A while back I once made a list in which I took the US states as a microcosm of the world and attributed them as the nation they would be if the US was the earth.

Like those personality tests you take to see what kind of dog you would be if you were a dog. If a states was a current nation in the world outside of the US what nation would that state be.

The results are based on my perception and opinion of states. So yes it is biased and at times to make something fit I had to cherry pick certain attributes. The nations I incorporate the states into has nothing to do with actual world geography or absolute historical relation meaning that N Dakota could be Mongolia but that doesnt make S. Dakota China. It was more of a personality/semi history/economic/my personal feeling morphism. Much of what I thought is a product of my own sociological interpretations and probably bias.....so do not attack me if it looks like I slam your state. Alot of this is gut.

Alabama=Lebanon. My reason. A culturally conservative society in the heart of a culturally conservative religious region. Home of many culture/bigotry wars like Alabama in the 50's and 60's and Lebanon to this day. Also two poorer nations I would say. Again this is perception. When I think of the south I tend to think it is more dilapidated then the north.

Alaska=Sudan. My reason. The expansiveness of the regions coupled in with the divergent racial mixtures. Like the Whites and Inuits mixed with the Arabs and Blacks of Sudan. I also see Sudan as a culturally conservative state.

Arizona=Morocco. A more liberal state considering alot of the more conservative regions that surround it. The beauty of the two I think would be comparable and I see Morocco as a Gateway to the Mediterranean and Arizona as a gateway to California. Both being gateway's to a different state of mind despite the geographical close proximity to that more liberal state of mind.

Arkansas=Macedonia. Two poorer regions considering their location to more well known and prosperous regions. Both have really one huge national figure. Alexander the Great and Bill Clinton.

California=Great Britain. Two hugely powerful things. Both somewhat detached from the mainbody. California has a different mindset then most of the US and Britain from Europe. Both age huge influence within their domain's

Colorado=Chile. Kind of isolated mountainous regions. Some very rural some others very urbanized. A conflict between traditional ways (even more traditional Native American influenced ways) A cross breed between Latin and European.

Connecticut=Norway. I would say two of the more family oriented, peaceful and liberal regions in the world. Both considered somewhat suburbia. Well respected and clean but not overly powerful.

Delaware=Andorra. Two very old and very small regions that seem to bridge the gap between great nations and ideology. Andorra for France and Spain and Delware kind of New York power and Virginian old authority. Neither are massively different in culture then the larger and more dominant regions that surround it.

D.C=Hong Kong. Two more or less free cities which are way more liberal then the dominant regions that surround it. Both undeniably touched and influenced by British reforms and politics. Two politically special places.

Florida=Italy. This one just feels perfect for me. Densely populated tourist destinations. They both even jut out from a continental mass. Both majorly influential in politics and both huge cultural centers.

Georgia=Jordan. Both are very religiosly conservative but both are more liberal and progressive then alot of the other regions that surround it. Open to ideological differences more so then neighbor's.

Hawaii=New Zealand. A nice match. Both great vacation regions with visible portions of old Oceanic tribe and customs. The Maori and Hawaiians. Both are very liberal and open to female leaders. Great weather. Just free and liberal societies.

Idaho=Ecuador. Both really unknown but conservative and religious regions. Both are known for a major 1 item export. Idaho Potato's and Ecuador and bananas. Both are forgotten because of larger and more influntial neighbors.

Illinois=Spain. Both large and influencial amongst their regions. Both have major internationalized cities. Chicago, Barcelona, Spain. Both house regions of culture clash with different views of life. The Basques and the ideological shift that happens when you move further south from Chicago and hit conservative Springfield. Both have visible and controversial politicians.

Indiana=Romania. Both are large states located in proximity to richer neighbors. Both seem out of place for their region and both are relatively poor although it doesnt seem like they should be.

Iowa=Ireland. Kind of in between states. Both very traditional, religious and rural but both are relatively wealthy although they havent been in the past. Kind of dominated by its more influential neighbor.

Kansas=Qatar. Very religiously conservative and moral yet are still seen as not aggressive or imposing considering their alignments and despite their rural conservatism tend to be modern in alot of regards when compared to certain neighbors.

Kentucky=Bahrain. Both are known for a centralized wealth like Ft Knox and Bahrain for oil. Both are very conservative and when I think of both I think of alot of 12 year old girls getting married for some reason.

Louisianna=Argentina. Very conservative rural areas with absolute party centers. Both are known for their one city. I also tend to think of specialized and isolated ancestral groups like the Cajuns and Patagonians.

Maine=Belgium. Both medium size and somewhat suspicious regions. I think of Maine I see a rebellion towards New England. I think of Belgium I think of them having a chip on their shoulder by refusing larger neighbors like Germany in WWI and WWII even though they could have just let them pass if they chose.

Maryland=Denmark. Two small liberal and densely populated regions. Both are just about as powerful in their respective regions on an overall level.

Massachussets=Netherlands. Two very very liberal regions with a very storied and influential history although neither are overly populated. Home to very recognized international cities like Amsterdam and Boston and both tend to be the focus point of another title. For Mass its New England and for Netherlands its Holland.

Michigan=Canada. I think of lakes and coldness when I think of these two. Both are relatively liberal and I think of hockey for both in alot of regards. Canada is about as powerful and influential on the world scene as Michigan is within the US.

Minnesota=Sweden. Two mid-size state actually both with a very nordic tradition. Both are cold and clean and liberal minded for the most part. Both are moderately powerful.

Mississippi=Syria. Both I think of as poor and rundown. Ultra conservative with a history of racial/religious tension and both bring to mind terrorist groups like the KKK and Hezbollah.

Missouri=Taiwan. Probably the weirdest comparison but I think of taiwan as an ideological battleground between Authortarian China and western democracy. I think of Missouri as a gateway between liberal north and conservative south and both encompasse aspects of that. Missouri in the American civil war sent just as many units north as they did south.

Montana=Turkey. Both are very large and both are beautiful and both are pretty cnservative although are not as conservative or as easy to peg as conservative as alot of the nations they surround or associate with.

Nebraska=UAE. Both wealthier and more conservative nations. Kind of stay out of the rhetoric of their more conservative bretheran though. Both do not interfere or make alot of global headlines although they are wealthy.

Nevada=Czech Republic. AS a whole I see both as rural and poor but both have very liberal party SIN CITY centers in Prague and Las Vegas where anything goes. Neither have much influence within their greater whole but have that one city that keeps it known.

New Hampshire=Finland. Considered and tossed in with its neighbors although its really nothing like its neighbors. New Hampshire is lumped up with the liberal and secular neighbors of New England and Finland is considered just another Scandinavian state although the both have little in common with the mindsets and customs of those nighbors. Both are fiercely against govermental control. Finland fought the USSR ferociously and New Hampshire hasa record of electing bizarre and unusual politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jeffords.

New Jersey=Portugal. Both are somewhat influential on a whole and both are associated with more esteemed states New York an Spain. An image neither can really shake despite how different they are.

New Mexico=South Africa. Both isolated. New Mexico tends to be a liberal mistake in the middle of conservative country and SA is a ethic melting pot in a region surrounded by 1 major ethnic group. Both have a battle between groups (very different battles mind you) the Whites and Blacks in SA and the Hispanics and Whites in NM.

New York=France. Two very powerful very storied regions. Both are cutural and entertainment capitals. Both are very liberal and both are stubbornly proud and house great melting pots.

North Carolina=Egypt. Both were influential and prominant in the early histories of their regions. Both have lost that influence dramatically and now both are very conservative and religious. Both comparable in regional notoriety.

N. Dakota=Ukraine. Just two very cold and desolate and huge regions. Both are rarely spoken of and both are dominated by a bigger neighbor so much so that they are forgotten.

Ohio=Poland. Both huge and pretty influential regions who have storied pasts but are both declining in their respective regions. One is in the rust belt the other is basically a leftover from a Soviet rust belt.

Oklahoma=Israel. May seem weird to you. Both were kind of settled by displaced people (Native Americans, Arabs and Jews) and both have very late state hoods. Both are very stringent on law so much so that their laws are considered not humane by neighbors and both are aware of terrorist strikes. They both existed in limbo for a while as principalities and territories owned by a more powerful central force. I think very comparble.

Oregon=Australia. Two nations defined by the pacific ocean. Very liberal and laid back cultures. Both are influential amomgst their collective greater mass.

Pennsylvania=Germany. Both very large and have alot of representation within their greater whole. Both have an integrel part amongst their greater whole's. Both are liberal for the most part and very industrialized and simply Pennsylvania has a large German ancestry population.

Rhode Island=Luxembourg. Two very wealthy and very liberal and very small states that are dominated by its much larger and unfluential neighbors.

S. Carolina=Jamaica. Hot and swampy types of places with little big part influence. Both are very colorful and and I think more africanized then the majority of their neighbors. Both great tourist locales.

S. Dakota=Belarus. A little more democracized then certain neighbors. Desolate and largely forgotten regions. It is hard to mention either without its brother...N. Dakota and Ukraine.

Tennessee=Mexico. Both traditionally conservative and very religious places with very polite and non-abrasive people. Both have a fanatic sport obsession Vols Football and Mexico soccer. I would say both are poorer but are getting wealthier and both have some very liberal aspects despite majority conservatism.

Texas=China and Russia. All backwords places. Fiecely independant and unlike any other nation or state. All are very powerful large and unfluential within the greater spectrum. All have a large portion of conservatism.

Utah=Saudi Arabia. Both are absurdly conservative even for their regions. Both are religiously fanatical when compared to others in their region. Both are seen as oppressive even. Both are geographically large and both are pretty wealthy. Watch SLC Punk! sometime.

Vermont=Switzerland. Just two weird and wealthy places. People do not seem real political in either and neither are are associated with any form of military that springs to mind. Both are comparable in climate and both are clean and nice little liberal regions.

Virgina=Greece. Both almost the father of their repsective regions and both have seen a major power and wealth decline over the years although they still hold alot of nostalic reverence amongst neighbors. Neither are overly liberal or overly conservative and both now are about equally as powerful within their greater whole despite their absolute past power and influence.

Washington=Japan. I simply think of two cool ocean attached regions. Both very liberal and laid back. Both very in fact overly polite and for some reason I just think of fish and people eating fish when I think of both.

West Virgina=Iceland. Both somewhat isolated and introverted. Both highly intelligent yet not overly wealthy. Both have some rural almost folkish people that stay out of the few larger cities they both have. Both were once the possesion of a greater and more powerful master that they wished to and eventually split from. Both are content to be alone and amongst themselves.

Wisconsin=Austria. Both somehat colder regions dominated by much more powerful neighbors. Both are home to many hermits. Both are considered upper class amongst their greater whole although portions of them are very rural. Both are about equal in power and influence amongst their greater wholes and both have some important history. One is the home of the republican party the other is home to the family that started the real first mass murder war. Both changed military and politics foreveor is what I am saying.

Well that is my comparison. Yes I am a loser who would spend his time doing this.
I do not expect anyone to do what I did (no one is that boring) but does anyone dispute any of my list or have any of their own states that they think resemble a nation?


My Question is what select states would you say are most closely personified by a current nation?

Or you can simply ridicule and dispute my comparisons.