feyna-v:

After talking about how nations are affected by illnesses with @ellawritesficssometimes, I decided to write an extensive post to better explain my take on the matter.

Now, as Ella already pointed out, from canon we know for sure that personifications can experience what’s the human equivalent
of an illness in three different situations:

1) Economic recessions
or depressions

2) Political unrest

Rome was shown to be sick when there was some
unrest inside his territory, in spite of the successful external military campaigns.

3) An illness affecting a big part of the population

This is the case of Romano, for example, who as
a child was affected by Huntington’s Chorea. I remember reading the strip but
I couldn’t find it to have a better check, I would just like to note that this
isn’t actually a widespread disease, Huntington’s Chorea is by definition a rare neurodegenerative pathology. It has its highest incidence
among European population, with a peak of 10.85/100.000 in Molise, a region of
South Italy, while it’s extremely rare in Japan (0.5/100.000), so I guess that
this is what Himaruya was talking about.

Either way, it’s canon that personifications can
be affected by illnesses that are characteristic of their population or affect
part of it.

It looks quite straight-forward, doesn’t it?

And then there’s this:

America, who, in front of a sick England and wearing
what looks like his WW2 uniform, doesn’t seem to know what a cold is.

As Ella pointed out, this looks like a
continuity error. It doesn’t make sense for America not to know what a cold is,
as he has already experienced the Great Depression, knows that England was sick
after the Revolutionary War and should have seen some humans getting sick, anyway.

My point is that, while this could likely be a mistake
on Himaruya’s part, there could also be
an explanation.

The most straight-forward explanation could be
that America does know what a cold
is, but he associates it with a human disease, not with personifications, so he’s
merely confused at the use of the term and he’s asking France for
clarifications on this. His confusion might also derive from the fact that he has
never experienced such an illness, as Himaruya seems to imply in a following panel:

Here, Himaruya is talking about wars, but since
this is his explanation for America’s ignorance on the matter, I think that it
applies on broader terms, meaning that America has never had a cold before – or
at least, not such a bad cold that it left him as sick as England was.

This seems to clash with other canon
information we have about the way illnesses affect personifications, but I don’t
think it’s necessarily so.

Now, what I’m proposing is not canon, but it’s
not even merely a headcanon, as it’s an interpretation rooted on canon material.

I am of the opinion that the rules I listed at
the beginning are merely general rules,
but they don’t apply in the same way to every single personification: just like
humans, there is always a factor of individual variability to keep in mind.

The fact that there’s some individual variability
isn’t only a headcanon of mine, either, as we have seen it in other fields, one
of the most glaring examples being a personification’s strength: this is clearly
linked with a nation’s political and economic strength, however it also varies from
personification to personification. For example England, even at the peak of his
power, was never shown to be as physically strong as America – he was even surprised
when he witnessed America’s strength (who at that point, by the way, was only a
colony – for how prosperous his land might have been, he shouldn’t have been that strong unless it was also a
characteristic belonging to him as a person, that later emerged even more with his
status of superpower).

Going back to illnesses, some nations will tend
to suffer more debilitating effects from an economic recession, while others will be affected in a lighter way, for example getting away with some exhaustion
or a slight cold instead of being bedridden, and this depends only on them as
individuals – just like some people might get a fever of 39 degrees for only staying
out in the cold and others never get sick.

Based on the evidence, I would place America at
the second end of the spectrum. Again, it could
be a mistake, but it doesn’t have
to be. This is up to interpretation.

Moreover, I’ve also found another small evidence
that might point to America having a stronger constitution than other nations:

Civil wars should be another instance where personifications
get sick, however America looks perfectly fine here – Canada looks worse than he is, and this makes me believe that,
while the general rules are always valid, the single personifications are
affected in different grades.

With this, I’m not trying to say that America doesn’t
get affected at all, but he has probably never experienced anything more than a
slight cold, and being isolated for so long he didn’t know that nations could
be affected differently – hence his confusion at seeing England so sick and the
fact that he didn’t know about it. Once again, his ‘what’s a cold?’ might be referred not in broad terms, but only in correlation
with personifications. This is why I believe that’s it’s not necessarily a mistake.

I really hope that it’s clear now! And don’t hesitate
asking if there’s any question 🙂

Re: Nations, Illnesses and Individual Variability

All right! So, as previously
discussed, the three rules @feyna-v laid out for us are canon. The first two are
explicitly stated in “In just 2 minutes you can
grasp the exterior of the European economy”, whereas the third one
derives from a solid example. I’m not here to dispute that.

However, there are few things
that I would like to point out and go over. Not all of it relates back to
America’s perception of colds either.

1)    America not knowing what a cold is may
not be a consistency error:

A)   Situating the Context

I think it’s important first
to situate the context under which these panels took place. Like Feyna said,
they take place during WW2 judging by America’s uniform. This comparison in
health happens at a time where America’s industrializing and profiting
immensely, not to mention that the war isn’t taking place on his own soil.
European land, politics, and civilian life was thrown into chaos. Despite
taking part in the war, for their own self-interest mind you, America wasn’t
nearly as affected as France and England were.

The fact that America is
stronger than France and England should be expected, as it falls consistent with
the inverse of the economic strength rule; if the nation’s economy is weak,
then they’re weak too. Wouldn’t it follow that if their economy is stable, that
their health would also be stable? It’s an implied yes.

Likewise, we know that during
the Cold War, America and Russia, as a result of their economic and political dominance
as global superpowers, were equated to superhumans by Finland. Today, America remains as a superpower.

Disclaimer: I’ve noticed that
Feyna and I have different methods of approaching the material :). If
I see a rule, I apply it to all unless an exception in the form of an example
or written statement is provided.

What I’m trying to get at
here is that using the former panel to compare America’s health is biased given
his economic situation.

How I interpret it is that
America’s health is stronger as a result of him not getting involved in
constant conflicts. France’s and England’s wallets are bled dry because they’re
consistently at war with each other or other European nations. As such, they
don’t possess the leisure that America experiences in not having to constantly
finance and handle the costs of these wars.

America “prospers” for a
number of potential reasons: he was previously spared from the costs of
international conflict, he entered the war later, he doesn’t have to suffer
from the loss of public infrastructure, and lastly, he began to industrialize again
after the Great Depression. The European nations also industrialized (in the beginning), but this
waned off dramatically as all resources were channeled into the larger war
effort.

Further, we don’t get to see
much comparisons of America’s health during economic recessions or slumps, save
for the Great Depression. Here, he’s notably weaker in spirits, confidence, and
potentially health. He shivers in the face of the other nations’ anger for recklessly
causing the recession.

Either way, the fact that
America is cowering in the face of the other nations’ fury is not him being his
usual self. When he’s at his peak, even when he’s wrong, he doesn’t seem to be
affected by opinions external to that of his own. This might imply that his
health actually declined during the stock market crash.

Nonetheless, because there’s
such a gap in the timeline, we don’t actually know how affected he was by the
political and economic turmoils following his independence and subsequent
isolation from European affairs.

Following that logic, this is
another reason why I believe that America not knowing what a cold is is a consistency
error. While he may be in better health relative to the the other nations, this
can be attributed to his economy. Isolation granted him a lot of privileges that
the European nations didn’t possess, regardless of the slew of economic slumps
he fell into during this time.

B)   America attributes a cold with human
illness

As I just mentioned, we don’t
really know much about America’s health state following his independence. We
get snippets of WW1 where he seems to be fine, and we already know that he’s
doing pretty well off in WW2;after
the recession…still, there’s huge gaps that we have to work with here.

Given the economic-political
strength rule, the nation’s health is impacted by the strength of their economy
and stability of their political affairs. If that’s the case, I find it hard to
believe that America never experienced a cold, given how volatile and
fragmented the nation was at several points in history.

Not only that, but I find it
hard to believe that he experienced a cold and wasn’t able to attribute it as
such. Unfortunately, these gaps in the timeline make it impossible to draw any
solid conclusions.

Although, if I had to guess,
America would have had to have experienced a cold when he was still under
England’s rule. We still don’t know for sure if Hima has made America as an explicit
exception to the rule in how he’s affected by political movements or riots.

There’s also the fact that
while not being allowed to see England when he falls ill after the Revolution, America
still shows concern for how serious England’s condition is. If that’s the case,
then he would have had to have had some understanding of what the symptoms of a
personification-type cold entails. Admittedly, it does seem like he underestimates
the seriousness of the cold at first. Then again, the Revolution was an extremely
serious blow to England, a consequence America likely hadn’t seen before.

2) Physical
Strength Resulting from Economic/Political Strength vs                  Physical Durability/
Stamina

Feyna brings up an interesting point regarding how England at
the peak of his empire is never shown to be physically strong. However, I disagree.

What needs to be differentiated here in my opinion is the nation’s
stature and stamina and their physical strength resulting from economic and
political stability.

You will have nations like Prussia, who’s shorter in height from
malnutrition, but is nonetheless able to get physically stronger as a result of
his country’s situation. In other words, the rule isn’t exclusive. It may not
be super strength like America’s, but as stated before, other factors hinder
this strength. So yes, there is some degree of individualized
characterizations. My argument is that it’s the same rule applied in uniform culminating into different outcomes.

While England is never explicitly shown to demonstrate immense strength,
it’s not shown that he’s entirely weak either. Instead what you’ll see is that
his physical body is weak in handling conflicts and lacks stamina, but he
nevertheless possesses a considerable amount of strength – it just doesn’t last
for long.

For example, as I’ll get into in the next part of this post,
France gains additional physical strength as a result of Napoleon’s conquests.
In the end, with the help of allies, England musters the strength to defeat
France, but collapses right afterwards. He also demands money as compensation. He’s exhausted from the financial and physical stain the Napoleonic Wars caused him. 

I think that can be attributed to how thin and small his
physique is. Simply put, England possesses the strength, but lacks consistent
stamina. It’s also important to mention the fact that we don’t get much strips
covering the peak of his empire following WW1.

3) Physical strength is something all nations can but don’t always
achieve [cont…]

With Prussia, we learn that the reverse of the economic/political
rule is also true. Prussia is told by Frederick I that he needs culture if he’s
to stand with the greater nations in Europe, which just so happens to be France
at the time. Prussia then reluctantly admits that his economy and industries are
faltering, implying that he is becoming weaker.

 I’ll be quick, but the running gag of this arc is that Prussia [because of France] associates wealth and “awesome” [aristocratic] clothing with physical strength.
He’s tasked with observing France’s culture, and later becomes the latter’s
pupil. Notice the consistency with the reference to the economy here.

The whole premise is predicated on Prussia becoming a stronger
power in Europe, a status in which he temporarily achieves.

Point is, while France and Prussia associate gaudy clothing as indicators
of strength, Austria is the one to point out the fallacy in this perception.

I do recognize that there’s a military morale at play here too.
Still, taken into the context of how the nations have been conceptualized before,
there’s more to take away from this.

The underlying message is that it was never the clothes, but
rather the economic wealth and political dominance that provided them with
extra strength. The wealth was simply a misatribution of this; it allowed for them to dress themselves lavishly
and feel good… a placebo effect if you will.

(i.e Prussia dressed up aristocratically, convinced himself he
was powerful, and then actually became powerful by initially studying and learning
from France’s culture).

In sum, from France and Prussia, we know that it’s possible for
them to gain additional strength. It would follow, then, that how a nation
gains strength is not quite based on individual variability (as in their
physical body), but rather individual economic and political variability stemming from a uniform rule that allows for this diversity…

4)   
Nations suffer differently from economic recessions (yes)

       It’s depends on them as individuals (not quite):

I’m basing this answer from what we saw in the Great Depression
strip. Each nation’s health was affected depending on how badly their economy
suffered as a result of the recession.

Hima even went so far as to assign objective numbers to measure this.

It’s not that I don’t agree with Feyna on the fact that America
is overall stronger health-wise in comparison to the other nations. I actually agree,
but I don’t think it’s an individual character trait; I think it’s very much
vested in the function of the economic leisure his political isolation gave him, his influential mass industrial power, and his rise to superpower status following WW2.
He wasn’t strained by conflicts as much (not that he wasn’t at all) as the
other European nations were.

But, given how volatile his domestic politics were, I do believe
he’d would have to been affected by it. Again, we don’t know this for sure,
since the notion of it falls outside the jurisdiction of the strips.

This brings me to my last point:

5) Domestic American conflicts

The rendition that we do get of the American Revolution is too shallow
to draw any conclusions on how America fared during it. We know that he cuts off
ties with Canada, and that England meddled in the whole affair.

Still, I wouldn’t say that America looks perfectly fine in the
panel Feyna provided above either. If you compare his expression from the first
and second panel in the strip, the way he raises his eyebrows and the potential flushing of his face does reveal some
kind of tension or strain.

Either way, this is just me being nitpicky. I would want to see
more coverage of the American Civil War before I would feel comfortable
commenting on America’s health and well-being during the course of the conflict.

Considering how inconsistent America not knowing what a cold is
with regards to the rules listed above, I honestly do think that it was just a
consistency error – it’s a fairly old strip, after all.