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.
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
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?
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_inau...
2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter
3: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861
4: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_first_inau...
Isn't that an oxymoron?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm from Michoacan, and reading or seeing the clueless expression when I answer gives me some sort of joy and proudness.
Vermont -> green hills
Dakota -> hard deserts and Amerindians
Nevada -> sand desert
Texas -> ranches.
Arizona -> Lots of sun and hot.
Florida -> beach and spaces.
Kansas -> Big corn farms.
Massachusetts -> US version of Europe.
Missouri -> Rivers.
Really, that's all of New England - New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, maybe parts of Pennsylvania depending on who you talk to.
Whether you like it or not, it's usually insufficient for someone from the US to simply say that they're from the US. It's a big enough place with enough externally-visible cultural variation that people want to know.
Of course you can double down if you really want to get eyes rolling by following up with something like “the good one”, “el primer mundo”, or “the rich one”
BTW, the fact that only the US country has options separated by state reminds me of when I lived in Europe, and sometimes we got together with a bunch of international. Invariably the "where are you from" question would pop up, to which almost everyone would answer with their country... except Americans, who would answer with their state haha.
Once, I asked someone where they were from and I think they answered some random US state, he then asked me the same, and I answered with the state where I am from in Mexico... he had no clue where that was hahaha.