|
One day in Britain is too short to find out about
what people do. But almost all road signs were Imperial. Property is mostly
sold by the square foot. There is still a world of difference when entering
Britain from a metric mainland European country. British newspapers are all
Imperial, and they cover European news in Imperial units, like a
town being 30 miles from Paris etc. Even the progressive Guardian does not
use metric in its European covering.
And wait for the Tour de France to begin in
July and read its covering in British newspapers. I wonder how much French
temperatures will surpass the 100 F mark in British newspapers.
The use of metric in Britain is mostly hidden from
vieuw.
The ship I travelled on was a Danish cruise ferry,
'The Queen of Scandinavia'. Sailing at sea and everything that has to do
with seagoing ships was Imperial in the not too distant past.
For instance, in 1936 a Dutch passenger liner, the
New Amsterdam, was completed. It was built to inches and feet. I have a book
about that ship and it contains drawings which show the massive use of ifp in
those days in ship building. How many man hours in calculations must have been
squandered while designing and building that ship!
The fact that only the knot and the nautical mile
have survived and that the fathom and the foot have gone is proof of remarkable
progress. Nowadays many ships are built to metric standards as well. It seems
that the instruments on the Queen Elisabeth and the newest cruise liner (the new
Queen Mary, I think) are in metric too. I saw that on Discovery
Channel.
I will put the bit about the bridge of the ship on
the metricsucks site.
Han
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, 2004-05-23 14:56
Subject: Re: [USMA:29917] Re: When is a
country considered to be metric?
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 -----
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
| 