As an African, whenever I see this map I'm more astonished by how densely populated Europe and India are, how big and populated China is and how homogeneous the US is compared to its size.
Africa is 45/km2
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/europe-popula...).
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/africa-popula....
The population density of the EU is 105 people per km2. Include some or all of Russia and things look rather different. Similarly, Finland is 8% of the EU’s land area but only has 16.3 people per km2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_U...
When we're talking about geography, you can't include anything east of the Urals in the European subcontinent.
In Geology class they teach that the Urals formed about a quarter of a billion years ago when Europe and the Khazak land masses collided. I know this because we had to do a group paper on why such an old mountain range would be so unusually high. (Long story and not important.) Point is that though my degree wasn't in geology, and I'm only going from memory, I'm 99.999% certain that the Urals are the Urals for a critically meaningful geographic reason. At least, geologically speaking.
Of course, if this is all just political, then you can take any borders you wish to be Europe. I was only pointing out that if we're talking about landmasses in the geological sense, then the commenter was correct, Europe clearly does not extend past the Urals. Scientifically speaking.
Europe has always just been an political/economic entity as overland passage to Asia is difficult. Which makes the border completely arbitrary with various historic maps placing it in different areas.
That said plate technics is surprisingly recent, reaching a fairly modern form and acceptance in ~1960’s.
Then there is the argument that glasshouses are 10x as productive as open fields, so if we were to use them predominantly, we could return land to forests.
Quick google-fu is failing me with actual numbers, but I would not be surprised if we are using 3/4/5 orders of magnitude of water every year compared to 3000 years ago.
That's all before you even talk about greenhouse gasses.
the environmental benefits would be enormous
(I think I would disagree, but good faith requires I actually try to understand what you meant before I take issue with it.)
Yes, the midwest calmer and the south is friendlier, the east is more uptight and the west is more chillaxed, and the cuisine is different in different parts of the country, but these are pretty much details at the edges. Everyone speaks english, the low-end labor speaks spanish, african-americans are discriminated against, etc.
Then you don't know Spain.
Spain and Germany have hugely different history, completely different food, different weather, they speak two non-compatible languages sets (Romantic vs Germanic), they have different laws, different stores, different banks, anything.
Texas and California speak the same language, have similar makeup of people, are similarly wealthy, they have the exact same stores, your bank account is the same, everything.
Now I am not argueing there aren't differences between CA and TX. But those are similar to differences between Hamburg and Bavaria or between Catalonia and Madrid. German<>Spain is a whole different ballgame.
I believe those are what are literally called "fighting words"
A Basque playing the txalaparta would look like a guy who came from a UFO for an Andalusian guy playing Flamenco with a guitar.
Ditto with a Galician with an Atlantic culture (and Celtic customs) plus a obvious bind to Portugal because 500 years ago they were the same language against a Valencian living in the sunny Mediterranean towns.
This is not the case in Africa or Europe, where countries use different languages, scripts, legal codes, currencies, driving directions, etc...
EDIT: I'm referring the land masses included in the visualization and what they entail in practical terms.
The US can be seen as a single market, the same applies to China and India. Europe has the schengen area, the EU and the EEA. Africa needs similar initiatives.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/14/dining/field-...
Anyway, I'm enthralled by the idea of a lobster roll. I had clam chowder one time when we were in New England and it blew me away. I ate the pint and tried to go back and buy another, but my husband stopped me. I've had it a number of times since back here in the middle of the country and it doesn't even compare. Even in fancy restaurants, it's just not the same. I really want to try a lobster roll, but I have the feeling I'm not going to find one around here that does the sandwich justice.
I’m sure you’re aware you had New England clam chowder, And that there’s also Manhattan clam chowder. But few folks know there’s also a Hatteras clam chowder. It’s made with a broth and the taste of clams really comes through a lot better than with the cream or tomato based variants.
https://blog.carolinadesigns.com/outer-banks-food/hatteras-i...
(And now that I’ve worked my way to the Carolinas… if you’ve never had shrimp and grits, look it up. Yum.)
p.s. as good as lobster is, stone crab is even better.
I don't have a taste for grits. I finally came around to gravy on my rice, but I'm still iffy on grits.
I'm holding out hope that there's a decent lobster roll around here somewhere. You can get live lobsters here. There's no real reason you couldn't do a good lobster roll.
Really you just need the right roll, and you can make the butter version yourself.
It’s the roll that is hard to find.
I actually found US more federal in nature for doing business compared to India and to some extent Europe.
The tax laws are lot more state specific than India, California has very different rules for privacy(ccpa) or environmental regulations than other states. Europe largely following GDPR is good enough (with some exceptions for Germany), most environmental regulations seem broadly consistent across Europe.[1]
US did seem lot more regulatory diverse than India which is more culturally/linguistically diverse,it feels like US states have more significant autonomy than countries in Europe have over EU regulations!
[1] It may be that I have not done as much work with Europe as US so I have not yet come across nuances
In eg Germany you need three years of government approved training to work in one. And another two years of government approved training to run one.
(And I don't think those training certificates can be used for anything in other countries?)
Here is a link to a database of regulated professions in the EU: https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/professional-qual...
A hairdresser in Czechia, with equivalent qualifications from other countries listed: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regprof/index.cf...
On a fundamental level access to free market and European project has a goal of synchronizing the regulations across member countries.
US states are proudly unique, Texas doesnt even keep frequency sync to the national grid!
Even UK(Texas of Europe?) , generally need to follow similar rules if they want access to common market brexit or not.
Better luck next time DC and Puerto Rico.
Yes, but you don't need much international cooperation to get a single market or visa free travel: individual countries can unilaterally declare free trade and open their borders. (And economic theory is in favour of that, too.)
In the long run, imports and exports have to be balanced.
(Some countries export capital goods, like the US: when Chinese investors buy American startups or real estate that doesn't show up on your usual export statistics, but essentially it's still an American export.)
So if you are importing, you can't help but develop exporting industries.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by bargaining chip? What's there to bargain? You just declare unilateral free trade, and let other people decide on their own policy.
I find it interesting that your (valid to you and a commonly used use case) of "being American" excludes Canada, Mexico, etc. ... (actually all of South America).
There isn't a common culture.
I'm also acutely aware that my definition is extremely unlikely to be shared in North Africa, Central Africa, even in another province of my own country).
All that said "being African" parses with a lot more emotional and ideological content than just geography.
There's a hint of pride at the grandeur and diversity of the landscape and peoples, a dollop of hope for a brighter future given our huge potential (despite our poverty we have so much more stuff than many other countries), there's a dash of injustice of colonial history and exploitation.
When I work with someone from Nigeria or Kenia or I interact with someone who is effectively a refugee from DRC or Zimbabwe - I can honestly say we seem to have something in common with our feeling about Africa.
It's quite varied for a homogeneous country.
https://photoguide.jp/log/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/JapanUS...
It's one of EU countries with the densest population, but it doesn't feel that way. Especially the east is very empty in the countryside.
Scrolling around on a map of Germany, I could find a forest about 10 km across in the eastern bit that only looked to have a few roads marked on the map. Go into northern Sweden and you'll be drawing completely empty circles 50 km across...
An American from Idaho will be able to communicate, trade and watch the same tv as someone in Vermont, whereas a person from Malawi will not be able to do any of these things with a person in Guinea
In comparison all of Scandinavia has a similar population size as the New York metropolitan area.
Instead, there are regional supermarket chains, some of which branch out a little into areas where they are not the dominant store.
Examples:
Albertsons: mostly in the western states
HEB: Texas only
Publix: southern states (all the way down to Key West)
Piggly Wiggly: hard to describe, but mostly a stripe running up through the midwest
Fairway: NYC, NJ and almost nowhere else
Now, had you written that about, say drug stores, it would be more true. Everywhere you go it will either be a CVS, Rite Aid or Walgreens. There are independents, but these 3 dominate the entire country, with some regional focus, but always a national reach.
Of course you can find McDonalds everywhere but you’ll find those in Europe, also.
I think the main thing that makes it feel superficially homogeneous is the shared language - which is now even more shared since the advent of Hollywood and national entertainment.