The 51st State

Over at Reddit.com, I came across a link to that cool animated map showing who has conquered the Middle East region over the years. The list, of course, is long and storied. It is below if you haven’t seen it before.

Anyway, here are some interesting comments regarding the map:

And now, Irag is the 51st state. Whooohooo.

I think he meant ‘Iraq’. Interesting, as the USA isn’t mentioned once on the map.

how many 51st states do we have now?

I find that amusing, because everything’s always supposedly the 51st state. But there are still only 50.

I lost count, actually. But the precise number is hardly the point.

See? Even the critics have lost count. But they miss “the point” that there are still only 50. The commenter seems to think that “the point” is that America is always getting new 51st states, and I think “the point” is that the critics have been wrong every single time so far.

i can see it now. america will have 50 states. the rest of the world will be the 51st.

The rest of the world would never settle for only two US Senators…

Is this the part where we’re supposed to chant “USA! USA!”?

No, that would be the part where “USA” actually shows up on the map. The part that hasn’t happened.

Then you have the war/leadership map, which makes the democrats look awful , and making some questionable casualty figures to be tallied under democrats (the first barbary war? I don’t remeber there being a democratic party back then. In fact, i’m pretty sure that republicans consider jefferson to be a republican. Although probably only when he functions as a founding father, as opposed to a warmongerer) [emphasis Murdoc’s]

I’m pretty sure he’s wrong about what today’s Republicans think about Jefferson being a Republican as it refers to what is today’s Republican party.

Though I see very little value in the thing, at the bottom is the map they’re talking about.

I’ve put the animations below so that they don’t screw up the display of the front page.

Comments

  1. There’s a movement in Guyana, I heard, where some are pushing for that nation to petition for statehood. goggling… link: http://www.guyanausa.org/statehood.htm I don’t know how serious they are, but hey, why not? Puerto Rico should shit or get off the pot, really. Aside from that, I don’t think we’re really in line to acquire more states unless Canada breaks up. We might get some there. The more, the merrier, I say.

  2. Take two… Clearly, having a consentual, elected government choose to become part of larger polity is empire building at its worst. Maybe we should be more like the old USSR and just set up puppet governments with nominal autonomy, and keep the population in line with fear and terror. So if the logic of US intervention holds true as state bait, why is not all of Western Europe part of the United States now? Or Japan? Or the Philippines? Or South Korea? Or Cuba? Or … Somehow they all got away as independent nations. Man, we really suck at this empire building thing. If this shows up again under Harry Potter, I give up =)

  3. Well, that was probably one of our least noble wars, but it still would have been interesting to see what Mexico would look like today if run by the U.S. Probably would have been a bad idea, due to the different cultural heritage and values in the Mexican style versus the U.S. The same cultural heritage that has helped place them in the corrupt squalor much of Mexico finds itself in today. I know that flies in the face of cultural relativism, but it seems pretty accurate to me. Its like Longshanks said in Braveheart. ‘The trouble with Scotland, is that its full of Scots!’ While treading the line of unacceptable political incorrectness, I’m not sure that Mexico could have been assimilated into American culture had it been added to the U.S., not to mention that today balkanization is the order of the day, not assimilation. Anyway, did I miss something? When did statehood become about conquering and not about voting to become a part of the USA? At least the US-hegemony crowd are a little bit more in line with the facts, even if I think they misinterpret them. But a state has never been admitted DIRECTLY because of a war that I know of.

  4. Well, that was probably one of our least noble wars, but it still would have been interesting to see what Mexico would look like today if run by the U.S. Probably would have been a bad idea, due to the different cultural heritage and values in the Mexican style versus the U.S. The same cultural heritage that has helped place them in the corrupt squalor much of Mexico finds itself in today. I know that flies in the face of cultural relativism, but it seems pretty accurate to me. Its like Longshanks said in Braveheart. ‘The trouble with Scotland, is that its full of Scots!’ While treading the line of unacceptable political incorrectness, I’m not sure that Mexico could have been assimilated into American culture had it been added to the U.S., not to mention that today balkanization is the order of the day, not assimilation. Anyway, did I miss something? When did statehood become about conquering and not about voting to become a part of the USA? At least the US-hegemony crowd are a little bit more in line with the facts, even if I think they misinterpret them. But a state has never been admitted DIRECTLY because of a war that I know of.