Message: 14
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 22:15:58 +0200
From: Gavinwj <gavinwj@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: more anti-usa low-blows
Michael Peters wrote:
Yeah. Good Point. I would just like to thank the British (and
the French)
for their awe-inspiring step of sending battlefield observers
and not much
else during the War of Northern Aggression.
I think this was the one where the South said, "Slavery is good" and the
North said, "Oh no it aint!" or something like that.
Gavin
I think it was more like the south said "We're not paying those export
taxes" and the north said "Yes you are" so a couple of southern states said
"no we're not, we're leaving the union" so the north said "if you do that,
we'll beat you up", so the rest of the south said "Oi, stop picking on our
mates" and left as well. Then the north said "The constitution doesn't say
a state can leave the union once it has joined" and the south said "It
doesn't say you can't either" so they spent the best part of 5 years
debating the point by extreme measures.
A note on the slavery issue is that the CSA outlawed slavery in all of the
territory that it controlled before the USA did.
A note on british participation: The most common infantry rifle during the
american civil war was the British 3-band Enfield Rifle also, The majority
of the confederate navy was constructed in Britain.
Please note that I have no axe to grind apart from providing clarity as I
am not an American.
What I am confused about is how come us Brits know so much about the
American civil war then? Now if the rest of the world could explain the
NIreland stuff to me that would help, then we could go onto Kosovo/a as
well...
Clint (feel like a bit of stirring)
>Subject: Re: more anti-usa low-blows
>
>Michael Peters wrote:
>
>>> Yeah. Good Point. I would just like to thank the British (and
>>> the French)
>>> for their awe-inspiring step of sending battlefield observers
>>> and not much
>>> else during the War of Northern Aggression.
>
>I think this was the one where the South said, "Slavery is good" and the
>North said, "Oh no it aint!" or something like that.
>
>Gavin
>
I think it was more like the south said "We're not paying those export
taxes" and the north said "Yes you are" so a couple of southern states
said
···
"no we're not, we're leaving the union" so the north said "if you do that,
we'll beat you up", so the rest of the south said "Oi, stop picking on our
mates" and left as well. Then the north said "The constitution doesn't say
a state can leave the union once it has joined" and the south said "It
doesn't say you can't either" so they spent the best part of 5 years
debating the point by extreme measures.
A note on the slavery issue is that the CSA outlawed slavery in all of the
territory that it controlled before the USA did.
A note on british participation: The most common infantry rifle during the
american civil war was the British 3-band Enfield Rifle also, The majority
of the confederate navy was constructed in Britain.
Please note that I have no axe to grind apart from providing clarity as I
am not an American.
Now if the rest of the world could explain the
NIreland stuff to me that would help, then we could go onto Kosovo/a as
well...
<Sound of sharp intake of breath>
It's simple. Like many very long conflicts, one party severely beat up
another party, for whatever reason, and then gloated over the defeated for
the next couple of centuries, thus ensuring that the original conflict and
defeat can never be forgotten and that the wounds can never heal. This gives
justification to the defeated in turn to wage their own war. And so it goes.
In the US, these were known as vendettas, but tended to be limited to just
two families.
If the Welsh had behaved in the same way, we'd be going on ad nauseam about
Llewellyn et al.
Not enough Welsh to do the business I am afraid. Who's this Llewellyn guy
anyway - the only one I know is an air host...
Clint
> Now if the rest of the world could explain the
> NIreland stuff to me that would help, then we could go onto Kosovo/a as
> well...
<Sound of sharp intake of breath>
It's simple. Like many very long conflicts, one party severely beat up
another party, for whatever reason, and then gloated over the defeated for
the next couple of centuries, thus ensuring that the original conflict and
defeat can never be forgotten and that the wounds can never heal. This
gives
justification to the defeated in turn to wage their own war. And so it
goes.
In the US, these were known as vendettas, but tended to be limited to just
two families.
If the Welsh had behaved in the same way, we'd be going on ad nauseam
Not enough Welsh to do the business I am afraid. Who's this Llewellyn guy
anyway - the only one I know is an air host...
I was reading about Arthur(s) recently. Seems a certain Welsh king, who
might have been the basis for the Arthurian legend, gave the English a right
stomping one time. Circa 1178, if I remember correctly. I can't look it up,
'cos the book's in Minsk!
Not possible, because Geoffrey of Monmouth is the main early source for
the Arthurian legend, and he's wring in the FIRST half of the twelfth
century.
Not sure what you're referring to with 1178. Anglesey gets seized by
the Welsh in 1200, and partial Welsh unity is established under Llewelyn
I and II, ending with the death of the latter in 1282, and the
completion of the conquest by Edward I in 1284.
I was reading about Arthur(s) recently. Seems a certain Welsh king, who
might have been the basis for the Arthurian legend, gave the English a right
stomping one time. Circa 1178, if I remember correctly. I can't look it up,
'cos the book's in Minsk!
Not enough Welsh to do the business I am afraid. Who's this Llewellyn guy
anyway - the only one I know is an air host...
Clint
RD: Shame on you Clint! Llywelyn ap Iorweth (known to his friends, both of
them, as Llywelyn Fawr = the Great) was Prince of Gwynedd 1194 -1240. He
seized power from his uncle and expanded his realm to include most of N
Wales. He fought off both King John and Henry III and extended his rule
over most of Wales. Towards the end of his reign Welsh divisiveness and
English numbers eroded his power till all that was left to him was Gwynedd.
Perhaps more famous was Llywelyn ap Gruffyd, grandson of the above, who
proclaimed himself Prince of Wales and was even recognized as such by the
English until Edward I came to the throne. Edward thumped Llywelyn into
submission in1277. Llywelyn failed to learn his lesson and rebelled in
1282. This time Edward did the job properly. Llywelyn was killed in battle
at Builth and Wales lost her independence for over 700 years until Tony
Blair's policy of devolution allowed a Welsh Assembly with limited powers.
Seems to be a Celtic trait as much as an English one to remember a
glorious(?) loser rather than a winner.
Richard.
>
> > Now if the rest of the world could explain the
> > NIreland stuff to me that would help, then we could go onto Kosovo/a
as
> > well...
>
> <Sound of sharp intake of breath>
>
> It's simple. Like many very long conflicts, one party severely beat up
> another party, for whatever reason, and then gloated over the defeated
for
> the next couple of centuries, thus ensuring that the original conflict
and
> defeat can never be forgotten and that the wounds can never heal. This
gives
> justification to the defeated in turn to wage their own war. And so it
goes.
> In the US, these were known as vendettas, but tended to be limited to
just
···
> two families.
>
> If the Welsh had behaved in the same way, we'd be going on ad nauseam
about
> Llewellyn et al.
>
> Gavin
>
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>
>
I was reading about Arthur(s) recently. Seems a certain Welsh king, who
might have been the basis for the Arthurian legend, gave the English a right
stomping one time. Circa 1178, if I remember correctly. I can't look it up,
'cos the book's in Minsk!
Not possible, because Geoffrey of Monmouth is the main early source for
the Arthurian legend, and he's wring in the FIRST half of the twelfth
century.
Only if you believe the English version of events... The first source for
Arthur is in the *sixth* century when he appears in some Welsh chronicles.
Yes, and Bede mentions him very early too. My point was, that the
legend was FULLY established by Geoffrey of Monmouth, and that all these
sources are before the 1178 date you mention.
RD has been thumbing the text books too I see. But the date you give is
too early for either of the Llewelyns. Any luck with 1178 RD?
Good link here for anyone wanting to brush up on their Welsh History:
I was reading about Arthur(s) recently. Seems a certain Welsh king, who
might have been the basis for the Arthurian legend, gave the English a right
stomping one time. Circa 1178, if I remember correctly. I can't look it up,
'cos the book's in Minsk!
Not possible, because Geoffrey of Monmouth is the main early source for
the Arthurian legend, and he's wring in the FIRST half of the twelfth
century.
Only if you believe the English version of events... The first source for
Arthur is in the *sixth* century when he appears in some Welsh chronicles.
>> I was reading about Arthur(s) recently. Seems a certain Welsh king, who
>> might have been the basis for the Arthurian legend, gave the English a right
>> stomping one time. Circa 1178, if I remember correctly. I can't look it up,
>> 'cos the book's in Minsk!
> Not possible, because Geoffrey of Monmouth is the main early source for
> the Arthurian legend, and he's wring in the FIRST half of the twelfth
> century.
Only if you believe the English version of events... The first source for
Arthur is in the *sixth* century when he appears in some Welsh chronicles.
I have to say, this is where such discussions cease making sense to
Americans. Does it really matter whose king Arthur was? Over here, such
things are academic, but never nationalistic. Totally different
mindset.....
I have to say, this is where such discussions cease making sense to
Americans. Does it really matter whose king Arthur was? Over here, such
things are academic, but never nationalistic. Totally different
mindset.....
Of course it matters. The Arthurian legend is the basis for a whole history.
It is intensely tied up with the spread of Christianity in England and Wales
and much, much later with the spread of English throughout the world.
As for the bit about not being nationalistic, thanks for providing a great
laugh!
It's not about nationalism, its about heritage. Of course we understand
that the Americans never have any disputes with their ethnic and
cultural differences, and are all equal under God.
I have to say, this is where such discussions cease making sense to
Americans. Does it really matter whose king Arthur was? Over here, such
things are academic, but never nationalistic. Totally different
mindset.....
Yes, sort of... UK does not equal England - different cultures, even
different laws to a certain extent.
···
I have to say, this is where such discussions cease making sense to
Americans. Does it really matter whose king Arthur was? Over here, such
things are academic, but never nationalistic. Totally different
mindset.....
>I have to say, this is where such discussions cease making sense to
>Americans. Does it really matter whose king Arthur was? Over here, such
>things are academic, but never nationalistic. Totally different
>mindset.....
It's not about nationalism, its about heritage. Of course we understand
that the Americans never have any disputes with their ethnic and
cultural differences, and are all equal under God.
<eye roll>
Now, Lawrence, you know that I know better than that. My point is, it
seems like everyone is trying to run off on their own. Between the
Scottish and Welch assemblies, the Quebecois in Canada, and all the
other nationalities fighting for independent states, it just seems like
everyone is so quick to draw differences instead of similarities. From
my perspective, it would seem that you'd be better off sharing that
island, instead of drawing lines down the middle.
OIC. You need a little insight into what is going on. England,
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are "United" because they came into
the control of one monarchy through conquest and royal marriage, as the
core of a huge and brutal empire, this arrangement was obliged to stick
for centuries. Three of them share the same island, and all of them
have the same first language (though Gaelic, Welsh and Cornish were all
driven to near (total in the case of Cornish) extinction by the English
policy makers). There the similarities end. The significant part of
England is actually physically closer to, and now linked with, France.
Wales and Scotland have recently been granted (note the language
appropriate to Royal Subjects rather than citizens) their own
parliaments, though with very limited powers. Many English people want
their own parliament as well, now that we have the crazy situation of
Scots and Welsh MPs able to vote on English law. Hence you see a
movement towards Devolution. AT THE SAME TIME however, each of these
countries is moving closer and closer into the European Union. A single
currency, the Ecu is on the cards - it just takes a long time over here
to throw off the shackles of centuries of tradition.
The prospect then, is for independent states, bound together in a
federal union - sound familiar? Your Woodrow Wilson, first started
talking about self-determination nearly 100 years ago. You never know
one day this trend might even help us get rid of the stinking monarchy,
and allow us to be governed, and pay our taxes to someone we've elected.
And finally, to quote (though he's actually doubting it) your American
poet Robert Frost: "Good fences make good neighbours".
Now, Lawrence, you know that I know better than that. My point is, it
seems like everyone is trying to run off on their own. Between the
Scottish and Welch assemblies, the Quebecois in Canada, and all the
other nationalities fighting for independent states, it just seems like
everyone is so quick to draw differences instead of similarities. From
my perspective, it would seem that you'd be better off sharing that
island, instead of drawing lines down the middle.
Now, Lawrence, you know that I know better than that. My point is, it
seems like everyone is trying to run off on their own. Between the
Scottish and Welch
Welch?!!!!
assemblies, the Quebecois in Canada, and all the
other nationalities fighting for independent states, it just seems like
everyone is so quick to draw differences instead of similarities. From
my perspective, it would seem that you'd be better off sharing that
island, instead of drawing lines down the middle.
jason
I concur - but on the other hand there is a long history of the English, for
example, stamping their authority on the Welsh (eg removing the language
from school that sort of thing) before the turn of the century and the Welsh
language nearly died out because of it. With language a culture is often
associated etc. But diversity and homogoneity need to be appropriately
matched in a culture - a situation the UK is very much in at present.
Impressed... nice one. Don't necessarily agree with alll the points raised
though.
Clint
···
Jason Bennett <jasonab@acm.org> wrote
>Now, Lawrence, you know that I know better than that. My point is, it
>seems like everyone is trying to run off on their own. Between the
>Scottish and Welch assemblies, the Quebecois in Canada, and all the
>other nationalities fighting for independent states, it just seems like
>everyone is so quick to draw differences instead of similarities. From
>my perspective, it would seem that you'd be better off sharing that
>island, instead of drawing lines down the middle.
OIC. You need a little insight into what is going on. England,
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are "United" because they came into
the control of one monarchy through conquest and royal marriage, as the
core of a huge and brutal empire, this arrangement was obliged to stick
for centuries. Three of them share the same island, and all of them
have the same first language (though Gaelic, Welsh and Cornish were all
driven to near (total in the case of Cornish) extinction by the English
policy makers). There the similarities end. The significant part of
England is actually physically closer to, and now linked with, France.
Wales and Scotland have recently been granted (note the language
appropriate to Royal Subjects rather than citizens) their own
parliaments, though with very limited powers. Many English people want
their own parliament as well, now that we have the crazy situation of
Scots and Welsh MPs able to vote on English law. Hence you see a
movement towards Devolution. AT THE SAME TIME however, each of these
countries is moving closer and closer into the European Union. A single
currency, the Ecu is on the cards - it just takes a long time over here
to throw off the shackles of centuries of tradition.
The prospect then, is for independent states, bound together in a
federal union - sound familiar? Your Woodrow Wilson, first started
talking about self-determination nearly 100 years ago. You never know
one day this trend might even help us get rid of the stinking monarchy,
and allow us to be governed, and pay our taxes to someone we've elected.
And finally, to quote (though he's actually doubting it) your American
poet Robert Frost: "Good fences make good neighbours".
