Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Devil's advocate | |
Author: Ron | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 11:36:19 01/03/05 Mon In reply to: Ed Harris (IOM) 's message, "Yep." on 18:12:02 01/02/05 Sun "Much like the US Constitution (217 years old), the Union with Scotland (400 years old), wearing neck-ties (c. 300) and the idea of a federally United Europe (about 60 years old, courtesy of Jean Monnet). All these things are terribly old fashioned and should be abolished." Hmmm... many people want rid of the Union in Scotland (enough to form the opposition there), and the US constitution faces its problems, from those who hate the right to bear arms, and those who hate church and state being separated... so I'm not sure that these are non-issues. "I do not hear any voices within these countries who argue that such notions of Parliamentary democracy, Common Law, Habeas Corpus and the English language are an anachronism in the modern age" Common law isn't UK wide though. "Which political and cultural ties does the United Kingdom share with the following countries, which are more profound and worthy of developing than she has with Australia, Canada and New Zealand? Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, to name many of the current members of the EU" Well, a language that is a cross between German/Dutch and French - or is it anachronistic to call it that? European Christianity and Protestantism in particular... architecture, music, literature etc etc. Not to mention the Roman influence, the concept of the novel, philosophic interchange between the likes of Kant and Hume etc etc [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (IOM) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:22:15 01/03/05 Mon I think that what we're talking about here is extent. Of course we are part of a shared western civilisation, in terms of art and music, although, after Chaucer, not really literature. But then, of course, so are Canada, Australia and New Zealand. If our shared membership of the Roman Empire gives us something in common with, say, the Spaniards, then that applies to a New Zealander as well. On the other hand, we could argue that these ties, being centuries if not millenia old, are 'past it', whereas the ties between CANZUK, being strong until the very end of the 20th Century, are more recent and hence, perhaps, more relevant and less 'past it'. Furthermore, you suggest that we have strong linguistic ties with Europe, English being a sort of blend of Latinate, Teutonic, Nordic, Gallic, Celtic and Semitic languages. I agree, but if this gives us a link with countries which speak one of English's component languages, how much stronger must be our ties with those countries which actually speak the very same language? To use an analogy, Spanish and Italian share very strong common roots in Latin, but Spain's cultural ties with South America are certainly stronger than her ties with Italy. There are two elements to this, in my humble opinion. The first is that, because of our lingo, however far we wish to drift apart, we will always read the same books, watch the same TV programmes, go to the same movies and plays, listen to the same music, etc., so we can never become too culturally distinct from each other. The second is perhaps more important: the phrase "English-Speaking World" is inadequate, since it implies that the language is the only thing which we have in common, as if it were some bizarre cosmic coincidence that we all speak English. Rather, there is more going on here than that. I concede your point that there are problems with the Act of Union, with the US Constitution, et al. On the other hand, these problems are not really related to their age. When we consider that they are older than many defunct institutions (the League of Nations, the USSR, the British Empire and other things of the past) but have lasted better, then we begin to get a better picture. On the other hand, they are younger than a lot of things which are a good deal older, such as the Union with Wales, the Japanese monarchy, Cambridge University, and the Swiss system of cantons, and these venerable institutions seem rock-solid. Of course there are arguments against the aspirations of the FCS, but I just don't buy the argument that history-just-isn't-moving-in-that-direction-any-more. Quite apart from the fact that History never was moving in that direction, I don't think that it's a valid criterion to object to something, any more than saying ah-well-things-are-clearly-going-that-way-so-why-resist is a valid criterion to support something, from Chinese encroachment in Taiwan to the E.U. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: ctd | |
|
Author: Ron [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:37:22 01/03/05 Mon "If our shared membership of the Roman Empire gives us something in common with, say, the Spaniards, then that applies to a New Zealander as well" NZ was in the Roman empire? Nah, I was referring to a strong Roman influence. Scotland and Ireland have Roman influences but weren't really ruled by them... "Furthermore, you suggest that we have strong linguistic ties with Europe, English being a sort of blend of Latinate, Teutonic, Nordic, Gallic, Celtic and Semitic languages." I said that English was a blend of German and French. There's hardly any Semitic in it, and while there is Celtic influence... it is mainly the Saxon (i.e. from Saxony, part of Germany) and Norman (i.e. Normandy in France) influence which predominates. The English are much closer to those countries than they like to admit... their kings, queens and political system have strong connections with both areas... "Spain's cultural ties with South America are certainly stronger than her ties with Italy." Yes and no... Some South American cultures esp. the native ones are utterly alien to the Spanish. In countries such as Peru and Paraguay the natives are a hefty chunk... I mean what does a Brit have in common with a Mohawk? Not much. "The second is perhaps more important: the phrase "English-Speaking World" is inadequate, since it implies that the language is the only thing which we have in common, as if it were some bizarre cosmic coincidence that we all speak English." Well... English speaking world would have to include the USA and large chunks of other continents. "Chinese encroachment in Taiwan " Though Taiwan has an independence movement, doesn't it consider itself China? Not the PRC but an alternative Chiang Kaishek government left over from before the Revolution. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hm, let's start at the beginning... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (back in London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:05:11 01/05/05 Wed I don't normally like to do these point-by-point refutations, but I'll give it a go. 1) Of course NZ wasn't a province of Rome, but if British people have Roman influence in their culture, then so do Kiwis, because the British emigrants took it with them. Rome is part of their culture as much as it is ours. Not the Maoris, of course, but then they are no more native to Aro Te Aroa than we were. 2) I'm not sure about your linguistic analysis of English. It is more Nordic than German, for a start, and most Teutonic words came via Scandinavia (Norwegian is as Teutonic as German) rather than straight from Saxony. Celtic languages are heavily influenced by Semitic elements, since the Celts came from the Middle East (indeed there is a gene which makes some people from the Outer Isles allergic to a certain type of medication - my step-father is one of them - and this congenital intolerance is only seen in one other place: Arabia). As for the strong Norman-French influence, I would be cautious. Quite a lot of words came directly from Latin, rather than via their French forms (which also came from Latin and so are deceptively similar). This can be proved by the fact that we have always used 'Germany', like the Latin 'Germania', whereas the Normans called them 'allamannis', hence the modern French 'Allemagne'. 3) There are large 'native populations' in the Spanish colonies, the only close analogies to which within the British Empire were our South African colonies (from which, originally, I hail). And they are hardly British at all. In North America and Australasia, however, any large native populations didn't last very long, which allowed us to create countries entirely in our own image to an extent impossible in the Spanish Empire. This does not make the virtual extermination of several civilisations any less reprehensible, but it is true nevertheless. 4) Yes, the phrase "English speaking world" ("l'Anglophonie", perhaps?) does include large slabs of other continents and the USA. Why shouldn't it? How is this an argument against what I was saying? Why do you imagine that the USA speaks English? Because of the Chinese immigrants, perhaps? Moreover, if you think that the fact that India and America and Zambia speak English but are not culturally compatible with Britain in the same was as Australia, Canada and NZ are, then surely this reinforces our belief that there is more going on in the relations between our four countries than there would be between 4 completely foreign places. 5) China calls Taiwan China. Taiwan does not. China also calls all sorts of other places China, including Tibet, parts of Mongolia and various countries which are about as Chinese as Tunbridge Wells. And even if my example was bad, surely that does not invalidate my point, which was that resigning oneself to the historical inevitability of something ghastly is spineless and stupid, and as an attitude it would not have done us much good in 1940. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Maori | |
|
Author: Hunches [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:21:43 01/10/05 Mon "Not the Maoris, of course, but then they are no more native to Aro Te Aroa than we were." The Maori are more native than the Pakeha, because of the simple fact that they were there several hundred years longer. Don't forget they were in NZ when England was still a province of Normandy! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: "native" simply refers to where you were born | |
|
Author: Ian (native of Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:06:50 01/10/05 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: No it doesn't. Kangaroos are not native to Britain, but some have been born there nt | |
|
Author: Randy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:25:44 01/10/05 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: you aren't seriously suggesting that Maoris are a different species from the rest of us, are you Randy? | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:25:48 01/10/05 Mon If you want to discuss it at the species level, then surely you would have to say that homo sapiens as a whole either is or is not native to New Zealand. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Maoris have been there longer and had the land taken off them. The previous lot are gone. The Maoris are still there. | |
|
Author: It's time to give it back. [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:57:21 01/12/05 Wed HOW CAN YOU SLEEP WHEN YOUR BEDS ARE BURNING? - MIDNIGHT OIL [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:31:12 01/10/05 Mon That's just the point, laddie. They were there several hundred years longer, and managed to make several hundred animal species and at least one human civilisation completely extinct. Specifically, they ate them all, animals and humans. In all the time that we've been there, the Brits have got rid of maybe a dozen animal species and no human cultures. I like the modern Maoris, but they were rather savage invaders of New Zealand originally, in a way which makes the evil Anglo-Saxons seem like the most good-natured Swiss. Moreover, if you claim that a nation should belong to the people who were first there, then there are a few completely extinct tribes which should rule NZ, and all humans generally should be ruled from the Zambesi Delta (that's Robert Mugabe's stomping ground). As for them being there when England was a province of Normany, it could be argued that the Normans were Scandinavian primitives before they discovered that ships could take them places, and Britain was governed from Rome even before that, and by Welsh druids before that. When do you stop? Perhaps we should dissolve parliament and find some dark-haired, blue-eyed Celts on the Isle of Man to rule us from the Tynwald, which, after all, was the centre of the Scandinavian Empire and has been going for at least 1200 years... Mind you, their present ruler, old Ian Macfadyen, might blench at ruling Britain, since he seems to undertand very little which doesn't have two wings and a jet engine. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: not to mention geographical | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 06:15:56 01/05/05 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |