue with that. Perhaps it would have been better to compare the U.S. economy with that of the European Union - more of an apples to apples comparison. As I said before, well done.

It's only discriminatory if I say YOU are inferior, or a particular group is inferior. All people aren't created equal. From the time we are born there are people who have the potential to make much more of themselves than others by simply being born to the parents they were born to - that's just fact. As for the rest of being a "better man", that's just my opinion, and I'm certainly not judging you. If someone is stronger than me, smarter than me, better looking than me, more charismatic than me, has more money than me, and is better known and more well-respected the world over than me, I consider him to be the better man when compared to me. I'll not make that comparison between him and anyone else, just to myself.

I'll try to make this less vague. It goes back to the opportunity thing again. All I was saying is that life is much more difficult in certain places. It is much easier to live in the U.S., or most places in Europe, than it is presently in Iraq, South Korea, Haiti, Moravia, etc. I view not living in constant fear of your life as being "better".

 

Well, glad you liked it. But I've used it all the time. And I am actually quite pleased with the way I came up with the analogy from the animal world. Just if one does not like to compare a horse to a cat, doesn't bring automaticly a 15 cats cat into being. But then, I thought a continent was a large continuous mass of land, the defintion as bunch of countries is rather new to me.

See, and that's where I do not get it. You compare and don't seem to be bothered by it. So, one could say it is possible to compare Russia to Iceland and which of those two would be better for an individual to live in. Russia is a struggling country, while Iceland is rather rich, is the country with the oldest democratic traditions and institutions (as far as I know, except antiquity of course) worldwide and nowhere else people read so much (sounds inspiring to me). Well, maybe they're fighting the greenland-syndrom in Iceland and there's no cheap vodka, but still... So, why can't I compare those two, even if the size-difference is so huge.

By the way, I do not know too much about South-Korea, but why would you list it among the countries you did ? I thought it is one of the far better off countries of this world.

 

My bad. I meant North Korea - they still have Dulags there. You're right - South Korea isn't so bad - just a momentary lapse of memory.

I still find it startling that you would not compare such countries. I don't know where you live, but you think everything would be okey-dokey if you lived in North Korea? That your current place of residence is just "different" and not "better"?

You're definition is technically correct. Antartica is also a continent, and it certainly isn't a collection of countries, for example. Since the comparison we were using was comparing continents to countries, I had to ad lib a definition of continent, supposing that you would know what I meant. In truth, your definition is the correct one.

EDIT:

This is where there is a language barrier as well. It is common in the U.S. to use the word "state" to refer to a sovereign nation. I don't think when Blackhawk said, "any single European state" that he was calling the country a state as in one of the 50 states of the U.S., but a state as in a sovereign nation. It wasn't until I re-examined your (much) earlier post that I realized Blackhawk's term was ambiguous in the way he used it.

[ March 25, 2004, 17:12: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]