Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico
would you think the same thing if the states held on to their state cultures and developed them more to have their own identity instead of this mass american culture?
|
Eh I view it two different ways.
There can either be a prevalent American culture as a whole, which was largely the idea in the 1970's overall. Americanism was a beautiful concept back then. More united and more centralized to our national culture than our regional ones.
Or we can have it this way where American culture in general has no exact definition because regional culture is so prevalent. Think about the fact that Boston CSA makes up half of New England's respective population. What possible culture Rhode Island have that makes it shine out? The entire state is in Boston's CSA. The Entire Sub-Region of New England functions as one to the point where the US Census created a special designated US Region for it, NECTA and its Metropolitan Areas.
I think those states would function greatly being one big state rather than some tiny ones. They have their culture, and yes they are states today because of the differences they had before, but they function as one area now more than they ever have. Their culture crosses state boundaries and gives the entire sub-region the identity of New England, and they have one massive city that accounts for half their population, their entertainment in terms of sports (New England Patriots? Haha), their access to international services and locations, and their financial capital.
Another thing, there is no reason for the state of Mississippi to be what it is, it obviously cannot support itself without the help of the Federal Government. We shouldn't do away with it, but rather combine it with Alabama & Georgia. Atlanta's CSA leaks into Alabama regardless, so those two states being adjoined would make a lot of sense, and adding in Mississippi would give one more prosperous state. The overall state population combined will become larger. The population more balanced, and less Federal Dollars going into the new combined state because the Georgia influence will keep it on par with most US States.
We can do that with many states, including South Carolina & North Carolina. North Dakota & South Dakota. I haven't ever been to North & South Dakota but do they really have that prevalent of an individual culture from each other that people will notice that they are now a merged state? Like would it matter? Both states are healthy economically, sparsely populated, and receive more tax dollars then they need for being so tiny.
Same with Wyoming & Colorado. Idaho & Montana. Nevada & California. Illinois, Wisconsin, & Indiana should be one state too.
I think the USA could do without 50 states, and its true every state has special aspects that make it unique, and thats why they developed into different states instead of one big area. But in todays time (in my opinion) we're costing ourselves so much maintaining more states than we can handle over such trivial aspects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico
I think the states culturally used to be much different than they are now, and now you can get anything just about anywhere.
|
I agree. States in the past, each and every state has its own identity. Do you remember the reason why Robert E. Lee refused to become the lead general of the Union Army? It was his love for his home state of Virginia more than the idea of there being two countries. People who started the country were loyal to their states. William Penn established the Quaker state of Pennsylvania, New Jersey vs. Virginia into high courts created the Big State-Small State Compromise.
But in present day, states are less influential outside of their region. They're not as active, and are more in tone to regionality than nationalism.
Personally I'm all for a weaker centralized government, but a stronger sense of Americanism rather than state pride. We do NOT need 36 Million Californians acting like their politics run the country, 26 Million Texans acting like their economy runs the country, & 19 Million New Yorkers acting like they started this country. There needs to be a better sense of Nationality here, where people view the country before their states.
Our government spends too much maintaining some states that cant handle the real world, combine them with more influential states and we'd cut spendings by a lot. Actually this topic definitely belongs in that thread earlier last week about Dominant-Submissive States.
I mean look at this:
Why should American Tax Payers be footing the bill for a state half way across the country because it cant make it in the real world of today? The state needs Federal help, and thus it shouldn't exist as a state if its in that bad of a situation. It should be combined with another state and then it would cut federal spending, give us more money for other services to improve, and also give us more balanced and powerful states that pull their weight.
And another thing. Have you heard of US Bill H.R 1586? Why are we paying tax dollars to not only support states that cant get by themselves but also paying annually $26 Billion to educate a small state of 3 Million people. That is an absurd amount, combine it with a larger state, a more influential and prosperous one, and split the education budget evenly among the new combined state with more money left to spare.
Like seriously, as an American Tax Payer you have to ask yourself some of the basic questions. And the very first one that comes to mind is: Why do some of these states exist like they do today when they cant make it in the real world? Why do we feed to their suffering make minimal improvements there upon decades of spending, only to go further into debt when that state can easily be more prosperous if it was adjoined with a nearby more powerful state?
To be clear though, I am not implying any state is superior or inferior to another. That is not the case, its just that some states pull their own weight in our country and some don't. And personally I was raised with traditional Asian standards and thats not to make yourself helpless and in need of looking for a bailout, we should become stronger not weaker and more decentralized in our nationalistic view. I think Mississippi probably has contributed to quite a good bit in our country's historical past but that in no way shape or form does anything to help our country today. We're facing the worst US Debt we ever have had, and the states that aren't pulling their weight are holding us back. Georgia is relatively prosperous, and Mississippi & Alabama are not. Atlanta gets the De Facto capital of the Southeast and cultural center and many rankings can prove that, just make it the center of the combined state of Georgia, Alabama, & Mississippi. Same with Chicago with the sense of Illinois, Wisconsin, & Indiana. Same with North & South Carolina and so on and so forth.
Sorry to take this off topic, but seriously, as a country overall we're very irresponsible when it comes to our spendings. And we do that to support such trivial things like regional culture and identity.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
