|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: because |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
July 7th 03, 01:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Because
|
| Ads |
|
#3
July 10th 03, 11:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Because
Chapman billy wrote in message m...
In article , says... (Sigvaldi Eggertsson) wrote in message . com... "Tim Hanke" wrote in message news:tX8Ga.121577$d51.192194@sccrnsc01... In fact after the good old U.S. of A., I'd say you Brits are pretty much the best of the rest. Though personally, I've always had a soft spot for Iceland and the Scandinavian countries, despite Sweden letting down the side rather badly in World War II. In what way? Mr. Eggertsson, As far as I can infer, Tim Hanke seems disappointed that Sweden did not fight on the Allied side during the Second World War. On the other hand, Hanke might have overlooked that Finland fought on the Axis side then. --Nick The Finns are not Scandinavian. Simon, Thanks for writing. I appreciate your mentioning a fact that you thought that I had overlooked. Actually, I already knew that Scandinavia properly comprises Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, though in informal usage Finland has been included. I did not write that Finland is part of Scandinavia. My intention (which was understood by Sigvaldi Eggertsson in his response) was to suggest one reason why Sweden did not join the Allies. If Sweden had done that, then it would have gone to war against its neighbour, Finland, which would have been quite unwelcome to many Swedes. Finland has a substantial Swedish minority, and the Swedes traditionally have felt close to the Finns. For example, with the approval of their government, many Swedes volunteered to fight for Finland in its 1939-40 'Winter War' against the Soviet Union. And most Swedes seemed sympathetic toward Finland in its 1941-4 'Continuation War' against the Soviet Union. Of course, another reason why Sweden did not join the Allies was that Hitler never got around to invading Sweden. --Nick
|
|
#4
July 11th 03, 02:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Because
The spin on the Finns is that they weren't allies of Germany but cobelligerents
against a common enemy, the Soviet Union. I'm willing to buy into the idea that there is a difference between the two.
|
|
#5
July 11th 03, 03:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Because
|
|
#6
July 12th 03, 12:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Because
|
|
#7
July 12th 03, 07:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Because
By the way, Finland's air force, the Ilmavoimat, sported the Hakaristi (a swastika) as insignia on its aeroplanes during the war. The Hakaristi was not identical to the Nazi Hakenkreuz. The Finns took up the Swastika in 1918, the Germans did not start to use it until much later. Eimskipafélag Íslands (The Icelandic steamship company, formed in 1915) had a swastika (vertical, just as the Finnish sign) as its´ logo long before the Nazis came up with the idea.
|
|
#8
July 12th 03, 02:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Because
In article
, says... Chapman billy wrote in message m... In article , says... (Sigvaldi Eggertsson) wrote in message . com... "Tim Hanke" wrote in message news:tX8Ga.121577$d51.192194@sccrnsc01... In fact after the good old U.S. of A., I'd say you Brits are pretty much the best of the rest. Though personally, I've always had a soft spot for Iceland and the Scandinavian countries, despite Sweden letting down the side rather badly in World War II. In what way? Mr. Eggertsson, As far as I can infer, Tim Hanke seems disappointed that Sweden did not fight on the Allied side during the Second World War. On the other hand, Hanke might have overlooked that Finland fought on the Axis side then. --Nick The Finns are not Scandinavian. Simon, Thanks for writing. I appreciate your mentioning a fact that you thought that I had overlooked. Actually, I already knew that Scandinavia properly comprises Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, though in informal usage Finland has been included. Nick, Thank you for your response. It is a shame that so many contributors appear to be unclubbable men; so perhaps this is a cri de coeur for more soldiers of the monstrous regiment to trumpet in this group? Anyhow, I don't see the harm in an occasional off topic post. I thought it best to find out indirectly whether you were seeking to anneal the meaning of what Tim Hanke wrote, or whether you were being careless in lobbing Nordic Finland into Scandinavia. Most people who have called the Finns Scandinavian that I have come across genuinely have been unaware of the inaccuracy; somewhat implausible in your particular instance, but then you usually take great pains to achieve your desired effect in your postings. One particularly amusing instance of this confusion over the "Scandinavians" was when the Labour MP Diane Abbot complained about the surfeit of blond blue-eyed Scandinavian nurses; although, of course, the ladies in question hailed from Finland. I did not write that Finland is part of Scandinavia. My intention (which was understood by Sigvaldi Eggertsson in his response) was to suggest one reason why Sweden did not join the Allies. If Sweden had done that, then it would have gone to war against its neighbour, Finland, which would have been quite unwelcome to many Swedes. Finland has a substantial Swedish minority, and the Swedes traditionally have felt close to the Finns. For example, with the approval of their government, many Swedes volunteered to fight for Finland in its 1939-40 'Winter War' against the Soviet Union. And most Swedes seemed sympathetic toward Finland in its 1941-4 'Continuation War' against the Soviet Union. You are being very delicate in not mentioning that Finland was once part of the Swedish empire, along with a large chunk of the Baltic; up until the Grand Duchy gained the dubious privilege of being grabbed by Russia (1809 IIRC, but I'm too lazy to check) in the time of Napoleon. The Finns had to wait until the Russian Revolution before being able to slip their moorings and begin their voyage as an independent state; unfortunately not without a vicious civil war. It is my impression that the Norwegians bear the brunt of the Swedes' "Irish" (for want of a better word) jokes: nonetheless, the Swedish claim on the Aaland Islands was an instance of a somewhat less than benevolent attitude; happily the League Of Nations found a workable compromise in that territorial dispute, one of its few successes. Many Europeans sympathised with the Finns in the Winter War to the point of wishing to offer concrete aid; if one wants to be cruel, perhaps the failure of the Narvik expedition was a blessing in disguise in this respect. All in all Finland has an impressive record as an independent state: you doubtless recall the bilateral trade agreements with the Soviet Union, and the potentially disastrous impact upon the Finnish economy when that empire collapsed. Yet the Finns managed to pull themselves round. Of course, another reason why Sweden did not join the Allies was that Hitler never got around to invading Sweden. Turning to the attitude of the Swedish Government, as opposed to the Swedish population, during WWII; I reproduce below extracts from the memoirs of Cordell Hull Roosevelt's Secretary of State at the time. "We were greatly concerned over the Swedish Government's continuing to permit German troops and supplies to cross Sweden to and from Norway. Sweden offered us both a valuable point of observation for Northern Europe and Germany, and a source of anxiety because of the valuable supplies such as iron ore and ball bearings which were going to Germany." --Volume 2, page 1345. The following relates to 1944. "In our negotiations with Sweden, however, we encountered opposition arising from the fact that Sweden still had a lingering fear of German armed reprisals, despite the growing strength and successes of the United Nations. I said in a letter to the Joint Chiefs on May 19: 'No matter how unrealistic it may appear to us here, the factor which in the final analysis will control the Swedish Government's decision ... is its conviction that full compliance with our demands will almost certainly expose Sweden to German military attack ... This conviction is so strong that the Swedes, in their disbelief that their present bearing exports to Germany are as important as we say they are, strongly suspect that our real purpose in pressing them on this matter is not to obtain a reduction in ball bearings but to involve them in war with Germany.'" --Volume 2, page 1347 (August 1948 reprint, Hodder and Stougton). Regards, Simon.
|
|
#9
July 12th 03, 09:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Because
"Tim Hanke" wrote in message ...
"Nick" wrote ... (Larry Tapper) wrote in message . com... "Mark Houlsby" wrote in message ... ...If you're genuinely interested in learning correct grammar, then, rather than my posting a link to a website (of which there are several) I suggest that you find, and buy, an old manual of grammar (preferably one which is around 125 years old). Read it, and learn *precisely* how and why English grammar, syntax and semantics work the way they do... ... You advise us slack-jawed barbarians to read 125-year-old grammars if we want to learn what proper English is really about. While I can understand your admiration for high Victorian style, it seems to me that you overestimate the uniformity of proper usage even in the heyday of the schoolmarm. About ten years ago, for example, the novelist and bibliophile Nicholson Baker wrote a superb piece in the New York Review of Books documenting many cases of wild and idiosyncratic punctuation in 19th-century prose. Such writers as Carlyle, Dickens, and Melville threw around dashes and semicolons in ways that few editors would accept today. Dear Mr. Tapper, I prefer to take a less prescriptive approach toward English grammar and usage than Mark Houlsby seems to. (In fairness to him, I cannot say that I know his complete views on the subject.) In my view, the English language(s) have evolved and are evolving through everyday usage, so it's natural and inevitable that English grammar should evolve as well. The English language(s) are not regulated by any academy of supreme law-givers; English belongs to the people who can make themselves understood with it, whatever their accents. Every national dialect of English can be equally useful in furthering communication. As for the ignorant stereotype of Americans as 'slack-jawed barbarians', unfortunately, the continuing flagrant misbehaviour of some Americans here (which should *not* imply that only Americans have misbehaved here) tends to corroborate that stereotype. But I would never extend that stereotype to my thoughtful American friends and relatives, who have welcomed me into their homes and treated me with courtesy, respect, trust, affection, and love. And I would not extend that stereotype to most well-educated Americans whom I have yet to meet. I also have friends and relatives who have served, or who still serve, in the United States Armed Forces. As far as I know, none of them comes close to the ignorant stereotype of an 'American barbarian lusting for bloodshed'. Indeed, they all would insist that any American military misconduct (such as the 1988 shoot-down of an Iranian airliner) should be fully examined by the courts of inquiry and not be covered up in the name of American patriotism. Some American veterans of wars are among the most passionate activists for peace whom I have ever met. By the way, one of my favourite novels about the Battle of Waterloo, 'The Limits of Glory', was written by James McDonough, a United States Army officer. He makes good narrative usage of material from a nearly forgotten diary, which was published in abridged form as: 'A Week at Waterloo in 1815' by Lady Magdalene DeLancey, edited by B.R. Ward (London, John Murray, 1906) 'I never read anything which affected my own feeling more strongly, or which, I am sure, would have a deeper interest on those of the public.' --Walter Scott (1825, on the original diary of Lady Magdalene DeLancey) A while ago, I was playing chess on the internet against someone in Chile, who seemed quite cordial for a while. We exchanged a few pleasantries in Spanish; then he told me something that I did not quite understand. So I asked him to translate it into English if possible. From that point, he quickly jumped to conclusions, assuming that I must be an American (the world's most populous Anglophone society), and assuming that all Americans must support every United States foreign policy and military action. To my astonishment, I found myself being furiously denounced as a 'genocidal murderer' and being exhorted to 'stop murdering innocent children in Iraq'. (Some Americans abroad in some parts of the world may have had similar unpleasant experiences.) My chess opponent was a Chilean, and I surmised that he might have a deep personal grievance against the United States. On 11 September 1973, General Pinochet (with full American support) launched a bloody coup d'etat that overthrew the elected government of Chile and killed its president, Salvador Allende. With continuing American support, Pinochet ruled Chile until 1990, torturing and murdering thousands of his suspected political opponents and their associates. Perhaps my opponent was related to one of those victims. So I attempted to establish some more meaningful communication with the Chilean, whose English was better than my Spanish. On behalf of my American friends and relatives and in the interests of the truth (as I perceived it), I sought to explain that many Americans opposed at least some of the United States's foreign and military policies, including the invasion of Iraq. Also, I attempted to assure him that most Americans did not feel happy about the killing of 'innocent children in Iraq'. Of course, there's no way truly to 'compensate' a family for the death of its child. Tragic though that is, however, from a historical perspective the American- led invasion of Iraq did *not* constitute genocide. (The United States's imperial conquest of the Philippines was much, much bloodier.) I doubt that most Iraqis will welcome a protracted American military occupation; yet I believe that now, without Saddam Hussein, most Iraqis have the potential, which has yet to be translated into reality, for better lives in the future. I sought to explain all that, but my opponent was not in the mood to listen patiently. He made an offensive personal remark and then logged off. I felt disappointed that I had not been able to communicate better with him, yet I also felt relieved that I had no longer to listen to his fierce denunciations. He was a well-educated professional man in Chile, and I wondered about why he had come to hold some quite inaccurate impressions of the American people. This is only one conjecture among many possible. Perhaps he has been reading chess newsgroups on Usenet. And perhaps he has naively accepted that some shrill jingoistic, racist Americans here truly do represent all Americans. Perhaps other Americans here should speak up more to say that's not true. As I recall, you have complained that Tim Hanke did not characterise your views fairly or accurately. So I don't believe anything that Hanke writes about who you are and what you believe, and I hope that you don't believe anything that Hanke writes about who I am and what I believe. By the way, contrary to Tim Hanke's characteristically ignorant assumption about me, I tend not to use Bartlett as a source of quotations, and I expect that nearly all of my quotations cited here would not be found in Bartlett. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. --Nick Another bravura performance by that wordy Brit b*st*rd Nick. I wrote my post to Larry Tapper, who has informed me that he substantially agreed with it and felt that he had nothing much to add in response. Nick kindly tells us that he personally does not believe the "stereotype" that Americans are "slack-jawed barbarians." "Slack-jawed barbarians" was Larry Tapper's choice of expression to Mark Houlsby, not my choice of expression. I was quoting Larry Tapper. We Americans are relieved to hear this news, because we have a tremendous inferiority complex about this common assumption. Now that a highly evolved Brit like Nick has patted us on the head, we feel much better about ourselves. Of course, I believe that the principle of "gens una sumus" includes Americans. Next, Nick will announce that he does not believe the "stereotype" that all Chinese people wear their hair in pigtails; or the "stereotype" that people "down under" in Australia all stand on their heads. Like the phases of the moon, perhaps, it's "silly season" again for Tim Hanke. Nick wraps up his remarkable post by suggesting that a Chilean insulted him during an Internet chess game possibly due to *my* comments on a chess newsgroup. Personally I think Nick is quite capable of making himself obnoxious online without anybody else's help, but this obvious interpretation of what happened is not considered by Nick. Tim Hanke has misunderstood or distorted what I wrote in my post about this incident. Here's what happened, spelled out in more detail: 1) I played several chess games on the internet with someone in Chile. Meanwhile, we did some casual chatting in Spanish, and we got along just fine. 2) As we became more friendly toward each other, we also became more curious. So we decided to pause in playing chess in order to chat at greater length. 3) As our conversation continued, my opponent said something in Spanish that I did not quite understand, so I asked him if he could translate it into English. And then I informed him that I am fluent in English. 4) Suddenly, my opponent jumped to a series of unwarranted conclusions: 4.1) He assumed that I, as a fluent Anglophone, must be from the world's most populous Anglophone society, the United States, so I must be an American. 4.2) He assumed that every American must fully support what he regards as jingoistic American imperialism, particularly the invasion of Iraq. 4.3) Consequently, he assumed that I, as a perceived American, must fully support jingoistic American imperialism and the invasion of Iraq. 5) My opponent began speaking in good English. My opponent denounced the United States for its jingoistic imperialism and *all Americans*, including me, as "genocidal murderers". He demanded that the United States and *all Americans*, including me, "stop murdering innocent children in Iraq". 6) I was surprised and shaken by my opponent's outbursts. But I recognised that he was *not* attacking me personally; he was including me among the targets of his denunciation *only* because he *misperceived* me as a jingoistic imperialist American who supported the invasion of Iraq. In effect, he was denouncing me only because he misperceived me as being someone politically like Tim Hanke. 7) If I had believed that my opponent was abusing me *personally*, then I would have censored him immediately and that would have been the end of our dialogue. Instead, I attempted to calm him down and then to explain patiently what he was seriously misunderstanding about me and the American people in general. But he was in no mood to listen to any rational persuasion. Just before logging off, my opponent exclaimed something like: "F*** you murdering Yankee c***s-- *you all* should burn in Hell." And that was the end of our conversation. I did *not* take my opponent's offensive comments *personally*, though their passionate intensity left me both shaken and curious. I knew that many people in Chile, for understandable historical reasons, detest the United States. Why did this Chilean believe so deeply what he did about the American people? In descending order of perceived significance, here were my hypotheses: 1) My opponent might have a family member or close friend who was murdered, tortured, or unjustly imprisoned by General Pinochet's regime, a dictatorship that was strongly supported by the United States from 1973 to 1990. 2) Like many, if not most, other Chileans, my opponent might detest the current foreign, military, or economic policies of the United States. And he might have mistakenly concluded that those policies truly represent the beliefs and principles of all Americans. 3) My opponent might be a reader of some chess newsgroups on Usenet. He might have read some of the jingoistic posts by some Americans here, who like to act as though they are representing all Americans. Then my opponent might have mistakenly accepted that those jingoistic Americans truly do represent all Americans. (Again, this was the least significant of my three hypotheses.) For the record, in my post I wrote that the third hypothesis "is only one conjecture among *many possible*", and I did *not* mention Tim Hanke's name in the following sentence about "some shrill jingoistic, racist Americans here" on Usenet. Given Tim Hanke's complaint (to which I am responding here) that my paragraph was an attack on him personally, I find it interesting that Tim Hanke apparently has *identified himself* as one of the "shrill jingoistic, racist Americans here". As far as I know, many other readers here would agree that this inadvertently revealing self-assessment by Tim Hanke is accurate. Nick's post is, of course, larded with quotes of varying relevance from other people, to display his vast erudition. Tim Hanke has a peculiar definition of "larded with quotes". My post (reproduced in its entirety above) has a *solitary quotation* of Walter Scott, who was reviewing a book that I was recommending to Larry Tapper. Surely, the literary judgement of Walter Scott is relevant to a book review. Very little about *chess* in Nick's post, as usual; This whole thread, "Because" (created by Bill Smythe), is an *undeclared off-topic thread* about English usage. Everyone else's posts in this thread have at most "very little", if anything at all, about chess. Indeed, my post probably has more about chess than nearly every other post in this thread. A Usenet search should find many posts of mine on various chess subjects. but the usual condescending treatment of Americans and personal slams against Tim Hanke. In most of my post, I was writing about how I have attempted to defend the honor of my thoughtful, humane American friends and the American people in general against what I regard as some unjustly negative ignorant stereotypes abroad. I do *not* include Tim Hanke among "*my* thoughtful, humane American friends"; if Hanke prefers to construe that exclusion as a "personal slam", then so be it. magna veritas et prevalebit --Nick
|
|
#10
July 12th 03, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Because
You are being very delicate in not mentioning that
Finland was once part of the Swedish empire, along with a large chunk of the Baltic; up until the Grand Duchy gained the dubious privilege of being grabbed by Russia Finland did not become a Grand duchy until after 1809. (1809 IIRC, but I'm too lazy to check) in the time of Napoleon. The Finns had to wait until the Russian Revolution before being able to slip their moorings and begin their voyage as an independent state; unfortunately not without a vicious civil war. It is my impression that the Norwegians bear the brunt of the Swedes' "Irish" (for want of a better word) jokes: nonetheless, the Swedish claim on the Aaland Islands was an instance of a somewhat less than benevolent attitude; happily the League Of Nations found a workable compromise in that territorial dispute, one of its few successes. The people of Åland wanted to become part of Sweden, they considered themselves Swedish and still speak Swedish. Many Europeans sympathised with the Finns in the Winter War to the point of wishing to offer concrete aid; if one wants to be cruel, perhaps the failure of the Narvik expedition was a blessing in disguise in this respect. The Narvik expedition started long after the Winter war was over. All in all Finland has an impressive record as an independent state: you doubtless recall the bilateral trade agreements with the Soviet Union, and the potentially disastrous impact upon the Finnish economy when that empire collapsed. Yet the Finns managed to pull themselves round.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
