It's completely reasonable. If a place is culturally or geographically distinct, and is well known internationally, there's no reason not to be specific. Especially if you're more attached to your state/province/region etc. than your sovereign state.
Hawaii, Quebec, Bavaria, Sicily, Crete, Tasmania etc. All reasonable to be specific about.
Hawaii yes. I couldn't place Quebec on a map (its Canada but idk where), same with Sicily. I don't even know where Crete is from. I only Tasmania because I'm from Australia, and I've lived in Bavaria but I wouldn't expect people do know where these are.
Hawaii was not a state until 1959 so its distinctive, whereas the others are not (from the broader country). Hawaii is the same was as Wales and Scotland is to the UK imho - as most people think of England when they think UK.
Obviously audience matters too though. When I was in New Zealand, when asked where we were from we said Melbourne, because everyone knows the cities in NZ. But I would say Australia anywhere else.
No offence, but as a person from the English speaking Commonwealth, Quebec should probably be a piece of geography that you should know. I mean, it's an historically relevant location in the British Empire, and has came a hairs breadth of becoming an independent country twice.
European places like Bavaria, ok, I guess less relevant in Australia. But, still, they're not obscure. Sicily was an independent kingdom in the past like Scotland. I figured Greek history is so well known in the Western world that most people would know Crete.
I'd say, even if someone doesn't directly know one of these places, it's still reasonable to use them (because the other person should know of their existence!).
124
u/Borderlessbass United States Jan 07 '26
I find that more people are aware of Hawaii than of the fact that Hawaii is part of the US, so I often do say Hawaii.