-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Are we still an is?
Author: TriSec
Date: 08/27/2022 10:50:15
Good Morning.
A "state" is an individual unit. There are 50 of them in this country - but what is a group of them called?
Living in that one clearly-defined geographic region of the country, we always say "New England is....
But elsewhere? The Mid-Atlantic states are....
But what about the United States as a whole? We are one country, and for a long time it's been "The United States is...
How did this come to be? I'm sure we all remember the late historian Shelby Foote, thanks to Ken Burns and "The Civil War". He sums it up rather succinctly:
But like all things we take for granted, there's more layers to it.
But what does that mean for us today? We have not been "United States" in a very long time. What Massachusetts does is different from what Alabama does, and never the twain shall meet. It feels more to me like the days of the "Articles of Confederation",. where we were a loose collection of states, doing pretty much what we wanted to do within our own borders, and weak and feeble Federal authority trying to keep us together.
When was the last time anyone thought the leadership in Washington was anything but obstructionist and contrarian? We cannot get anything done in this country when the current operating model is the GOP opposes everything, actively works to undercut anyone and everybody in the opposite party, and when they actually win an election, work to undo anything that was created and "take us back" to.....something.
Are we still an "is"? I don't think so.
I've written about this before, and my opinions have not really changed. In fact, I find them strengthening. It wasn't that long ago when I could look at a disaster or other terrible thing happening around the country, and think that at least the rest of us can help out somehow.
Now? Doesn't it always seem that it's the states with elected officials followed by "R" that are always in some sort of trouble? My thought these days is "Fuck you, you reap what you sow." I'd rather have my tax dollars support my brethren in like-minded areas. Why should I pay money to help those that I oppose?
I cannot fathom any good outcome from the path we are currently on.
A "state" is an individual unit. There are 50 of them in this country - but what is a group of them called?
Living in that one clearly-defined geographic region of the country, we always say "New England is....
But elsewhere? The Mid-Atlantic states are....
But what about the United States as a whole? We are one country, and for a long time it's been "The United States is...
How did this come to be? I'm sure we all remember the late historian Shelby Foote, thanks to Ken Burns and "The Civil War". He sums it up rather succinctly:
Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."
But like all things we take for granted, there's more layers to it.
In fact, the "United States is/are" debate raged for decades and was hardly settled by the surrender of the Confederacy. An 1895 column in the Indianapolis Journal defended the usage of Secretary of State Richard Olney, who preferred "the United States are." The writer insisted that this was correct usage on grammatical grounds: "Thoroughly as one may believe in the idea of nationality, one cannot ignore the structural principles of the English language." As late as 1909, Ambrose Bierce was clinging to this grammatical defense of "the United States" as plural. In his peevish compendium Write it Right, Bierce griped, "Grammar has not a speaking acquaintance with politics, and patriotic pride is not schoolmaster to syntax."
But Bierce was on the losing side of that argument. Already, as a result of Secretary Foster's careful historical research on the subject, the House of Representative's Committee on Revision of the Laws had ruled in 1902 that "the United States" should be treated as singular, not plural. The tide had finally turned — four decades after the Civil War.
But what does that mean for us today? We have not been "United States" in a very long time. What Massachusetts does is different from what Alabama does, and never the twain shall meet. It feels more to me like the days of the "Articles of Confederation",. where we were a loose collection of states, doing pretty much what we wanted to do within our own borders, and weak and feeble Federal authority trying to keep us together.
When was the last time anyone thought the leadership in Washington was anything but obstructionist and contrarian? We cannot get anything done in this country when the current operating model is the GOP opposes everything, actively works to undercut anyone and everybody in the opposite party, and when they actually win an election, work to undo anything that was created and "take us back" to.....something.
Are we still an "is"? I don't think so.
I've written about this before, and my opinions have not really changed. In fact, I find them strengthening. It wasn't that long ago when I could look at a disaster or other terrible thing happening around the country, and think that at least the rest of us can help out somehow.
Now? Doesn't it always seem that it's the states with elected officials followed by "R" that are always in some sort of trouble? My thought these days is "Fuck you, you reap what you sow." I'd rather have my tax dollars support my brethren in like-minded areas. Why should I pay money to help those that I oppose?
I cannot fathom any good outcome from the path we are currently on.
