Words and Phrases We Can Keep Once the U.S. Moves to the Metric System

Frequently this column is serious although I do try to apply some humor within my writing. This week I thought I’d depart from history lessons and head scratching over our lack of metric adoption and just have some fun.

None of the metric “definitions” are real, of course, just comical suggestions for how we might approach these phrases in an all-metric future.

By leaps and bounds – I used that one day and a friend called me on it as in “Is that metric?” What else could I do but say “Yes.” I further responded by saying that a “leap” is 1.5 meters and a “bound” is 3 meters. And so now you know.

Bunch – This word is frequently used in cooking, as in a punch of parsley, etc. The actual definition is “clump” or “cluster.” I have no ideas how they decide how much a bunch is when you buy herbs and that sort of thing at the grocery store. So, as far as I’m concerned, the metric equivalent is a bunch = 10 of anything. A bunch of kisses: 10. A big bunch = 20. Use your imagination from there.

From afar – As in “ I’ve admired her/him from afar.” If it turns out the person is everything you thought she/he would be, then it’s between 1 and 3 meters. On the other hand, if you didn’t see the person objectively, you were probably more like 10 or more meters away.

Within hailing distance – This refers to getting another person’s attention, as in to “hail” or “greet” them. Metrically, I estimate this at about 10 meters away if both people are in relatively crowd-free conditions and half of that if there are lots of other people around.

A load off one’s mind – Of course, this is purely a psychological construct and could vary tremendously depending on the worry. Therefore, I propose a scale whereby finally remembering where you parked your car in the mall parking lot when you have an arm’s worth of packages is only a few grams while finding out that you didn’t have that brain tumor after all could be hundreds of kilograms.

Carry one’s own weight – Again, this is a psychological construct that people do their fair share of work and not an actual weight. For the sake of this article, let’s say that to carry one’s own weight is conservatively 1/3, oops .333 percent of their body weight. So, for someone who weighs 75 kgs, that would be 25 kgs. Ta da.

Throw one’s weight around – We all know these kind of obnoxious people. In this case simply double the person’s actual weight in kilograms. The extra weight probably won’t look good on them, even in your own mind. Nor should it.

Dead weight – The concept refers to a heavy, motionless mass. This one’s easy, the actual weight of the person or thing in an unhelpful way, in kilograms, of course.

I’m sure there are others I haven’t thought of yet. If you think of some and want to send them to me for a future column (and I know you witty people are out there) get them to milebehind@gmail.com and I’ll give you credit if I use yours.

On a more serious note: I came across these references while looking for quotations on weight and distance. I wanted to share them with you.

Men cling passionately to old traditions and display intense reluctance to modify customary modes of behavior, as innovators at all times have found to their costs. The dead-weight of conservatism, largely a lazy and cowardly distaste for strenuous and painful activity of real thinking, has undoubtedly retarded human progress…

V. Gordon Childe, Man Makes Himself, p. 31

And this is what the pro-metric folks will be up against (but hopefully from a single digit percentage of people):

Metric is definitely communist. One monetary system, one language, one weight and measurement system, one world – all communist! We know the West was won by the inch, foot, yard, and mile.

Dean Krakel, Director of the National Cowboy Hall of Fame

Of course, he forgets to mention use of our metric dollar (10 dimes and 100 pennies) courtesy of Thomas Jefferson—a founding father—that helped finance the winning of the West.

Be prepared for the naysayers, but keep your sense of humor. We’ll all come out better off down the road (measured in kilometers, of course).

Linda

(Join my mailing list by sending an email to milebehind@gmail.com. Thanks!)

The Top 10 Reasons Why Now is the Right Time for the United States to Convert to the Metric System

A brochure from the 1970s. The last time we tried to switch to the metric system.

1) More people in the United States are familiar with the metric system than at any period in our history.
The metric system was last introduced into the United States in the 1970s so baby boomers and every generation since have been taught the metric system even if they don’t use it every day. Only those in the “Silent” (1925-1945) and previous generations were not introduced to it as children. Folks 65 and older only make up 13 percent of the U.S. population so it’s safe to assume that 87 percent of U.S. citizens were taught the metric system at some point.¹ More familiarity with it  by the vast majority of our population should make metric adoption easier.²

2) The United States continues to be far from first in math and science compared to the rest of the world. The easier to learn and use metric system could be of benefit.
According to 2011 data from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study³, the United States rankings in math and science:

Math
4^th grade students = 11th (http://nces.ed.gov/Timss/table11_2.asp)
8^th grade students = 9th (http://nces.ed.gov/Timss/table11_3.asp)

Science
4^th grade students = 7th (http://nces.ed.gov/Timss/table11_4.asp)
8^th grade students = 10th  (http://nces.ed.gov/Timss/table11_5.asp)

Countries seriously kicking us in the butt include Singapore, China, Korea and Japan (to name a few).

3) Lack of metric adoption presents a trade barrier in a world where China is perceived as the next economic superpower. We don’t want to fall more behind.
This has two parts:
a) For many years the European Union has threatened to stop the import of products with dual (U.S. customary and metric units) labels. While that doesn’t look imminent, any market closed to U.S. products due to a lack of metric units is a mistake. (See more on this topic, see this recent blog post.)

b) The rest of the world is shifting its sights away from the U.S. and toward China as the next economic superpower according to the nonpartisian Pew Research Center. In its report, aptly titled “China Perceived to be Overtaking U.S. as Leading Superpower”⁴ from last year states:

In 15 of 22 nations surveyed in a Pew Research study, pluralities or majorities of these publics believe that China either will replace or already has replaced the United States as the world’s leading superpower.

This idea that we can make the world go along with our outdated measurement system because we’re such an economic superpower is fading fast. We need to pull our heads out of our collective hubris hole.

4) Many Americans are already using the use metric system in everyday life. Switching over the rest of the way shouldn’t be that difficult.
– If you buy 1.5 liter bottle of your favorite soda, 750 ml of distilled spirits, or read the labels on many medical and food products, you’re already using liters and grams.
– If you travel outside of the country, you’ll encounter metric units since that’s what 95 percent of the world uses.
– Many hobbies entail using the metric system as well.
– Then there’s scientists, doctors and anything that deals with international trade—all metric.

It’s just stupid to continue to support two systems. Switchover problems? Too many other countries have managed it just fine so that’s a moot argument.

5) It’s time to stop handicapping our children.
First, we currently teach our students two systems: U.S. customary and metric. That’s classroom time wasted. Second, they’re taught units that do not logically relate to each other as metric units do. More classroom time wasted. Third, they grow up trying to remember that there are 3 teaspoons in a tablespoon, 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, 2 pints in a quart (and so on). Trying to multiply and divide these awkward units means part of their lives are wasted.

Quick:
What’s one third of a liter?
What’s one third of a quart?
(Which measure should you even use? Cups? Tablespoons? Ounces? Ridiculous.)

6) At best, we’ll come in third to last in the metric race. Do we really want to trail so far behind?
The only other two countries that have not integrated the metric system into daily life are Burma and Liberia. For a country that prides itself on leading the way, we’ve sure gotten into the slow lane on this one. How sad would it be if one of these other countries managed to beat us out at metric adoption?

7) The strongest anti-metric organization in our history no longer exists.
For more than six decades⁵, the American Institute of Weights and Measures existed solely to halt metric adoption in this country. Not sure when it disappeared exactly but I hold in my hand an anti-metric book that it copyrighted as recently as 1981. Can’t find any current mention of it on the Internet. Good.

8) The current generation is more liberal and, therefore, more open to new ideas—including the metric system and a government that should make life better.
The millennials are more international than any previous generation. They routinely interact with people around the world on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, among others. They buy their illegal drugs in metric units and are much more likely to study abroad and travel out of the country. They don’t bat an eye at change. It’s part of their everyday lives.

In considering the role of the younger vote in the recent presidential election, the Pew Research Center also noted that:

Young voters continue to identify with the Democratic Party at relatively high levels and express more liberal attitudes on a range of issues – from gay marriage to the role of the federal government – than do older voters. In fact, voters under 30 were as likely to identify as Democrats in the 2012 exit poll as they had been in 2008 (44% now, 45% then). And they are the only age group in which a majority said that the government should do more to solve problems.⁶

9) There is already an undercurrent in metric system awareness in this country and people are actively seeking out information on the topic on their own.
It’s been more than 30 years since the United States disbanded the U.S. Metric Board, thereby officially dropping metric adoption. For whatever reason, it’s starting to occur to people that something is wrong and they’re actively trying to find out what’s happened. I anticipate that this interest will increase and we’ll reach “critical political mass.”

10) Social media is available to help propel metric system adoption forward.
Never before in our history has it been easier propagate ideas and information without buy in from the mainstream media. We can leverage social media to propel the idea of metric system adoption forward and connect with those who are likeminded to band together so that government becomes responsive to our needs. We are the future of the metric system.

One last thought…

Globalization is our reality and we need to be able to be able to communication with, and understand, each other. Common languages are the basis for such communication. We already have two examples of that: chess, and notation (scientific and musical). Let’s add one more language to the international stage: the metric system. For this last concept I give credit to my collaborator and project supporter: Robert Kwasny.

Notes:
1) http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
2) This references constructivism learning theory. For more information, go to http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED396998&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED396998
3) http://nces.ed.gov/Timss/index.asp
4) http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/china-perceived-to-be-overtaking-u-s-as-leading-superpower/
5) http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50F17FD3B55157A93C2AB1789D85F438185F9
6) http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/26/young-voters-supported-obama-less-but-may-have-mattered-more/

Will Hawaii Be the First All-Metric State?

A bill was introduced by state Representative Karl Rhoads of Hawaii earlier this year that seeks to make the metric system mandatory within his state. Called “Relating to the Metric System,” H.B. 36 states in part:

The legislature finds that very strong economic and scientific reasons exist for states to switch to the metric system. Other than Burma and Liberia, the United States is the only country that has not switched to the metric system. The cost of not switching to the metric system is quickly increasing with the trend towards globalization. Failing to switch could result in the United States losing its competitive edge in science and technology, as well as continuing to create bilateral trade impediments with other countries.

The cost of switching to a metric system could be quickly outweighed by the economic benefits of global interoperability. This is particularly important as the dominance of United States companies is being challenged in the competitive atmosphere of globalization. Switching to the metric system would likely result in the creation of many jobs, and enable the current and future workforce of the United States to be more prepared to work in the international marketplace.

It also stipulates that the law would go into effect on January 1, 2018. (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=36)

There has been some traffic on the U.S. Metric Association’s listserve (which anyone can join for free) on this topic and some concerns were raised regarding the potential legality of such a law since it might run counter to federal laws regarding labeling.

I do know that “The act to authorize the use of the metric system of weights and measures” from 1866 states:

It shall be lawful throughout the United States of America to employ the weights and measures of the metric system; and no contract or dealing, or pleading in any court, shall be deemed invalid or liable to objection because the weights or measures expressed or referred to therein are weights or measures of the metric system.

(http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/upload/HR-596-Metric-Law-1866.pdf)

I don’t have the legal background or financial resources to address this issue right now but I do know that states’ rights issues are relevant in this matter. (As I’ve said before, we’re less the UNITED States of America than we are the United STATES of America. Full metric implementation could be difficult without states’ cooperation.) I had also hypothesized that perhaps it was Hawaii’s shorter exposure to our metric-adoption struggles that helped it along this path but after speaking with Representative Rhoades, there was another, more practical reason (in addition to those listed in H.B. 36 above): tourism.

According to the Hawaii Tourism Authority:

Hawaii’s visitor industry continues to be the largest generator of jobs among the major industry sectors in the state, providing 152,864 jobs in 2010…Tourism is also the largest source of private capital into the Hawaiian Islands, contributing $11.4 billion in visitor spending and $1 billion in tax revenue last year.

(http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/news/articles/tourism-helps-provide-for-hawaiie28099s-economy/)

As the Representative pointed out to me, visitors go to Hawaii from all over the world. (And why wouldn’t they? I know I’d like to visit.) Increasingly, people from other countries travel to Hawaii and are tripped up by our illogical measurement system on everything from road signs to fuel to groceries (my words, not his).

A lovely beach in Hawaii

He hopes that a change to the metric system will not only make it easier for international visitors but that such a transition won’t cause problems for the rest of the country since Hawaii is physically isolated. (Of course, there’s still all the practical reasons listed above why we should all move over to metric.)

I applaud Representative Rhoads for his efforts and while his bill will need reintroduction next year, there is something we can do to help this work along. If you can vote in Hawaii, write to your representatives urging them to support this legislation. Know someone who lives in Hawaii? Clue them in to what’s going on so they can light a fire under those who influence the state’s government. For a complete list of Hawaii state legislators, go to http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/members/legislators.aspx?chamber=H for the House and http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/members/legislators.aspx?chamber=S for the Senate.

While such efforts might not seem to be seminal, by getting forward movement in enough different places, it just might be enough to change the world…oh wait…the rest of the world has changed, it’s us who are lagging behind.

The time to get with the rest of the world is now.

Linda

Join my mailing list by sending an email to milebehind@gmail.com! Exciting stuff is coming soon and you’ll be the first to know.

Lack of U.S. Metric Adoption and International Interest

When I first learned about the historic multiple failures of U.S. metric adoption, I believed only Americans would care about the story. I came to realize that nothing is further from the truth. I suspect that some of that external interest comes from the same reason that people slow down when they pass a car accident: morbid curiosity.

I don’t say that to be mean but I think it’s a human trait that when you see something that you really can’t explain and seems really peculiar you start to wonder what’s going on. That’s pretty much us with regard to metric adoption. People in other countries who realize how far behind we are here must be scratching their heads as to why we still can’t get our act together and go metric like almost every other country has.

The U.K. Connection
One of my early clues that this story was of international interest was when I started my Twitter account and folks from the U.K. and Canada started following me. As I started to think about it, that kind of made sense. After all, the U.S. and U.K have ties that date back more than 200 years. But, it turns out, not only are folks in the U.K. interested in this topic but top visitors to this blog are all former British colonies. That fact becomes visually striking when you look below and notice that in the case of New Zealand and Australia the U.K. flag is still embedded in their current “colors.” That’s less true of Canada, but then their currency is emblazoned with Her Majesty the Queen, so that takes any ambiguity out of the equation.

I tend to think of U.K. and these other top followers as our brothers and sisters because of these joint ties.

I’m also not the only American to notice that we tend to demonstrate our affinity to our U.K. roots in odd ways. Take, for instance, a New York Times article from late last year that mused over our bemusing tendency to incorporate Britishisms into our American speech. Titled “Americans Are Barmy Over Britishisms” it says, in part:

Crikey, Britishisms are everywhere. Call it Anglocreep. Call it annoying. Snippets of British vernacular — “cheers” as a thank you, “brilliant” as an affirmative, “loo” as a bathroom — that were until recently as rare as steak and kidney pie on these shores are cropping up in the daily speech of Americans (particularly, New Yorkers) of the taste-making set who often have no more direct tie to Britain than an affinity for “Downton Abbey.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/fashion/americans-are-barmy-over-britishisms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Some of this carryover must work both ways since our sibling countries are apparently wondering what the heck we are doing that we’re still behind the curve when it comes to metric adoption. Are the folks in Canada and New Zealand thinking something akin to “If we figured out how to grow up decades ago, what’s going on in the U.S.?”

The French Connection
Interestingly, while I was looking over my statistics for this blog on Friday I saw an unusual number of hits had come from France. A little investigation revealed that a woman writing on American topics, including this week our measurement system, had this to say about this project (translated from French):

If you are passionate about the subject, go to this American blog, A mile behind, denouncing the non-use of the metric system in the United States from all angles (the States are one of the only three countries in the world – with Burma and Liberia to not have standardized the metric system).

(http://www.maathiildee.com/2013/04/04/les-mesures-a-lamericaine-parler-en-inch-fahrenheit-et-)

As this project progresses I’ll have more of a chance to talk to people around the globe. Then I’ll get a much better feel for this interest and not only how we are perceived by those countries to which we have these extended ties but others around the rest of the world.

Want to join my mailing list?
I’m now starting a mailing list so if you would like to be added to learn more about this project outside of this blog, please feel free to send me your email address. I promise that I won’t sell or lend it. If you want to learn more about this project, that’s the least I can do.

Just send an email to milebehind@gmail.com to be added to the distribution.

I also welcome any thoughts or comments you might want to share in the email. I’ll assume that if you wanted them to be public, you’d comment on this post. Therefore, if I decide to share any of your thoughts in any way, I’ll do so in a way that keeps you anonymous. So, if you don’t want me to share at all, probably best not to send comments to me.

Thanks for your interest and I’ll keep moving this project forward.

Linda

Top pageviews to my post since its inception in July 2012:

An Anti-Metric Case Study: The Huffington Post

When I started this project I sensed there was a pro-metric undercurrent that’s been building for some time. I also surmised that the anti-metric folks would start to feel it and respond. While I can’t currently prove more media attention is building on either side, there was an piece that appeared earlier this week to which I would like to respond. It includes several of the more common anti-metric arguments I’ve come across.

The Huffington Post, in its Science section ran a piece by Lila Nordstrom on Thursday called “Diverging Bases: The Case Against the Metric System.”

Nordstrom says:

More irritatingly, there is something deeply patronizing and dismissive about the way in which the same people criticize our measurement system in America, which is based on British imperial units (which do, to be fair, have a vaguely sinister name).

The “They’re part of our British history” argument

Ms. Nordstrom is not the first person I’ve encountered who has connected a fondness for our current units in the United States to our ancestral roots in merry old England. There are a couple of problems with this:

1) We don’t use imperial units in this country. Sure, we initially brought inches, yards and ounces over but they were so flawed that we tried to “fix” them. However, that resulted in a system that does not completely align itself to any other country in the world. Thus, we don’t use imperial units in this country, we use U.S. customary units. We’re the only ones in the world who do.

2) As a subset of this incorrect attribution, the ounce used within this system is the avoirdupois ounce. It’s the one we use for units smaller than a pound and less than a cup. It also sounds kind of French doesn’t it? So, in an effort to embrace our British heritage one needs to embrace what the British adopted from the French. Sound a bit convoluted to me.

3) The U.K. formally adopted the metric system in 1965. So, if we really want to embrace our links to the British brothers and sisters, we should use the metric system as well. The fact that it is not fully entrenched there owes much to our own lack of adoption.

The nostalgia argument

This argument goes something along the lines of “It’s part of our heritage in this country, something we should embrace and try to preserve.”

Nordstrom says:

Though it may seem uncivilized (though I’d argue that a nation whose government lacks a belief in basic science could perhaps lay blame for its uncivilized reputation elsewhere), our loyalty to imperial units is, in fact, emblematic of some of America’s more endearing qualities; our belief in the common man, our pioneer past, and our history of rebellion.

Well sure, I’m all for embracing our history but I’m also pretty sure than many of these same folks who might find it quaint to have our monarch’s portrait back on our money would not want to revert to English currency and give up our metric measures within the dollar (as in 10 dimes and 100 pennies) for the pence and shilling. Do we want to go back to using the hogshead as a volume measure as well? That’s also part of our country’s early history.

The “they’re organic” argument

Nordstrom says:

Imperial measurements, by contrast, can easily be described in relation to the human body and the physical world because they were originally designed to be based on body parts.

I’d posit that some of these same folks arguing for our history would probably not want to go back to having their yard of fabric measured from the tip of nose to the outstretched tip of the finger (surely store owners would hire those with the smallest possible arms to do the work). Yeah, body parts are a convenient use of measures for a population that cannot read or write (looking back a couple of hundred years) but that is hardy the case today.

I could go on and pick apart what she says (for instance, she also uses the “having a system with more divisors” [2, 3, 4, 6] argument) but that really isn’t my intent.

What does please me about this particular article is that quite a few pro-metric comments  appear in her piece.

For instance:

It is easy for me to remember how many meters in a kilometer, or how many milliliters in a liter, but so hard to remember how many feet in a mile or how many pints in a gallon. That Imperial system just is not logical.

 

I still don’t know for example how many pints there are in a gallon, or how many feet in a mile. Not that I want to go back to the country of my birth, but still, I want to improve the country I became a citizen of.

and

…as a younger nation we prided ourselves on self sufficiency, competition and innovation as the imports increased tool companies and manufacturers used multiple measurement systems as opportunities to increase revenue. now that labor costs in the U.S. have become restrictive, outsourcing and imports have created an environment of government subsidies just for survival. much like the postal system, imperial units are dead weight that are dragging our economy down.

The pushback reinforces that moving toward the metric system are efforts in the right direction.

To view the original article and the comments I’m sure will accrue, go to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lila-nordstrom/metric-system_b_2923997.html.

Linda

How I Feel About Comments On My Blog

Three words: I love them.

This blog is all about my thoughts and opinions regarding my project and the adoption of the metric system in the United States. I’m happy to share those thoughts with anyone who might care to read this blog. Hopefully, I’m occasionally interesting or informative.

I’m also happy to hear what other people have to say for several reasons:

1) I’m one person. As broadminded as I try to be, I can’t anticipate everyone’s opinions and it’s only if I listen to their thoughts that I can take them into account as I move forward.

2) I learn new, relevant information. As much as I have learned about the metric system and its history there is always more out there. I hope to continue to absorb and incorporate new information into the project until such time as it is no longer possible. The project itself has an end date but who knows what will happen after that. Too soon to tell.

3) They give you, the reader, an opportunity to hear perspectives other than mine. Unfortunately, you have to click on the comments section to view them. I hope you take an opportunity to view them if you have the time.

4) Yeah, I can view stats for this blog and see how many people have looked at it and how many pages they saw. While interesting, that’s pretty dry stuff. By reading comments I get to know about the other people who are out there and who are interested in this topic and what’s on their minds. It also supplies more of a chance for dialogue. That’s always a good thing as long as both people are listening.

5) It means I’ve engaged you at some level. When I make presentations, I always hope for a question. I don’t even care if it is a negative question. Just one question means that everything I’ve said didn’t just go in one ear and out the other. If you post a comment, I feel the same way, like I’m not talking into thin air. Thanks!

Approvals

I get to approve comments for this blog and it will be my policy to approve all of them unless they’re spam, libelous, downright offensive or have some other major issue. Comments don’t have to agree with my perspectives but they need to be courteous.

Response to comments

I read somewhere that blog posters should respond to their comments. Well, if I respond to all of them, it would feel like I have to get the last word in. That’s not how I feel at all. I will—and have—let comments stand on their own. It’s not that I don’t care but I don’t feel like I always have to insert myself.

I did respond to one comment when the person continually used “we” throughout his remarks. I tried to point out (nicely) that if by “we” he meant Americans, that I am one so he shouldn’t assume that I was an outsider and I let him know that as one of the “we” he referenced he didn’t include my opinions.

So, if you want to post, have the guts to say “I” unless you are a bona fide representative of a larger organization. Otherwise, you’re just making assertions that your views are held by a wider audience. They might be but unless ordained, don’t pretend you represent those folks.

I am happy that I’m coming in contact with likeminded people through this blog and it helps encourage me to continue on this path. I do have a full-time day job as a writer and organizational communication specialist so this really is labor of love and an effort to help us move us forward on this important issue.

That said, I fully recognize that I “stand on the shoulders of giants” and I’m thankful for all of the other people who are devoting their time and energy to this issue as well. Where I come from, (a national science laboratory) the phrase of “critical mass” means something very specific in the physics arena. In this case, I’m hoping a critical mass of us can move the trajectory of an entire country in a more positive direction. And from what I can tell, the right people seem to be coalescing around this important issue. That’s a very positive sign.

Thanks for your continued interest as I move along this path.

Linda

Wrapping My Mind Around U.S. Metric History

When I decided to document U.S. metric history, I knew it would be a huge undertaking for me personally but I also hoped that it could have a positive impact on a wider world. Since I have taken on huge projects before and they’ve turned out quite well that aspect didn’t scare me.

What has turned out to be daunting has been trying to assimilate the vast amount of research that I’ve had to collect and go through. I now have a broad mental outline of the entire history of the metric system from prehistory to today but I will need to continue to refine the story as I deal with precise plot points in its history.

Interestingly, information has come from different sources depending on the time period. Ancient and more recent history on measurement systems has mostly come from books:

The Story of Measurement, Andrew Robinson (217 pages)
The Archaeology of Measurement: Comprehending Heaven, Earth and Time in Ancient Societies, Edited by Iain Morley and Colin Renfrew (236 pages)
The Measure of All Things: The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error That Transformed the World, Ken Alder (350 pages)
A Measure of All Things: The Story of Man and Measurement, Ian Whitelaw (157 pages)
Smoot’s Ear: The Measure of Humanity, Robert Tavernor (192 pages)
World in the Balance: The Historic Quest for an Absolute System of Measurement, Robert P. Crease (276 pages)
Measuring America: How an Untamed Wilderness Shaped the United States and Fulfilled the Promise of Democracy, Andro Linklater (263 pages)

Of course, the definitive piece for the U.S. history of the metric system up until 1968 is:

The History of the Metric System Controversy in the United States. (“This document reviews the debate between 1790 and 1968 on the question of the adoption of the metric system of weights and measures by the United States.”) U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. (268 pages)
This report has made up the bulk of my research from our country’s early history through the last attempted implementation with the Metric Conversion Act of 1975.

Other sources include newspaper and magazine articles. The oldest newspaper article I have is one from the New York Times and is dated 1877. It is titled “The Metric System” and begins with the lines:

Nothing more clumsy and inconvenient could well be devised than the dozen or more mensuration tables of arithmetic, which are a terror to childhood and almost impossible to retain in memory for life. There are in use lines, barleycorn’s, inches, nails, ells, quarts, quarters, gallons, pecks, bushels, coombs, minims, noggins, kilderkins, firkins, barrels, butts, pipes, puncheons, tierees, hogsheads, seruples, carats, grains, drams, pennyweights, and many others.

(Apparently things were even more confused back then than they are now but we still didn’t have the wherewithal to change.)

I also have information from sources such as the L.A. Times and countless magazines. In the age of the Internet, I also have my fair share of information from Wikipedia and various blogs. My guesstimate of the full amount of books and other information that I have for this project is about 7,000 pages but that’s probably conservative. And new information is coming in all the time.

In fact, one of my most recent acquisitions is a book on the implementation of the metric system in Australia (which I think I have indicated in the past is probably the most metric of any of the previous British Empire entities) titled For Good Measure: The Making of Australia’s Measurement System. (It was sent to me on faith alone by a gentleman there who advanced the book to me prior to receiving payment for it. Thanks Peter.)

Ultimately, what I ended up doing was dictating relevant passages into a Word document that will now form the backbone for my outline. Even this is an extensive document but at least it’s providing me with a jumping-off point. It was the only way I could figure out how start to pare down so much information into something that was usable.

You have to start somewhere, even if it’s the most tedious thing in the world to do.

Linda

Is It Time to Embrace the Enlightenment of the Metric System in the U.S?

As I studied the history of the metric system in the United States, I found I had to understand and put into context the history of measurement itself.

Try building something like this without standard measures. (Photo by Nina Aldin Thune)

While the metric system we know today began around 1790, no one knows the true age of measurement systems since they began prior to written history. Based on archeological evidence, some think measurement standards advanced to allow the construction of special buildings to the “powers that be” but surely, travel and trade had a hand as well though evidence is less readily available. However, thousands of years later, it’s the buildings (such as the pyramids) that still stand, testaments to the precision and consistency it took to build them.

And while measurement systems have developed throughout human history, I think one of the important things to recognize is that the metric system grew out of a global social movement called “The Enlightenment” or the “Age of Reason.” It was truly a historic advance that has led us (for better or worse) to our modern world.

While I’m sure there are many who could write more gracefully on this topic,­ the Enlightenment represented a move away from superstition (as in it is important to be indoors at dusk to avoid the evil vapors) and toward skepticism and the development of the scientific method. (Just imagine a world in which cell phones and demons that make milk go sour sit next to each other on the philosophical shelf.)

And while the United Kingdom, France and the United States all considered moving toward a metric system at this same 1790 juncture, only France was able to make real progress while the U.S. and U.K. continue to struggle with the metric system to this day.

The reason France was able to advance was probably three-fold:

1. It had a tradition of proudly of leading the way (much as we think of the United States today);
2. It had a huge proliferation of French measurements (an estimated 250,000 of them) that made it, perhaps, the most unwieldy system in the world; and
3. It had an opportunity to throw away the past in the wake of the French revolution.

Of course, we took some advantage of our own revolution to introduce metric money or the 10 dimes and 100 pennies we have in our current dollar (for which Thomas Jefferson was responsible). Still, it was apparently our rapid expansion and efforts to “get the job done” in our early history and involvement of those who were less about enlightened thinking and more about speed and greed that laid the foundation for our current metric-hampered society. [see note]

I still marvel that a country as advanced as our own, that bases its progress on scientific advancements (which uses the metric system), and on international trade (which needs the metric system), and seeks the best education for our children (yeah, we haven’t done the best job here but I’m pretty sure no one is sitting around saying, “Gee I hope our children grow up stupid.”) still can’t pull together the political will to move metric system adoption forward.

There are positive rumblings, however, with a recent White House petition and Hawaii (last to become a state and therefore less entrenched in our reluctant past?) pointing toward metric reform (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2013/bills/HB36_.HTM).

The latter states, in part:

The purpose of this Act is to establish the metric system as the official system of measurement in the State and to require its use in public documents, public records, and public school instructional materials beginning in 2018.

It also highlights one of the issues we’ll have to confront in a move to the metric system: state’s rights. When we drew together to defend against the British, we became the United STATES of America rather than the UNITED States of America. It forms the some of our basic political ideology and haunts us at the same time.

Still, Hawaii is breaking out ahead and sets a shining example for the rest of us. The state deserves our support and, hopefully, sheds light on a future where the rest of us can follow both at a state level as well as nationally.

Mahalo,

Linda

Note: Measuring America: How an Untamed Wilderness Shaped the United States and Fulfilled the Promise of Democracy. Andro Linklater. 2002. Walker Publishing Company, Inc, New York.

Metric Conversion and “Rational” Sizing

I’m learning lots of new things as a result of this project and a concept I became aware of early on was “rational sizing.” I’m writing about this subject now because there’s been a lot of traffic on this idea on the U.S. Metric Association’s listserve under the name “oddball measurement.”

What it basically means is that when moving from U.S. customary units to metric ones, things might not end up with what some people call “rational” (or rounded) numbers. I was also told by a reliable source (thought I have to admit that I have not yet confirmed this) that rational sizing was one of the points of resistance by the food industry back during our last metric push in the mid 1970s.

I’ll try to explain:

If you have a traditional U.S. eight-ounce container and you want to move to the metric system, you have two options 1) retain the same packaging and “re-label” (though metric units are on most American packaging) the container as 236.588 milliliters (not sure how precise labels need to be), or 2) you resize the package to something that seems more “rational” like up to 250 mL or down to something like 230 mL. Apparently, in some people’s minds numbers that end in zeros or represent commonly used numerical breakdowns such as 25, 75 are more “rational.” I don’t personally have that bias but different minds work in different ways. (I supposed a third option would be to keep the packaging size the same and round down the milliliters it contains to a rounded amount but that doesn’t seem to be the direction most companies take.)

For example: within my reach (I’ve confessed to my laziness before) is a bottle of Elmer’s Craft Glue. Its label states that it holds “4 FL OZ (118 mL).”

My understanding (and I’ll confess to being overly dramatic here) is that 30 years ago the food industry in this country had two objections to going metric and one related to rational sizing. “Oh my God,” said the food industry, “if we go metric we’re going to have to move to rational sizing, which means we’ll have to change all of our packaging, and that will be expensive, and then nothing will fit correctly on the shelves in the stores, and we’ll have to change the size of the shelves as well. That’s an impossible thing to ask us to do.”

I consider this argument poppycock and not the popcorn kind.

When the time comes (though I don’t expect to have any actual say in the matter), just take the customary units off and let the metric units stand on their own until a redesign dictates new packaging and then make a minor adjustment in the volume if having a “rational number” is all that important (and I’m not convinced it is). Heck, I could see manufacturers use their traditional “sleight of hand” and make the packaging slightly smaller and keep the prices right where they are. This has historically been done many, many times and Consumers Reports magazine highlights these sorts of tricks on a regular basis.

Actually, after a quick look around, I now have in front of me a bottle of Sutter Home Champagne Vinegar and its label reads “12.7 FL. OZ. (375ml).” In this case, it’s the milliliters that are “rational” and yet I bought it even before I started my metric quest. I’m sure at the time, having a less rounded number for ounces didn’t phase me in the slightest.

So, if you hear the “rational sizing” argument thrown around in future in a move to the metric system, at least you’ll have some background on what it’s all about.

As far as I’m concerned, rational sizing is not a rational argument.

Linda

Note: The phrase “rational number” in the above context does not represent its true arithmetic meaning. For more information on that use see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/492011/rational-number. Be prepared that most definitions I found required an understanding of the words “integer” and “quotient.”

U.S. Sets a Bad International Example—Metrically Speaking

I’ve already mentioned in this blog that I believe that the United States is not only holding itself back with regard to its lack of metric adoption but we serve as a bad example for our sister countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada. While both of the aforementioned countries use the metric system much more in daily life than we do here, the changeover has been less than complete in both. When I asked a metric authority in the U.K. why the conversion was less than 100 percent in his country, the basic answer was “Because you don’t use it.” As I heard the words escape his mouth, I not only knew he was right but I was embarrassed as an American that our country could have had such a backward influence.

Well, we’re apparently striking again.

Newspaper reports started coming out earlier this month saying that there is a move afoot to put a stronger emphasis on imperial units in the U.K. primary school system. [see notes below]

One article included the subhead: “Education minister Elizabeth Truss has announced that the new primary curriculum will put more focus on imperial measurements.”  [note A]

When I contacted the head of the U.K. Metric Association, he indicated that “The current position is that metric is the primary system in schools but a few imperial equivalents are taught to help children with shopping etc. The Department of Education has said there would be no significant change.”

Thank goodness.

But still, any shift toward imperial from metric units represents a backslide as far as I’m concerned. This wouldn’t even likely be under discussion if we, as a nation, had moved to a metric system 200 years ago when Thomas Jefferson wanted us to!

While internationally people’s gaze have started to shift from the United States to China as the world’s economic superpower (Yep, you read that right. [note B]) it is quite clear that the U.K. relies on us for revenue from exports as in “The USA has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world and is Britain’s largest single export market.” [note C]

As long as the U.K. depends on us for revenue and we continue to ignorantly stumble forward with an antiquated measurement system more backsliding is possible elsewhere in the world. This is, at least until we’re no longer a global economic superpower.

Would converting to the metric system help us economically in the world marketplace? I’m not qualified to answer that question but it seems likely to me that a complete changeover to the metric system might help us better compete.

Do we really want to find out too late that it was something we should have done? Why would we even want to take that chance?

Linda

Notes:

A: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jan/14/imperial-measurements-maths-lessons

B: http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/13/china-seen-overtaking-us-as-global-superpower/

C: http://www.ukti.gov.uk/export/countries/americas/northamerica/unitedstates.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259314/Imperial-weights-measures-classroom-radical-shake-maths-lessons.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/9790670/Modern-schools-must-teach-imperial-measurements.html