When you say alive and kicking, to what extent do you refer?  Are you speaking of people's choice of units or people's knowledge of units?   There is a difference.  The choice to use imperial is highly connected with the "we were a big empire, and the world follows our lead, not us them" syndrome.  Using metric would be for us a sign of surrender to our former rivals for power in the world.  This we will not tolerate.  One person who is a diehard imperialist from the metricsucks site has repeatedly called metric units "foreign".   This may be the new buzz word to make people feel that metric is not part of "our" history or culture. 
 
The same is true with the US.  Arguments about the positive aspects of metric fall on deaf ears in the US.  Even if Americans struggle with FFU, it is considered "our" system.  Even from time to time, I hear it referred to as the "American" system and not "English".  And the fact that the US is are alone in using it gives even more reason to cling to it.  Even if imperialists in the UK insist the UK is not metric, many Americans may feel the UK is metric.  Those who have visited the UK see too many examples of the UK being metric for the UK to claim it is not.  There is more metric in the UK then an American would tolerate in the US.
 
It is a "we are the world's # 1 ..fill-in-the-blank... and everything we do is right".   Adopting metric would be seen as adopting something foreign and giving into foreign ways and ideas.   Thus making it appear that American ways are not so "top of the line".  Even in areas where metric has made inroads, the examples are bare minimum and really don't affect the lives of the population.  Industrial metrication is so well hidden, that one has to look for it because it doesn't readily stick out.   Before the US can ever consider metrication again, the attitude of supremeness will have to be vanquished.  Until then, it is only a pipe dream.
 
Han,
 
Since you have posted to the metricsucks site before, I suggest you go there and publish your findings about the British ship there.  Don't mention your belief that imperial is "alive and kicking" in the UK, as that feeds their ego. 
 
Euric
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Han Maenen
Sent: Sunday, 2004-05-23 04:49
Subject: [USMA:29917] Re: When is a country considered to be metric?

I regard Britain as an "Imperial/Metric" country and Ireland as "Metric/Imperial". Imperial is still too pervasive and too much 'alive and kicking' in Britain to simply regard that country as a metric nation. Ireland is definitely further on the road.
I was in Britain again last Friday, in Newcastle, and there had been no change compared to last year.
 
When I was on the way back I was invited to visit the bridge of the ship. Apart from the nautical mile and the knot all other meaurement data were in metric. The fathommeter, for instance, did not meaure in fathoms or feet at all, making 'fathommeter' just name for an instrument that measures depth at sea. It was a digital one and it recorded a depth of about 55 m under the keel when I was on the bridge.
 
There was one person on the bridge and the ship was sailing on the automatic pilot, all on its own!
Han
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, 2004-05-19 23:28
Subject: [USMA:29877] When is a country considered to be metric?

When is a country considered a metric country?  When it officially makes a declaration to do so, or when it completes a certain amount of changes?  Anti-metric forces in the UK claim the UK is not a metric country at all because the vast majority use FFU in daily conversations and usage.  Is Canada a true metric country if Canadians use more FFU then metric?
 
Is Burma and Liberia considered FFU because they made no official change, yet their economy functions entirely metric? 
 
What is the deciding factor as to whether a country is metric or not?
 
Euric
 
 

Reply via email to