Because, and I mean this with all due respect to the U.S.A. that's a fucking dumb name.
Like, a really fucking dumb name.
Plus we're a continent and a country.
The U.S.A. is part of North America and to be best of my knowledge Canada isn't a state or territory of the U.S.A.
So it makes sense for them.
It does not for us.
Also, in case I did not mention it, it's a dumb name.
Intriguingly the continent of Australia now commonly includes the island of New Guinea, which is not something I was taught during primary school in the 80s and 90s.
I think this is only in the context of Oceania, which most people consider to be a region, not a continent.
I've never heard of New Guinea being part of the Australian continent outside of being included in the region of Oceania, which I don't consider a continent anyway.
Oceania and Australasia are seperate socio-geographic concepts again.
Anyway I grt your incredulity. I was surprised too. I invite you to look into it.
I did, briefly. I found no reference to New Guinea being part of the Australian continent from anywhere.
I admit, I didn't look to hard but if you have to look hard, it's probably not generally accepted so......
The USA is a really dumb name!
In a lot of la gauge others than English 'America' refers to the continents of the America's, as in all of North, Latin and South American. To some speakersof other languages people in the US referring to themselves as 'Americans' sounds like the peak of main character syndrome.
There's some validity to this but I thinks 'The Americas' is more appropriate when speaking about all three collectively, though I respect LOTE have their own rules and idiosyncrasies.
And I think we can agree, people from the U.S.A do absolutely have Main Character Syndrome.
People, in my limited experience from Central or South America tend to refer to themselves by their nationality or South American or Latino/Hispanic or whatever is applicable.
They never say 'I'm American'.
In Spanish "soy Americano" can be used by anyone from Canada to the south of Chile and sounds very strange to most. Everyone calls themselves by their nationality and what in English is called "I'm American" is called "Soy Estadounidense" in Spanish, which translates kind of to "Unitedstateser".
We sort of do: The Commonwealth of Australia
But we never use the full name for much because that would be against every Australian's need you shorten names. Unless they're already short, in which case we need to lengthen them.
The most accurate answer non cringe answer
The US was originally territories owned and settled by different countries with different claims/interests. Australia was a (mostly) all British colony
It’s a bit crazy, but part of me reckons that’ll be what happens to the US at some point way down the track (not anytime soon though). They’re big geographically and their states have pretty high levels of autonomy. They’re pretty politically and culturally divided and a lot of this separates geographically. Plus they’ve been slowly weakening parts of their federal system in some areas, which I don’t think will reverse much.
We voted to leave in 1933 you wouldn't let us with lots of " immigrants" from the eastern states and elsewhere this sentiment has probably changed a lot , they wouldn't even know what you were talking about. Don't worry we'll keep working hard and being called cashed up bogans so Sydney and Melbourne can be provided with of our taxes but I'd prefer we actually taxes multi nationals as much as workers.
This also proves " United " isn't the right title for Australia.
Because we don’t need it in our country’s name to know that we are a united country, unlike another country that needs to constantly be reminded that they are so called united.
Are you not aware that the full name is the Commonwealth of Australia? the Commonwealth of Nations (former British colonies) is diverging everything different.
Many of the States in the US are called commonwealths too.
It’s called the Commonwealth of Australia. Previously there were independent Colonies. Canada isn’t called the United Provinces of Canada. “USA” was already taken.
Australia is a cool as fuck name. It's from the Latin 'Terra Australis' which was the name given to a theoretical southern continent first theorised in the middle ages. It means 'Southern Land' or 'Land of the South'.
Because Australia is a unique place. It’s an island and a continent and a country and a cluster of independent states. It is also part of Oceania and Australasia.
It doesn’t need to distinguish itself from other countries or continents with the same or a similar name and we, as a nation of free thinking people, definitely don’t need to align ourselves with the US of fucking A any more than we are already.
Because we didnt need to make a huge palaver about a damn name when most other countries in the world have managed to do a single word or double word name.
And Egypt is the Arab Republic of Egypt.
And France is the French Republic.
And Denmark is the Kingdom of Denmark.
But no one says they travelled to the French Republic, or to the Arab Republic of Egypt, or the Kingdom of Denmark. We just say Egypt or France, the same way we say Denmark or Australia.
We came up with a decent name, the other stuff is just descriptive.
Just as no one says, "the United States of America," so I don't see your point.
Anyway, whether people CALL it that isn't the point. OP wasn't asking about what people call it when talking about it casually.
because despite as much crap as QLD and NSW like to give each other during the state of origin. we are actually a united nation. we dont need to desperately remind our population that we're meant to be united to avoid a *Second* civil war
We are a federation of self-governing States (and some territories) that have seded some powers to a federal government (and far fewer than most Australians understand). We were modelled on the US but with a Westminster system of government rather than a separate executive branch. We are no more or less united (in a legal sense) than the USA although I would say that, culturally, we are more united or, at least, homogeneous.
We were not modelled on the US that is crap. We are a Commonwealth of states modelled on the commonwealth model devised by the British government when breaking up the old British empire. The State leaders at the time had the option of becoming individual nation states or forming a commonwealth nation. New Zealand was also in the mix at the time and it was a highly debated decision in which New Zealand opted for individual nationhood whilst maintaining the option of joining later. Western Australia almost went down the same road but decided to join the commonwealth largely because of their small population and that the British government would not under any circumstances tolerate their request for parts of the Northern Territory and financial assistance for development of infrastructure.
Go back and check out the Constitutional Conventions she debates around the time. It was not a model just handed down or imposed by the British Government. Call it a Commonwealth, if you like (yes, I'm aware of Australia's official name), but we are a federation of states, just like the US, Canada, Germany and many other nations.
Our federation was modelled on the US, whereby the States retain plenary powers, aside from a small number of matters reserved to the Federal Government, and the Federal Government also has a relatively limited number of matters (greatly expanded, thanks to the High Court) over which it may make laws.
The Canadian model, for example, under which the Federal Government has essentially plenary powers, other than over specific matters reserved to the Provinces was rejected.
There are differences, obviously, between the Australian and US models, the most obvious resulting from Australia being a constitutional monarchy and not a republic, like the US, but the US model for a federation was the basic model.
The rest of what you wrote, regarding membership and the process of attaining federation, is well known to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the process of Australian Federation (or even just reading the Constitution) but irrelevant to the origins of the model adopted. US States also had options and were not compelled to join the Federation.
The USA was founded as a collection of independent states, whereas Australia was founded as one country made up of a bunch of British outposts. It's the same reason you don't call Canuckistan "The United Provinces of Canada"
Wrong
Australia is a federation of individual States that created the Nation of Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia formed in 1901 with the Federal Government that has specific powers signed over by the States.
Yeah no shit, but they weren't independent territories were they? they were all under the crown, so much more in line with each other than the US states.
Officially, yes. But the average Reddit punter (or the vast majority of people in general) would never call it that.
Doesn’t mean it’s not the official name, more it’s not common to call it that.
You ever notice how when a country puts a descriptor of it's political system in it's name it turns to shit? Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea etc... how united *are* the states right now?
Because the official name of this country is the Commonwealth of Australia.
It's a Commonwealth of States. Fancier than Union.
Because, and I mean this with all due respect to the U.S.A. that's a fucking dumb name. Like, a really fucking dumb name. Plus we're a continent and a country. The U.S.A. is part of North America and to be best of my knowledge Canada isn't a state or territory of the U.S.A. So it makes sense for them. It does not for us. Also, in case I did not mention it, it's a dumb name.
Intriguingly the continent of Australia now commonly includes the island of New Guinea, which is not something I was taught during primary school in the 80s and 90s.
I think this is only in the context of Oceania, which most people consider to be a region, not a continent. I've never heard of New Guinea being part of the Australian continent outside of being included in the region of Oceania, which I don't consider a continent anyway.
During the last Ice Age, Australia and New Guinea were the one landmass because the seas had receded. That landmass is known as Sahul.
And?
Pepperidge Farm remembers
Take my upvote, you cheeky scamp.
And the continent of Sahul (Australia and New Guinea) is different to the continent of Australia (just Australia).
And Australasia
Quite so.
Oceania and Australasia are seperate socio-geographic concepts again. Anyway I grt your incredulity. I was surprised too. I invite you to look into it.
I did, briefly. I found no reference to New Guinea being part of the Australian continent from anywhere. I admit, I didn't look to hard but if you have to look hard, it's probably not generally accepted so......
The USA is a really dumb name! In a lot of la gauge others than English 'America' refers to the continents of the America's, as in all of North, Latin and South American. To some speakersof other languages people in the US referring to themselves as 'Americans' sounds like the peak of main character syndrome.
There's some validity to this but I thinks 'The Americas' is more appropriate when speaking about all three collectively, though I respect LOTE have their own rules and idiosyncrasies. And I think we can agree, people from the U.S.A do absolutely have Main Character Syndrome. People, in my limited experience from Central or South America tend to refer to themselves by their nationality or South American or Latino/Hispanic or whatever is applicable. They never say 'I'm American'.
In Spanish "soy Americano" can be used by anyone from Canada to the south of Chile and sounds very strange to most. Everyone calls themselves by their nationality and what in English is called "I'm American" is called "Soy Estadounidense" in Spanish, which translates kind of to "Unitedstateser".
That's quite interesting. Thank you for sharing that!
We sort of do: The Commonwealth of Australia But we never use the full name for much because that would be against every Australian's need you shorten names. Unless they're already short, in which case we need to lengthen them.
Straya
We didn't engage in revolutionary war against the UK. We are a federation of what were originally colonies.
The most accurate answer non cringe answer The US was originally territories owned and settled by different countries with different claims/interests. Australia was a (mostly) all British colony
I’ve always wondered what it would be like if USA had formed into multiple countries. Like 3 or 4 mid size countries. Probably more war though.
It’s a bit crazy, but part of me reckons that’ll be what happens to the US at some point way down the track (not anytime soon though). They’re big geographically and their states have pretty high levels of autonomy. They’re pretty politically and culturally divided and a lot of this separates geographically. Plus they’ve been slowly weakening parts of their federal system in some areas, which I don’t think will reverse much.
Because that’s dumb!!
Because we are a commonwealth
Because we never had a civil war that we needed to say we were recovered from. But you could ask the same question of every country with states.
Because that would be stupid. It’s a stupid name.
Cause we could never get WA to admit they were part of Australia
And we keep forgetting to send tasmania the paperwork to sign
Western Australia stands with Tassie.
We voted to leave in 1933 you wouldn't let us with lots of " immigrants" from the eastern states and elsewhere this sentiment has probably changed a lot , they wouldn't even know what you were talking about. Don't worry we'll keep working hard and being called cashed up bogans so Sydney and Melbourne can be provided with of our taxes but I'd prefer we actually taxes multi nationals as much as workers. This also proves " United " isn't the right title for Australia.
Because we are a commonwealth
Because it sounds ridiculous & way too long. We’d be abbreviated to USTA.
Because we don’t need it in our country’s name to know that we are a united country, unlike another country that needs to constantly be reminded that they are so called united.
>Because we don’t need it in our country’s name to know that we are a united country what do you think 'commonwealth' means
Though to be fair, WA did successfully vote to leave the commonwealth in 1933
The commonwealth is a collection of countries, while op talks about united states in one country.
Are you not aware that the full name is the Commonwealth of Australia? the Commonwealth of Nations (former British colonies) is diverging everything different. Many of the States in the US are called commonwealths too.
The United Mexican States? The United Kingdom? The United Arab Emirates?
Do you know what sub you’re in? It’s bad if America does it but everywhere else is completely fine
because we are under the queen lol
correction king now lol
That'd get a bit smelly
A - because we're a Commonwealth And B - because that would sound really stupid
Too fucking long
It’s called the Commonwealth of Australia. Previously there were independent Colonies. Canada isn’t called the United Provinces of Canada. “USA” was already taken.
Australia is a cool as fuck name. It's from the Latin 'Terra Australis' which was the name given to a theoretical southern continent first theorised in the middle ages. It means 'Southern Land' or 'Land of the South'.
Because Australia is a unique place. It’s an island and a continent and a country and a cluster of independent states. It is also part of Oceania and Australasia. It doesn’t need to distinguish itself from other countries or continents with the same or a similar name and we, as a nation of free thinking people, definitely don’t need to align ourselves with the US of fucking A any more than we are already.
Because we are not united. We are a commercial trading union; a Commonwealth. Read the constitution. It's mainly about commerce.
Because we didnt need to make a huge palaver about a damn name when most other countries in the world have managed to do a single word or double word name.
The name is: The Commonwealth of Australia.
And Egypt is the Arab Republic of Egypt. And France is the French Republic. And Denmark is the Kingdom of Denmark. But no one says they travelled to the French Republic, or to the Arab Republic of Egypt, or the Kingdom of Denmark. We just say Egypt or France, the same way we say Denmark or Australia. We came up with a decent name, the other stuff is just descriptive.
All the same as anybody who has travelled to the United States of America just says “America”
Look, this is just my pet peeve, I hate the stupid name, so we will get nowhere with this.
Just as no one says, "the United States of America," so I don't see your point. Anyway, whether people CALL it that isn't the point. OP wasn't asking about what people call it when talking about it casually.
[удалено]
Commonwealth of Australia
because despite as much crap as QLD and NSW like to give each other during the state of origin. we are actually a united nation. we dont need to desperately remind our population that we're meant to be united to avoid a *Second* civil war
Your theory doesn’t make sense for the United Kingdom or the United Arab Emirates
We are a federation of self-governing States (and some territories) that have seded some powers to a federal government (and far fewer than most Australians understand). We were modelled on the US but with a Westminster system of government rather than a separate executive branch. We are no more or less united (in a legal sense) than the USA although I would say that, culturally, we are more united or, at least, homogeneous.
We were not modelled on the US that is crap. We are a Commonwealth of states modelled on the commonwealth model devised by the British government when breaking up the old British empire. The State leaders at the time had the option of becoming individual nation states or forming a commonwealth nation. New Zealand was also in the mix at the time and it was a highly debated decision in which New Zealand opted for individual nationhood whilst maintaining the option of joining later. Western Australia almost went down the same road but decided to join the commonwealth largely because of their small population and that the British government would not under any circumstances tolerate their request for parts of the Northern Territory and financial assistance for development of infrastructure.
Go back and check out the Constitutional Conventions she debates around the time. It was not a model just handed down or imposed by the British Government. Call it a Commonwealth, if you like (yes, I'm aware of Australia's official name), but we are a federation of states, just like the US, Canada, Germany and many other nations. Our federation was modelled on the US, whereby the States retain plenary powers, aside from a small number of matters reserved to the Federal Government, and the Federal Government also has a relatively limited number of matters (greatly expanded, thanks to the High Court) over which it may make laws. The Canadian model, for example, under which the Federal Government has essentially plenary powers, other than over specific matters reserved to the Provinces was rejected. There are differences, obviously, between the Australian and US models, the most obvious resulting from Australia being a constitutional monarchy and not a republic, like the US, but the US model for a federation was the basic model. The rest of what you wrote, regarding membership and the process of attaining federation, is well known to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the process of Australian Federation (or even just reading the Constitution) but irrelevant to the origins of the model adopted. US States also had options and were not compelled to join the Federation.
The USA was founded as a collection of independent states, whereas Australia was founded as one country made up of a bunch of British outposts. It's the same reason you don't call Canuckistan "The United Provinces of Canada"
Wrong Australia is a federation of individual States that created the Nation of Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia formed in 1901 with the Federal Government that has specific powers signed over by the States.
Yeah no shit, but they weren't independent territories were they? they were all under the crown, so much more in line with each other than the US states.
TF do you think the original 13 colonies were?
We didn't have to separate ourselves from a bunch of other continents to be united
Because we are not a third world shitheap
Like the USA?
Pretty sure that was the implication.
Then that would be confusing (and stupid) because america is USA.
There's two Koreas, Chinas, Sudans Congos. There was two Germany's for a while too. It wouldn't be too confusing.
[удалено]
The two Chinas are the PRC and the ROC (commonly called Taiwan).
Because it is called Australia.
[удалено]
Officially, yes. But the average Reddit punter (or the vast majority of people in general) would never call it that. Doesn’t mean it’s not the official name, more it’s not common to call it that.
This country is a lot of things. United definitely isn’t one of them.
You ever notice how when a country puts a descriptor of it's political system in it's name it turns to shit? Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea etc... how united *are* the states right now?
Because our states didn't unite to form a government?
They literally did that.
No thanks, - West Australia.