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: Hm, let's start at the beginning... | |
Author: Ed Harris (back in London) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 20:05:11 01/05/05 Wed In reply to: Ron 's message, "ctd" on 14:37:22 01/03/05 Mon 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. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous 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 ] |