You raise some very important points there. In the UK its quite perculiar in that compulsion and coercion by the state is now being used to "get people to convert" - and these laws are not passed directly in the UK parliament, which is dangerous.
Many people also complain that they percieve it to be all the work of the EU, which is not entirely true either. Whichever, it causes resentment. I believe it will backfire and thus for those Americans who actively want America to be more metric I would suggest that the route that the UK/EU has devised should be the last option on their list. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Elwell Sent: 04 January 2005 21:53 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:31816] Re: "UK measures" At 4 01 05, 01:28 PM, David King wrote: >But, I don't understand why the Americans call their imperial-type >units "English". Perhaps because most of the original wave of European settlers in the country came from England, and with other Europeans started emigrating with other units, those original settlers called their units "English." >They don't use the same units as the British imperial units which have >been used historically by the English, they use their own Americanised >version, which we could perhaps call "American units" . . . >Unfortunately they wanted to be different and came up with units that >no one else in the world uses . . . American units evolved from British units during a period when there was very little agreement as to what an inch was, or what an ounce was, and the fact that they developed a bit differently in the USA over the 200 to 300 years before things really started to standardize has nothing to do with "wanting to be different." It has lots to do with the fact that, when there was relatively little commerce between, say, a rural town in Massachusetts and one in England, if the "ounce" took on a bit different value it made no difference no anyone. >Eventually they may even drop those altogether in favour of metric, if >the public can be properly educated in that. Various US govts over time >have been able to use propaganda to get people to believe whatever they >wanted them to believe, they could do the same with getting people to >accept metric. It just takes the will to do it, but too many leaders >are afraid to bring it about. The US government is hardly the only one to "use propaganda to get people to believe whatever they wanted them to believe." All governments do it, including the British government. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes the populace see through the lies. Your comments about "US govts" having "the will to do it" show a very limited understanding of how politics and government work in this country. Just because those of us on this list think metrication is important, that does not mean our elected officials think it is important, and if they don't think it is important it won't happen. Politicians can be very effective at doing what THEY think is important -- it does not have a damn thing to do with "will" -- it has everything to do with perception of importance, and clearly pro-metric forces in the USA have not yet been successful at making this an important issue. Finally, as has been pointed out many times on this forum, the US constitution does NOT permit politicians to willy-nilly change our measurement standards or to broadly mandate specific standards be used. Unless there is a clear public benefit that outweighs the damage done by any metrication law, the law will be declared unconstitutional (see Rubin v Coors, 1995). What really astounds me is that many pro-metric people are happy to pontificate that metric is much superior to our American units, but are utterly incapable of showing how that is so to the degree that lots of Americans want to change. Jim Elwell Jim Elwell, CAMS Electrical Engineer Industrial manufacturing manager Salt Lake City, Utah, USA www.qsicorp.com
