[Humour] Does Everyone Hate the English?

[Leighgull]

Boy, that's some revisionist history not based in fact.

OK TB. I’ll bite.

Could you spare a moment or two to point out the “revisionist” parts of my post? I really am interested.

Of course. You could be wrong.

 

[portlock seagull]

I'm not you can even say 'anymore', the history of the British Isles is one of continual flux of cultural, religious, political changes that has never really had one heritage or culture to relate to. What is English is an ideological concept that doesn't really have defining moment. Of course this isn't a negative, this continual state of flux, cultural, social, political evolution and going with it is probably itself as identifiable as an English trait through the ages.

Really interesting to see the science behind the conclusion that there was no 'Saxon Invasion' as history has always alluded to, there are no battle fields or anything to suggest any great conflicts, all we have is evidence of the Saxons coming over here, trading their fancy trinkets, settling in our towns, marrying our women, drinking our mead...

It's the scale and circumstances of it though isn't it, since WW2? In previous centuries, people came in their hundreds or thousands not tens of millions. Nor did we have the technology to stay as connected to our roots as we can today so people don't necessarily integrate or identify with (because you don't need to in short) and consequently many nations aren't, literally, as mainly black or white, Christian or Muslim, or even Saxon or Iceni as they once were!

 

[Insel affe]

The United Arab Emirates don't seem to keen on us.


https://news.sky.com/story/briton-m...-to-life-in-prison-in-uae-for-spying-11559410

 

[Bold Seagull]

OK TB. I’ll bite.

Could you spare a moment or two to point out the “revisionist” parts of my post? I really am interested.

Of course. You could be wrong.

I'll kick off with the 'we saved Europe from Nazism'.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It's the scale and circumstances of it though isn't it, since WW2? In previous centuries, people came in their hundreds or thousands not tens of millions. Nor did we have the technology to stay as connected to our roots as we can today so people don't necessarily integrate or identify with (because you don't need to in short) and consequently many nations aren't, literally, as mainly black or white, Christian or Muslim, or even Saxon or Iceni as they once were!

That is easy to say like that, but in context even in much less numbers, the state of flux and changes were still as profound. We can look back with our present context feel the changes aren't as dramatic, but of course through history some of the changes make a migrant influx we've experienced in recent history pale in comparison.

 

[portlock seagull]

I'll kick off with the 'we saved Europe from Nazism'.

But we did - Britain did not win the war, but we didn't lose it either so that others could in turn help overturn. Those pivotal moments in 1940, and there were many, amplify with the passage of time IMO rather than diminish. Our most significant contribution to WW2 was staying in the fight against all odds, politically and militarily.

 

[portlock seagull]

That is easy to say like that, but in context even in much less numbers, the state of flux and changes were still as profound. We can look back with our present context feel the changes aren't as dramatic, but of course through history some of the changes make a migrant influx we've experienced in recent history pale in comparison.

Go on...

 

[Bold Seagull]

Go on...

Well straight off the bat converting from a Catholic country to a Protestant one and back to Catholic makes a bit of migration seem like a cake walk if we're talking social / political / cultural change.

 

[portlock seagull]

Well straight off the bat converting from a Catholic country to a Protestant one and back to Catholic makes a bit of migration seem like a cake walk if we're talking social / political / cultural change.

I'm walking back to the pavilion...

 

[Leighgull]

I'll kick off with the 'we saved Europe from Nazism'.

I didn’t say we did it ON OUR OWN but it might have escaped your notice that we joined the conflict in 1939 and the USA joined towards the end of 1941 after Hitler declared war on them.

We were not able to defeat the Germans unilaterally, but, neither were they able to. Defeat us. We had already broken the Axis in Northern Africa before The US joined.

We were sending convoys to Murmansk to assist the soviets, eventually supplying a badly needed 15% of their war materiels in their struggle.

To scoff at our contribution makes you ignorant either in practice or by design. I’m not sure what’s worse.

 

[Bold Seagull]

But we did - Britain did not win the war, but we didn't lose it either so that others could in turn help overturn. Those pivotal moments in 1940, and there were many, amplify with the passage of time IMO rather than diminish. Our most significant contribution to WW2 was staying in the fight against all odds, politically and militarily.

A choice of rhetoric, while 'we helped save Europe from Nazism' is a small grammatical change from 'we saved Europe from Nazism', it is a big difference to what those statements define.

 

[Mellotron]

. I shagged a different bird EVERY night and the craic was massive.

Can't have gotten much purchase then?

 

[Bold Seagull]

I didn’t say we did it ON OUR OWN but it might have escaped your notice that we joined the conflict in 1939 and the USA joined towards the end of 1941 after Hitler declared war on them.

We were not able to defeat the Germans unilaterally, but, neither were they able to. Defeat us. We had already broken the Axis in Northern Africa before The US joined.

We were sending convoys to Murmansk to assist the soviets, eventually supplying a badly needed 15% of their war materiels in their struggle.

To scoff at our contribution makes you ignorant either in practice or by design. I’m not sure what’s worse.

As above, a better choice of words may have conveyed your meaning more accurately, because that is exactly how that reads.

 

[jameswestport]

Irish...

 

[Mellotron]

They think we are all mad.

That'll be the country who appointed DONALD TRUMP as President? OK then.

 

[Leighgull]

As above, a better choice of words may have conveyed your meaning more accurately, because that is exactly how that reads.

OK. Er...thanks.

 

[Rodney Thomas]

I didn’t say we did it ON OUR OWN but it might have escaped your notice that we joined the conflict in 1939 and the USA joined towards the end of 1941 after Hitler declared war on them.

We were not able to defeat the Germans unilaterally, but, neither were they able to. Defeat us. We had already broken the Axis in Northern Africa before The US joined.

We were sending convoys to Murmansk to assist the soviets, eventually supplying a badly needed 15% of their war materiels in their struggle.

To scoff at our contribution makes you ignorant either in practice or by design. I’m not sure what’s worse.

As above, a better choice of words may have conveyed your meaning more accurately, because that is exactly how that reads.

OK. Er...thanks.

Now, now. We all know it was the Greeks that won the war because they delayed the Germans invading Russia and the Nazis didn't pack their winter clothes.

 

[Leighgull]

A choice of rhetoric, while 'we helped save Europe from Nazism' is a small grammatical change from 'we saved Europe from Nazism', it is a big difference to what those statements define.

Out of interest. When Brighton Beat Palace do you insist on a lengthy list of players, supporters, stewards etc. relative contributions in said victory or are you happy with the collective “We” to acclaim the triumph?

If you have ever used the term “We” in that scenario, then, quietly, go away and have a long talk with yourself.

I’m not claiming, before anyone starts, that the denizens of Selhurst are equivalent to Jew slaughtering Nazis...but there you go.

 

[pearl]

Can't have gotten much purchase then?

 

[Leighgull]

Now, now. We all know it was the Greeks that won the war because they delayed the Germans invading Russia and the Nazis didn't pack their winter clothes.

On A lighter note.

I used to work with a very funny (German) guy who was a project manager on my team.

Our team meetings, which were pan European, would often turn to the topic of the war...surprisingly and would often go back and forth between the French lad on the team and the German.

After one lengthy rant by the Gallic one the German put down his pen and boldly stated “it’s all the fault of the French that we were beaten in Russia”

How so?

The German guys Grandfather had been a mechanic attached to SS panzergrenadiers, Das Reich and Der Fuhrer for the purists and his complaint? After France fell a huge amount of German armour and Motorized transport was liberated French Army gear.

“It kept breaking down, if it was raining they flooded, if it was sunny they overheated and when it was chilly the bloody things froze.”

Apparently they’d have taken Moscow in a month if Mercedes and BMW were leading the charge not Citroen and Peugeot.