C
cainem
Guest
not one to nit pick, canada was never an english colony, british but not english we allhad apart to play in building the empire
- Status
C
cainem
Guest
how on earth do you get the smiley at the end of a post rather than on top?
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Hmmm, I am an American from the South and although I do use southern idiosyncratic vocabulary (e.g. y’all, fixin’ to…), I do not have a southern accent nor does anyone born and raised in south Louisiana. Furthermore, my area has tremendous ties with France, Germany, Spain, Ireland and Africa and virtually none to England since we did not join the Union until 1812 (OK to be fair Baton Rouge was occupied by the British who promptly changed the name to New Richmond but it was captured by the Spanish during the American Revolution). Finally, this American has degrees in both Anthropology and History and loves learning about other nations and cultures. I believe the term you are looking for, although perhaps outdated, is “Ugly American”. America is not as monolithic as you might expect and since I am pretty familiar with English history, I recognize that there exist regional, cultural, and linguistic differences between the various parts of England dating back to Anglo-Saxon times. May I suggest that these attitudes about America are fostered by the media and may not accurately represent reality?
V
Vaclav
Guest
I’m an American too 
Well, half-American who lives in the South and I do have a Southern drawl. In my experience some Americans do have an egocentric point of view when it comes to the country and her relationship to the rest of the world.
For example, many called the Spanish “cowards” when they voted for a socialist government that withdrew from Iraq. Those Americans immediately viewed the action of Spanish voters as a reaction to United States policy via the war on terrorism and the Madrid bombings. Not once did they consider the campaign, domestic issues, or the fact that Spaniards (even those who supported other parties) thoroughly disliked the Iraq War. No, they had to be cowards because everything revolves around the United States.
A comment in this thread:
Well, half-American who lives in the South and I do have a Southern drawl. In my experience some Americans do have an egocentric point of view when it comes to the country and her relationship to the rest of the world.
For example, many called the Spanish “cowards” when they voted for a socialist government that withdrew from Iraq. Those Americans immediately viewed the action of Spanish voters as a reaction to United States policy via the war on terrorism and the Madrid bombings. Not once did they consider the campaign, domestic issues, or the fact that Spaniards (even those who supported other parties) thoroughly disliked the Iraq War. No, they had to be cowards because everything revolves around the United States.
A comment in this thread:
I’ve seen similar comments about France, but the truth is that many of these nations have faced these issues long before the United States had 9/11. It is that attitude that led the President to suggest who should be given EU membership, when it is strictly none of our business.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Well, I’ve looked at the entire post 9/11 European response as # 1 certainly their right as free nations. I see Spain within the context of history. They did fight the Reconquista and I certainly don’t begrudge their decision anymore than I can begrudge the French decision to do what they did or the Germans and Russian too. European politics today is every bit as complex as it has been within the last several centuries. As such, they are on the front lines in the war against terrorism. You should remember that this country, despite what is being done today, has traditionally held a strong sense of isolationism. That having been said, it is equally true as Admiral Yamamoto said, " We have awoken a giant and filled him with a terrible resolve". So, we come once again to the great dichotomy which we have seen in two prior World Wars. Europe does what it thinks best…Neville Chamberlain comes to mind as a sterling example of this.
As for this American, I can’t help but think of the classic line taught to all historians…Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
As for this American, I can’t help but think of the classic line taught to all historians…Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
G
gilliam
Guest
I think a philosopher said this, not a historian. I don’t remember much history that has actually been repeated.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Sorry, I respectfully disagree. You could take an absolutist view and, of course, history is not ever repeated exactly. However, you could look at Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement toward Hitler and draw a similar hypothesis today. Could we not make the argument that the far-less-than-incindiary cartoons regarding Mohammed have resulted in a self-imposed censorship of the western press and a very disturbing attempt against a medieval Italian fresco? Have we forgotten the world cultural treasures (the Afghanistan Buddhas) blown up by the Taliban. Precise history? No. Patterns of behavior based upon historical precedence, yes.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
P.S. Yes, a philosopher may have said it, but it is a premise which was drummed into me in 55 hours of history. Not to mention all the anthropology I had which covered prehistoric and other cultures. To use an anthropological principle, it is called the psychic unity of man which has nothing to do with mediums, clairvoyance etc. It means that man is man is man.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
We knew who were colonizing us. It was the English not the Welsh.
Many had a part in making sure it came down too. I wasn’t alive then either, when allyall were building it or tearing it down.
P
Petergee
Guest
Ani Ibi:
“British” also includes the Scots (and, in British usage before 1922, the Irish, and after 1922 the Northern Irish). Huge numbers of both settled in Canada. It’s amazing you didn’t know this.
P
Petergee
Guest
Ani Ibi:
I would normally have ignored such provocative and insulting posts as yours, but I make it a rule try to answer any question put to me on a forum, no matter how inappropriate/irrelevant.
Yes, Christus Rex for one.
Not sure what you’re getting at but this seems to be a gratuitous insult. I can’t fathom why you seem to need to attack me.
I assume so, but despite being invited to several times you declined to and simply piled on even more voluminous, faulty and/or irrelevant cotton wool, then had the nerve to tell everybody else they were drifting off topic!
Again I don’t understand what you’re talking about but it seems to be gratuitously insulting.
That’s good because I have no interest in seeing such a discussion. I wasn’t even taking to you.
What the…? The only one thowing out “flamebait” appears to be you.
Either you’re asking me or you’re assuming it. It’s impossible to do both at the same time. Yes at it happens I have lived 48 years in Australia and every one of the thousands of Aussies I have ever met who has used the word “Yank” has done it with this meaning.
None at all, that’s why my comment was “btw” which stands for “by the way”. I merely said it to correct the notion that the word “Yank/ee” originated in the US Civil War and/or is intended as an insult.
I would normally have ignored such provocative and insulting posts as yours, but I make it a rule try to answer any question put to me on a forum, no matter how inappropriate/irrelevant.
M
Melanie01
Guest
In the message space there is a smiley face to the left of the scissors, click on that and enjoy:wave:
V
Vaclav
Guest
Ah, the Neville Chamberlain comparison. How convenient.
Appeasement was primarily over the Sudetenland with the Munich Accords. It was not total appeasement of anything Hitler desired. In hindsight Britain’s military was at the time superior to the Germans, especially when allied with France, but they did not know that. According to their intelligence reports the German Army was vastly superior and both Britain and France were in an arms race to play catch-up. Hitler had done an excellent job exaggerating the strength of Germany.
Czechoslovakia’s allies were the USSR and France. Neither one trusted the other and the Soviets were simply unprepared for war. Stalin’s rapid industrialisation had just begun and not succeeded. Soviet equipment was outdated and they didn’t want to show that to Hitler (we would see it later when the T-26 shells bounced right off the oncoming Panzer onslaught in Operation Barbarossa).
So while appeasement in Neville Chamberlain’s case gets a bad wrap in modern history - mainly because of the word “appeasement” - there was really no other choice in Britain’s eyes. They realised their mistake with Poland a year later, but there was really no way to save the Sudetenland even if they had wanted to. Just like they couldn’t save Poland, but at least they could provide a united front against Nazism - through which France was obliterated.
As for lessons today, there are a few you could apply. Intelligence is not always accurate, just look at Bush and his missing weapons of mass destruction. At least Chamberlain was fooled by Hitler and not some two-bit Middle Eastern dictator
(that was a joke by the way).Does Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement apply to the War on Terror? No.
For one, you’d have to believe that International Terrorism is a threat the equivalent of Nazism. It clearly is not. The State Department has counted deaths annually due to international terrorism since 1968. The highest year for those deaths was 2001 when 3,295 people were killed, most in the September 11th attacks. In 2003 a little over 1,000 were killed, mostly due to Chechnyan violence. These are worldwide statistics.
In 2002 In the United States alone:
500,000 feti deaths from miscarriages
696,947 deaths by heart disease
557,271 deaths from cancer
73,249 deaths from diabetes
33,865 deaths from septicemia
30,622 deaths from suicide
16,110 deaths from homicide
4,410 deaths from premature delivery of infants
43,005 deaths from traffic accidents
4,641 of the above deaths were pedestrians, not in a vehicle at the time
17,380 of the 43,005 were deaths due to intoxicated drivers.
My point? Don’t you think that you are blowing the Islamic international terrorist threat just a bit out of proportion with reality? You are much more likely to be killed in a homicide or in a motor vehicle accident than by a terrorist act. Even if we assume 2001 as a common year, which it is clearly not (it is the peak year for international terrorist deaths) then it still doesn’t come close to these other issues.
Every life is important. So please don’t accuse me of being callous, far from it. Yet, this overblown fear of terrorism is a signficant drain on public resources and has caused many to display genuine hatred for Islam and the followers of that religion. The plain truth is that International Terrorism is a very inefficient and weak method of attack.
A
aboverubies
Guest
In the interests of world peace may I join my fellow Aussie forum members in assuring the rest of the world that no offence is intended in our use of “slang”. Colloquial language is an intrinsic part of our culture and is used by young and old, rich and poor alike. We have slang terms for practically everything - people, countries, food, cars, weather, sport - the list is endless.
Thus women are “sheilas”, men are “blokes”, a meat pie is a “dog’s eye”, and everyone is “mate”. (Even if you met the Prime Minister it would not be considered inappropriate to call him mate.)
As some other posters have mentioned, these terms are actually a sign of affection, acceptance and familiarity. In particular, slang terms are commonly used when referring to nationalities. Thus, the British are “Poms”, New Zealanders are “Kiwis” and all Americans are “Yanks”. No offence is intended in the use of these terms, just as no offence is taken in the use of the term “Aussie.”
Anyway it’s heaps late so I’d better stop yabbering on and hit the frog and toad mate cause I’m flat out like a lizard drinking. Hooroo!
P.S. No Aussie has ever said “I’ll slip another shrimp on the barbie for ya.”
Ever.
Thus women are “sheilas”, men are “blokes”, a meat pie is a “dog’s eye”, and everyone is “mate”. (Even if you met the Prime Minister it would not be considered inappropriate to call him mate.)
As some other posters have mentioned, these terms are actually a sign of affection, acceptance and familiarity. In particular, slang terms are commonly used when referring to nationalities. Thus, the British are “Poms”, New Zealanders are “Kiwis” and all Americans are “Yanks”. No offence is intended in the use of these terms, just as no offence is taken in the use of the term “Aussie.”
Anyway it’s heaps late so I’d better stop yabbering on and hit the frog and toad mate cause I’m flat out like a lizard drinking. Hooroo!
P.S. No Aussie has ever said “I’ll slip another shrimp on the barbie for ya.”
Ever.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
So rather than say that you don’t understand and ask me to clarify you just assume the worst about me. How is this not flamebait?
I don’t attack you. I point out the illogic and sometimes the rhetorical excesses of what you say. At attack would be about you as a person, not about what you say.
The comment of yours to which I am referring is one where you choose to ignore what I say or where you choose not to ask for clarification but instead choose to put words in my mouth, just as a performer might use a sock puppet.
Not true. I have made 14 posts on this thread so far. That is not declining to explain for myself, is it? So why do you say that it is?
Gratuitous. In the absence of any effort at all at providing an example of what it is you are criticizing or an argument explaining why you believe that example to be voluminous, faulty, and/or irrelevant cotton wool – this comment is gratuitous.
I said:
Does “We” equate to “everybody else”? No. So why did you accuse me of doing something I did not do and which you cannot prove?
I raised a question about linguistic imperialism. I noted that a discussion soley on the term “yank” without linking commentary to how other countries see the US might have been off topic. So I specified to link our answers to how Americans are viewed by other countries.
Did you say this?
You were not talking to me, even though your post was answering my post? Is that courteous do you think? You certainly were talking to others about me. Is that courteous? Moreover your comment to others about me was false and on the topic of moderator action. To me, that’s flamebait.
I was asking you if you are an authority.
That makes you an authority, according to you.
Ani Ibi:
How does this earlier origin negate the idea that the US had a Civil War, that the North was known loosely as “Yankees,” and that separating the term “yank” from its Civil War history and the history after that might be viewed as arbitrary? Translation: relevance? Source?
Once again, flamebait declined.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Petergee said:
The Irish who settled in Canada generally refer to their ancestors as Irish, not British.
The Scots who settled in Canada generally refer to their ancestors as Scots, not British.
The Welsh who settled in Canada generally refer to their ancestors as Welsh, not British.
As for the Cornwellians: I only know one and she calls her ancestors Cornwellian.
Actually I do know of the tendency of some to lump many into the one category of “British” in Canada. I also know the tendency of many to resist being lumped and to honour their respective heritages. In Canada.
P
Petergee
Guest
Dear Ani
I don’t know why you have such a derry on me or seem so determined to misrepresent what I have said, other than that I’ve pointed out, charitably I hope, some factual errors which you’ve posted on this and other topics.
As other posters from all over the world have repeatedly pointed out here that “Yank/ee” is a neutral or affectionate term for citizens of the USA used virtually throughout the English-speaking world with the exception of the USA itself, your insistence that it is insulting when used by an Aussie seems bizarre to say the least.
Persons from Cornwall (not “Cornwell”) call themselves Cornishmen/Cornishwomen, not “Cornwellians”. I really don’t think you should take your “Cornwellian” friend as an authority if she doesn’t even know this most basic fact about Cornwall. Cornwall btw is part of England.
What I was pointing out was the error in your implication that any Briton who is not English must be Welsh.
Of course I don’t think the Irish are British (I’m sure my Irish ancestors would roll in there graves if I said that) I was merely pointing out that that is/was British usage.
I won’t respond further to your other “points” as they appear to be merely attempts to stir up argument rather than shed light on anything. If you object to what I said about your previous posts, I suggest you go back and read them carefully with an open mind and a prayerful disposition. May the coming Triduum be a time of spiritual growth for you.
I don’t know why you have such a derry on me or seem so determined to misrepresent what I have said, other than that I’ve pointed out, charitably I hope, some factual errors which you’ve posted on this and other topics.
As other posters from all over the world have repeatedly pointed out here that “Yank/ee” is a neutral or affectionate term for citizens of the USA used virtually throughout the English-speaking world with the exception of the USA itself, your insistence that it is insulting when used by an Aussie seems bizarre to say the least.
Persons from Cornwall (not “Cornwell”) call themselves Cornishmen/Cornishwomen, not “Cornwellians”. I really don’t think you should take your “Cornwellian” friend as an authority if she doesn’t even know this most basic fact about Cornwall. Cornwall btw is part of England.
What I was pointing out was the error in your implication that any Briton who is not English must be Welsh.
Of course I don’t think the Irish are British (I’m sure my Irish ancestors would roll in there graves if I said that) I was merely pointing out that that is/was British usage.
I won’t respond further to your other “points” as they appear to be merely attempts to stir up argument rather than shed light on anything. If you object to what I said about your previous posts, I suggest you go back and read them carefully with an open mind and a prayerful disposition. May the coming Triduum be a time of spiritual growth for you.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
The folks in Cornwall were a Celtic people. The language of Cornwall has not been spoken for many years. Let me put this into perspective for you. I am of Breton French ancestry - Breton French is an oxymoron. The Bretons are the ancestors of the Britons who left the British Isles in response to the Anglo-Saxon-Frisian-Jute conquest oh, in or about the 500’s AD. My ancestors were not Welsh nor from Cornwall. They were Bretons. Ahem, and then those Breton folk settled in what is now Canada (under the French). Lo, along come the British (I would not consider a fellow Celt as British -Scot, Irish, Welsh, Manx, Galician, Breton as an Anglo-Saxon…Britain is not a people. Nor is Britain simply Anglo-Saxon - see my screen name.
So, we have these Breton (Briton) folks living in Acadie, New France and here comes the British army - aka the armed forces of England and after the course of the war they gather the men into churches (anyone seen the movie that Mel Gibson made called The Patriot?), and then ship them off all over creation until they end up in French Louisiana. My ancestors. I am of English ancestry as well. I would never sully my Celtic ancestors name as British. Nor would I sully my Anglo-Saxon ancestors name as being Celt. They are apples and oranges. Britain is a nation not a people.
So, we have these Breton (Briton) folks living in Acadie, New France and here comes the British army - aka the armed forces of England and after the course of the war they gather the men into churches (anyone seen the movie that Mel Gibson made called The Patriot?), and then ship them off all over creation until they end up in French Louisiana. My ancestors. I am of English ancestry as well. I would never sully my Celtic ancestors name as British. Nor would I sully my Anglo-Saxon ancestors name as being Celt. They are apples and oranges. Britain is a nation not a people.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Petergee: this post of yours if flamebait from beginning to end. I request that you focus any further responses on the topic of the thread rather than making personal attacks.Dear Ani
I don’t know why you have such a derry on me or seem so determined to misrepresent what I have said, other than that I’ve pointed out, charitably I hope, some factual errors which you’ve posted on this and other topics.
As other posters from all over the world have repeatedly pointed out here that “Yank/ee” is a neutral or affectionate term for citizens of the USA used virtually throughout the English-speaking world with the exception of the USA itself, your insistence that it is insulting when used by an Aussie seems bizarre to say the least.
Persons from Cornwall (not “Cornwell”) call themselves Cornishmen/Cornishwomen, not “Cornwellians”. I really don’t think you should take your “Cornwellian” friend as an authority if she doesn’t even know this most basic fact about Cornwall. Cornwall btw is part of England.
What I was pointing out was the error in your implication that any Briton who is not English must be Welsh.
Of course I don’t think the Irish are British (I’m sure my Irish ancestors would roll in there graves if I said that) I was merely pointing out that that is/was British usage.
I won’t respond further to your other “points” as they appear to be merely attempts to stir up argument rather than shed light on anything. If you object to what I said about your previous posts, I suggest you go back and read them carefully with an open mind and a prayerful disposition. May the coming Triduum be a time of spiritual growth for you.
J
john1863
Guest
Just a couple of sources for the Yank…Yankee origins:
None are conclusive, but they are fascinating…at least to me.
straightdope.com/classics/a2_260.html
wordorigins.org/wordory.html
This one list numerous references:
answers.com/topic/yankee
A completely different take:
sacklunch.net/personalnames/Y/Yankee.html
On a personal note, I interviewed a WWII vet some years ago who had returned to the British Isles in the early 1990s. In Ireland (Where numerous US troops were stationed for pre-invasion training) a man of approximately 50 years of age approached him, having seen his 82nd Airborne hat.
The Gentleman asked something to the effect of "Were you here during the war Yank?
When Jack replied, yes, the man replied simply…“Thank you.”
A nice usage of “Yank” to be sure.
John
None are conclusive, but they are fascinating…at least to me.
straightdope.com/classics/a2_260.html
wordorigins.org/wordory.html
This one list numerous references:
answers.com/topic/yankee
A completely different take:
sacklunch.net/personalnames/Y/Yankee.html
On a personal note, I interviewed a WWII vet some years ago who had returned to the British Isles in the early 1990s. In Ireland (Where numerous US troops were stationed for pre-invasion training) a man of approximately 50 years of age approached him, having seen his 82nd Airborne hat.
The Gentleman asked something to the effect of "Were you here during the war Yank?
When Jack replied, yes, the man replied simply…“Thank you.”
A nice usage of “Yank” to be sure.
John
- Status