The Caribbean I have seen is mixed or less metric than even the UK.
This applies to St Lucia, Grenada, Bahamas, Barbados (although their road
signs, if you can find them, are metric), Antigua and Montserrat. Places I have
been to or regularly go to.
Unfortunately sometimes assumptions are made where the best basis for fact is
literally going to these places (hence John P Schweisthal [Jerry] never having
visited the UK for example).
Also there is a common mistake to only include "the big ones" when talking
commonwealth - from experience the smaller players are more interesting (and
house the most friendliest people on earth too!)*
Steve
* Disclaimer -this is not to say that people in the big Commonwealth nations
are not friendly etc - although this one wants to leave one of them for a
smaller one!!
From: j...@frewston.plus.com
To: usma@colostate.edu
CC: usma@colostate.edu
Subject: [USMA:44141] RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:49:53 +0000
Can I just intersperse some comments in these
statements? Some are based on my own experience, but some are also based
on outside observation during the time I lived in Canada. If anything I
say is incorrect, corrections welcome! I confess that some Google research
would have been advisable, but I am away this weekend, so am getting this off
before we leave.
----- Original Message -----
From:
Jeremiah MacGregor
To: U.S. Metric Association
Cc: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:55
AM
Subject: [USMA:44139] RE: Stephen and
other off-topic contributors
I believe that the UK got as far as it did for reasons that don't apply
to the US.
1.) They are close to Europe and do a lot of business with Europe and
needed to be on the same page. It would not be feasible for the UK to
have a different measurement system then their trading partners nor for the
population not to be able to function on the job that produces the goods that
will be exported.
Basically true, but I seem to remember that, in 1965 when
the decision was officially made to go metric, there was a general consensus
that metrication was the way the world was going (or was already
there), and that this was not just a Europe thing. Britain has always
been a world-wide trading nation, and in the 1950s and '60s, coined the
slogan
"Export or die". Going metric was part of the awareness that the country
depended on world-wide trade in order to pay off its war
debts.
2.) The British Commonwealth is practically fully metric and that too
would have an effect on what measurements the UK uses.
Australia was probably the first Commonwealth country to go
metric, but the UK's decision in 1965 preceded many other Commonwealth
countries, including Canada, South Africa (which was part of the
Commonwealth), other African nations (e.g. Kenya), the whole of the
Caribbean,
what is now Malaysia, and many other places too numerous to
mention.
3.) The UK is small in comparison to its trading partners compared to the
US.
True, although this is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Back in 1965, the UK had quite a prominent position in terms of world
trade.
4.) The US is mostly isolated from the rest of the world.
Yes, very true unfortunately! Something that President
Obama is aware of? ("The world has changed, and we must change with
it.")
5.) US trade is virtually one way. The US imports produced goods,
but does not export. As long as the US can survive being the "ultimate
consumer" and can continue to run high trade deficits then there is no reason
for the US to metricate.
I once read that 90 to 95% of all US-based economic activity
(i.e. production of goods and services, but excluding imports and other
off-shore activities) remains inside its borders, which is far higher
than anywhere else on earth. That was some years ago, and I would
imagine that it is no better today.
But, this system is highly strained. In the news recently, China
has openly defied the US by questioning the role of the dollar in
international trade and calling for a basket of currencies for the world to
use instead of the dollar. Sooner then Washington and Wall Street
realize, China will get its wish.
The outcome will mean the US can no longer operate as the ultimate
consumer and will be forced to run a more balanced economy. To do so, it
will have to produce in order to trade for what others produce and in order
for its goods to be accepted, it will have to show a willingness to cooperate
and adopt the metric system.
If memory serves correctly (and increasingly it doesn't as I
get older!), the US was once quite open to producing for the world, and
improving its world image. In 1971, I lived in Boston, MA,
working alongside a local architecture practice on a major project (Tufts
New England Medical Center), and remember all the roadsigns in the city,
which
were of European style (e.g. No Entry signs as a red disc with a
horizontal white stripe, then unknown in the US; speed limit signs consisting
of a white circle with a red band around the edge; etc). In
talking to my architect colleague, he explained that America was very
concerned with its image in the world, and this was part of that process (and
being trialled in Boston). Also to be part of that process was
conversion to the metric system (he was one of its promoters), and I guess
what he said was borne out when the Metrication Board was established in
1975.
It will be a very simple choice. Either adopt the metric
system or be shut out. What choice will America make?
The key is to get the American in the street to realise that
such a choice has to be made. I would wager that most Americans still
believe that the US doen't need to metricate, and that the rest of the world
will just have to adapt to America's use of customary units. At what
point will the (rude) awakening occur? - John F-L
Jerry
From: "br...@bjwhite.net"
<br...@bjwhite.net>
To:
jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com
Cc: U.S.. Metric Association
<usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:24:17
PM
Subject: RE: [USMA:44135]
RE: Stephen and other off-topic contributors
All that being said, I'd be THRILLED if we in the US were as far along as
the UK regarding metrication.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [USMA:44135] RE: Stephen
and other off-topic contributors
From: Jeremiah MacGregor
<jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com>
Date: Fri, March 27, 2009 8:20
pm
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Martin,
Even though you are not American, there should be no reason you
shouldn't contribute. We can learn a lot from you. We can
learn from the British experience as to what does not work and to the
Australian experience as to what works. I'm sure you have been a
valuable asset in providing ideas for metrication in the US.
However, there are those from the outside that do not belong.
This forum does not need to hear the tired opinions of those who will use
this forum against those who believe in metrication. Those
opposed will come here appearing as angels of light but are in reality
demons of darkness.
This is a forum that promotes metrication and I'm sure you agree that
to give voice to those that do is counter productive and in no way promotes
metrication. I hope though that when you say you won't hold
back, that you mean it enough to strike hard at those who will use this
forum to spread their anti-metricisms even in a subtle form.
Jerry
_________________________________________________________________
View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place – Learn more!
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/137984870/direct/01/
