England, UK or Britain?
Feb 27th, 2004, 01:49 PM
#61
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jor - looking at the past history of the United Kingdom, it was in fact the English who were responsible for the terrible slave trade. It was not the Britain as a whole, but simply England.
And l believe that this is a problem through poor communication thanks to both the British and American media. I'm sure that half the reports that we receive from America are incorrect, and vice versa.
So, yes, l agree. Ignorance does play a part, as in every problem, but l believe that its the communication to blame. All l'm doing is simply spreading the message across, l'm not accusing anyone, just reminding everyone that there is a difference. I hope that you American's are mature enough to realise this.
And l believe that this is a problem through poor communication thanks to both the British and American media. I'm sure that half the reports that we receive from America are incorrect, and vice versa.
So, yes, l agree. Ignorance does play a part, as in every problem, but l believe that its the communication to blame. All l'm doing is simply spreading the message across, l'm not accusing anyone, just reminding everyone that there is a difference. I hope that you American's are mature enough to realise this.
Feb 27th, 2004, 02:41 PM
#64
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAUTION:
Don't trust those Australians with anything important. They've managed to loose their tallest mountain and a prime minister in the past and now their governor general is missing. He's the guy who can depose the elected prime minister at the bidding of the CIA ( an organization from the USA part of the N. American continent) or organize nuclear tests at the request of the British Prime Minister who lives in London in that quarter of the UK affectionately called England ( the part that has all those "shoppes") Careless, but carefree sorts.
AndrewDavid
Don't trust those Australians with anything important. They've managed to loose their tallest mountain and a prime minister in the past and now their governor general is missing. He's the guy who can depose the elected prime minister at the bidding of the CIA ( an organization from the USA part of the N. American continent) or organize nuclear tests at the request of the British Prime Minister who lives in London in that quarter of the UK affectionately called England ( the part that has all those "shoppes") Careless, but carefree sorts.
AndrewDavid
Feb 27th, 2004, 02:55 PM
#65
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glyn, to complicate matters further, you'd probably be aware of the school of thought that says even the English would have been OK if the peaceful Anglo-Saxons hadn't been overrun by the warlike and acquisitive Normans, the progenitors of most of today's aristocracy. Still, maybe without the Normans' urge for conquest we wouldn't be able to sit in all these widely separated countries having this discussion.
I just recalled that it was the invading Anglo-Saxons who drove the British tribes out of England, especially into Wales. Ruins that argument.
I just recalled that it was the invading Anglo-Saxons who drove the British tribes out of England, especially into Wales. Ruins that argument.
Feb 27th, 2004, 02:56 PM
#66
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 17,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, all! I'll go eat crow now, thank you very much! I'm the one who thought this thread more appropriate on the "Europe" forum - lo! Shows you how much I know!
Great discussions here - and 'bout as friendly as these discussions can get!
bennnie: "Wrong Indians" LOL! Had me laughing out loud!
GoTravel: "speling ears" - what them be?
I have had and still have friends in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland and I would never - ever! - ever want to get in-between a discussion/fight between and among those fine people.
Now we have the canucks, the aussies and the kiwis joining in - what fun!
(Hope I'm not insulting any one!)
Great discussions here - and 'bout as friendly as these discussions can get!
bennnie: "Wrong Indians" LOL! Had me laughing out loud!
GoTravel: "speling ears" - what them be?
I have had and still have friends in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland and I would never - ever! - ever want to get in-between a discussion/fight between and among those fine people.
Now we have the canucks, the aussies and the kiwis joining in - what fun!
(Hope I'm not insulting any one!)
Feb 28th, 2004, 01:51 AM
#68
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glyn,
You mean to say that in your recent travels that this "issue" stood out as a serious problem??? I can think of so many worthy and serious problems that I have observed in my travels both within the united states and outside. You have been pointing fingers and you are generalizing that all people from America (including canada which you also pointed a finger at) are ignorant simply because a few that you met abroad couldn't decipher where your accent was from. That's arrogant to me. There are far more serious subjects to discuss and complain about than being irritated because you were mistaken for being English. For the record, the media often makes mistakes that people often believe. If this is really an issue for you, you should be directing it towards them since you seem to blame them largely for this miscommunication.
I understand how other countries view the united states when it comes to attitudes of being superior. I love this country but in no way do I think it is perfect or that it is superior to other countries. When I travel to other countries I want to learn about their history, way of life, culture, people, etc... It's this constant bickering about who is better and who sucks that is the real problem. Yes, there are a lot of angry, ignorant, obnoxious stupid americans that travel abroad and are noticed for their behavior but there are plenty of other people visiting the U.S. that are just as obnoxious and ignorant. It will always be that way unfortunatly.
You mean to say that in your recent travels that this "issue" stood out as a serious problem??? I can think of so many worthy and serious problems that I have observed in my travels both within the united states and outside. You have been pointing fingers and you are generalizing that all people from America (including canada which you also pointed a finger at) are ignorant simply because a few that you met abroad couldn't decipher where your accent was from. That's arrogant to me. There are far more serious subjects to discuss and complain about than being irritated because you were mistaken for being English. For the record, the media often makes mistakes that people often believe. If this is really an issue for you, you should be directing it towards them since you seem to blame them largely for this miscommunication.
I understand how other countries view the united states when it comes to attitudes of being superior. I love this country but in no way do I think it is perfect or that it is superior to other countries. When I travel to other countries I want to learn about their history, way of life, culture, people, etc... It's this constant bickering about who is better and who sucks that is the real problem. Yes, there are a lot of angry, ignorant, obnoxious stupid americans that travel abroad and are noticed for their behavior but there are plenty of other people visiting the U.S. that are just as obnoxious and ignorant. It will always be that way unfortunatly.
Feb 28th, 2004, 08:07 AM
#69
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Glyn
I'll try to overlook the insulting remark you made about me and my knowledge, but please don't judge all Canadians by my ignorance. My mother taught me to turn the other cheek (or was that ear?). Now take a good look at your original posting.
You said "It's just like calling America Washington or calling Australia New South Wales. Make sense?" Well that statement makes no sense to me in relation to your beef (in Canada and the United States, in this context, beef means complaint not cattle).
Gardyloo says: "...tell everyone on both sides of the water that "America" refers to a somewhat larger geographic entity than than the 49 US States that happen to occupy a small portion of the continent. People from Guatamala are as much "American" as people from New Jersey. More so,
Hurray for Gardyloo; and my later input:
"Gardyloo, I totally agree with your comment that America refers to something larger than the United States but you left out Canada. ... there are two Americas: north and south, but people overseas (that is, on the other side of the Atlantic or Pacific) like to call the United States "America." This is borne out by the current popular movie "In America," where an Irish family emigrates to New York City via Toronto, Canada. My feelings were hurt. So the next time an overseas person says to me, "I'm going to America," I would feel justified in saying "north or south"?
But I wouldn't be upset Glynis, I would use it as an opportunity if the occasion warranted it. I think Canadians would generally agree to call people living in the United States "Americans" -- actually we insist on this differentiation, but again, generally speaking, we do not appreciate the United States being known as "America." Even Americans call their country "America" but after all these years we can't do much about it since they outnumber us 10 to 1.
So you see Glynis, we have all learned something from your beef. Now if will say United States when referring to the USA instead of America, I'd be smiling.
I'll try to overlook the insulting remark you made about me and my knowledge, but please don't judge all Canadians by my ignorance. My mother taught me to turn the other cheek (or was that ear?). Now take a good look at your original posting.
You said "It's just like calling America Washington or calling Australia New South Wales. Make sense?" Well that statement makes no sense to me in relation to your beef (in Canada and the United States, in this context, beef means complaint not cattle).
Gardyloo says: "...tell everyone on both sides of the water that "America" refers to a somewhat larger geographic entity than than the 49 US States that happen to occupy a small portion of the continent. People from Guatamala are as much "American" as people from New Jersey. More so,
Hurray for Gardyloo; and my later input:
"Gardyloo, I totally agree with your comment that America refers to something larger than the United States but you left out Canada. ... there are two Americas: north and south, but people overseas (that is, on the other side of the Atlantic or Pacific) like to call the United States "America." This is borne out by the current popular movie "In America," where an Irish family emigrates to New York City via Toronto, Canada. My feelings were hurt. So the next time an overseas person says to me, "I'm going to America," I would feel justified in saying "north or south"?
But I wouldn't be upset Glynis, I would use it as an opportunity if the occasion warranted it. I think Canadians would generally agree to call people living in the United States "Americans" -- actually we insist on this differentiation, but again, generally speaking, we do not appreciate the United States being known as "America." Even Americans call their country "America" but after all these years we can't do much about it since they outnumber us 10 to 1.
So you see Glynis, we have all learned something from your beef. Now if will say United States when referring to the USA instead of America, I'd be smiling.
Feb 28th, 2004, 08:26 AM
#70
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That last sentence should have read:
So you see Glynis, we have all learned something from your beef. Now if [you] will say United States or United States of America when referring to the US, instead of America, I'd be smiling.
Gardyloo: you missed one state. The last time I looked there were 50 states.
So you see Glynis, we have all learned something from your beef. Now if [you] will say United States or United States of America when referring to the US, instead of America, I'd be smiling.
Gardyloo: you missed one state. The last time I looked there were 50 states.
Feb 28th, 2004, 06:49 PM
#74
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's funny but when I read Barbara's comment I was thinking she was referring to Alaska, although I can't explain why. I've travelled to Alaska on a number of occasions since it borders on the Yukon where my son lives.
So there are 50 states in the Union, but since Hawaii is not part of continental United States it is not considered part of North America. I understand.
So there are 50 states in the Union, but since Hawaii is not part of continental United States it is not considered part of North America. I understand.
Feb 29th, 2004, 03:22 AM
#75
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lenleigh,
l merely pointed out a problem that l experienced while on my recent world travels. I experienced the problem in almost every country l visited (although l actually felt that the Australian's and Canadian's were more knowledgeable about the subject).
l did not bother to post the message to the Asian boards simply because 'our good friends from the US of A will be mature and responsible enough to hold a reasonable debate on the matter'. Obviously a majority of your good people have, and l have enjoyed reading about the history of both America, and the UK, some of which l did not even know. I have also enjoyed reading the same message on the Europe boards, and it has been received in a similar way as it has done on these boards.
But clearly you, lenleigh, are not mature enough to read this. If you can not take constructive criticisms on board then maybe this message board is not the place for you to be.
I hope that you understand my views, and do not take them personally, but as a constructive criticism.
l merely pointed out a problem that l experienced while on my recent world travels. I experienced the problem in almost every country l visited (although l actually felt that the Australian's and Canadian's were more knowledgeable about the subject).
l did not bother to post the message to the Asian boards simply because 'our good friends from the US of A will be mature and responsible enough to hold a reasonable debate on the matter'. Obviously a majority of your good people have, and l have enjoyed reading about the history of both America, and the UK, some of which l did not even know. I have also enjoyed reading the same message on the Europe boards, and it has been received in a similar way as it has done on these boards.
But clearly you, lenleigh, are not mature enough to read this. If you can not take constructive criticisms on board then maybe this message board is not the place for you to be.
I hope that you understand my views, and do not take them personally, but as a constructive criticism.
Feb 29th, 2004, 03:36 AM
#76
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's very strange, I thought Lenleigh gave an intelligent answer. But then I am the ignorant Canadian. But you are right, Australians and Canadians do indeed know more about the subject (except for me) because we share the same queen and whatever that brings with it.
From Neil's Australia postings you will note their GG is missing or hasn't been sighted in the last couple of years. Our situation is the opposite. Our has been too visible it seems at too great an expense tot he taxpayer.
Ah well, as you say, don't take it personally.
From Neil's Australia postings you will note their GG is missing or hasn't been sighted in the last couple of years. Our situation is the opposite. Our has been too visible it seems at too great an expense tot he taxpayer.
Ah well, as you say, don't take it personally.
Feb 29th, 2004, 04:02 AM
#77
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
michi,
May l ask what your opinions, along with other people that you know, are about being a part of the Commonwealth. Whilst in Australia, the feelings were mixed, probably more towards keeping it a part of the Commonwealth, however when l visited Canada l found it to be the other way around.
What are your opinions?
May l ask what your opinions, along with other people that you know, are about being a part of the Commonwealth. Whilst in Australia, the feelings were mixed, probably more towards keeping it a part of the Commonwealth, however when l visited Canada l found it to be the other way around.
What are your opinions?
Feb 29th, 2004, 08:35 PM
#79
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glyn, the debate in Australia is over whether to become a republic rather than whether to leave the British Commonwealth (you can do one without the other, as India, e.g., did).
We had a referendum on that a few years ago and the vote was to retain the monarchy. On the other hand, opinion polls indicate majority support for a republic. The explanation for this is that when it came to a vote the majority either (a) wanted to keep the monarchy or (b) didn't like the republican model proposed (a president chosen by a 2/3 vote of members of parliament) - the monarchist side managed to play Australians' cynicism about politicians and convinced the punters that they wanted a directly elected president - despite the fact that the office would be largely ceremonial and not much different to the current governor-general in scope.
Our current prime minister is a monarchist and was happy to add to the public confusion. His likely successor and many of his conservative colleagues are republicans, as is probably the entire Labor opposition, the Australian Democrats and the Greens. So there may be more common ground next time the matter comes up.
However, there's no great sense of urgency - the major argument for a republic can be summarised as "it's time we grew up and stopped hanging onto Mum's apron strings". (In reality Mum, having sensibly thrown in her lot with the EU, is no longer attached to the apron anyway.)
There's a subsidiary debate about changing the national flag to remove the Union Jack from the corner, a la Canada. This is because (a) the current flag conveys an impression in many parts of the world that we're still a British colony, (b) we're now a multiculural society in which a diminishing proportion of the population has British roots.
As for the Commonwealth, it has so little effect on anything that nobody really cares.
Personally, my roots are predominantly English, with a little Irish and Welsh thrown in. I think we should move to a republican model ASAP, change the flag and ditch the Commonwealth. However, I am in against repudiating or watering down the positive aspects of our British heritage (parliamentary democracy, judicial independence, a largely corruption-free public service etc). These things lie the root of why so many people from diverse cultures make their home here.
We had a referendum on that a few years ago and the vote was to retain the monarchy. On the other hand, opinion polls indicate majority support for a republic. The explanation for this is that when it came to a vote the majority either (a) wanted to keep the monarchy or (b) didn't like the republican model proposed (a president chosen by a 2/3 vote of members of parliament) - the monarchist side managed to play Australians' cynicism about politicians and convinced the punters that they wanted a directly elected president - despite the fact that the office would be largely ceremonial and not much different to the current governor-general in scope.
Our current prime minister is a monarchist and was happy to add to the public confusion. His likely successor and many of his conservative colleagues are republicans, as is probably the entire Labor opposition, the Australian Democrats and the Greens. So there may be more common ground next time the matter comes up.
However, there's no great sense of urgency - the major argument for a republic can be summarised as "it's time we grew up and stopped hanging onto Mum's apron strings". (In reality Mum, having sensibly thrown in her lot with the EU, is no longer attached to the apron anyway.)
There's a subsidiary debate about changing the national flag to remove the Union Jack from the corner, a la Canada. This is because (a) the current flag conveys an impression in many parts of the world that we're still a British colony, (b) we're now a multiculural society in which a diminishing proportion of the population has British roots.
As for the Commonwealth, it has so little effect on anything that nobody really cares.
Personally, my roots are predominantly English, with a little Irish and Welsh thrown in. I think we should move to a republican model ASAP, change the flag and ditch the Commonwealth. However, I am in against repudiating or watering down the positive aspects of our British heritage (parliamentary democracy, judicial independence, a largely corruption-free public service etc). These things lie the root of why so many people from diverse cultures make their home here.
