Happy 4th. of Jully, folks!



#33

Hi, all you North-Americans. (edited to add: after some apologies, please read U.S. citizens...)

Just to congratulate you and your country for the date you celebrate today.

I wish you all the best.

Luiz (Brazil)


Edited: 4 July 2010, 5:54 p.m. after one or more responses were posted


#34

Thanks, but your 4th July congrats are neither appropriate for nor wanted by Canadian north americans.


#35

HI;

Forgive me but I am not aware of what you are referring to; lack of historical background from a foreigner, perhaps. Anyway, my wishes go to those who are celebrating the date, right?

BTW, forgive me again if I am jumping into conclusions but as your biblio tells you are in England and you are thanked for what I wrote, are you from the US as well?

Cheers and thanks for the warning.

Luiz (Brazil)


#36

No need to apologize Luiz!

Canadians, part of the North American continent which includes Mexico, celebrate the Confederation day on July 1st (aniversary of July 1st, 1867; akin to the U.S. residents celebrating July 4th, 1776). My ignorance extends to the Mexican's founding day (?).

The confusion occurs when people refer to U.S. citizens as North Americans excluding the other two nations. The correct terms would be U.S. citizens, Canadians and Mexicans which are all North Americans by definition.

So the appropriate statement would be:

Happy 4th of July to our U.S. friends (of which I totally agree).

Cheers, Geoff


#37

Yep, I see what you mean.

Something like to congratulate the South Americans for, say, Brazilian´s 7th. of September (our independence day). My fault.

Cheers.

Luiz (Brazil)

#38

Besides the geographical exceptions it's a good idea to keep in mind the historical exceptions to triumphalist celebrations. Many loyalists were involved in the New England rebellion (aka American revolution) and suffered at the hands of the rebels but they are never remembered. King George was protecting the loyalists as well as trying to crush the rebels. Also, probably many descendants of native people displaced after the rebellion do not celebrate 4th July.


#39

Your King George picked the wrong rebels to try to crush.

Our King George The Second made the same mistake in Iraq, while ignoring the real enemy hiding in the hills of Afghanistan. I think they must all belong to the same secret club, which is not for our benefit.


#40

Quote:
Your King George picked the wrong rebels to try to crush.

Agreed.
Quote:
Our King George The Second made the same mistake in Iraq, while ignoring the real enemy hiding in the hills of Afghanistan.

Even though I take issue with your characterization of Bush 43, You are correct that the Iraq insurgency was poorly prepared for (if I take your point properly), however, don't ignore the later success in stabilizing the country and bringing democratic elections.

Certainly Bush did not give Afghanistan the full military attention it deserved, and one may make the case that the resources necessary to stabilize Iraq could have been used in Afghanistan. However, don't ignore the fact that Bush did send forces to Afghanistan
first.

I believe the jury is still out on whether the Iraq incursion was ultimately a good thing or not. Time will tell.


#41

Quote:
I believe the jury is still out on whether the Iraq incursion was ultimately a good thing or not. Time will tell.

I guess that statement was written by one who has not known the horrors of war and is ignorant of the effect of the invasion on ordinary Iraqis. Just a few facts:-
Before the invasion Iraq was internally stable. Since then well over 100,000 civilians have died violently, many of them by actions of the invading armies. Killings continue. Some huge number of people are now refugees from Iraq.
One of the birthplaces of western civilisation has been vandalised. In 2003 guards were provided for the ministry of oil but cultural treasures were left to be looted from museums. The US army has built a base on at least one ancient site.
One could go on. The invasion of Iraq was completely unnecessary and thoroughly wicked.


#42

Quote:
I guess that statement was written by one who has not known the horrors of war and is ignorant of the effect of the invasion on ordinary Iraqis.

I would guess the above was written by someone who conveniently ignores the conditions that existed prior to the 2003 invasion, and the positive changes that have happened since.
Quote:
Just a few facts:-
Before the invasion Iraq was internally stable.

Most repressive dictatorships are indeed "internally stable". Most of the time. It is approaching stability again - but now with a democratic government.
Quote:
Since then well over 100,000 civilians have died violently, many of them by actions of the invading armies. Killings continue. Some huge number of people are now refugees from Iraq.

The deaths caused by Saddam and his regime are so numerous that no firm number is agreed upon by researchers. In any case several times the number you quote.

Using your logic is akin to saying that the Allied war against Germany was reprehensible because it resulted in the deaths of over 4,000,000 Germans!

War is always an evil thing. So let me rephrase my offending statement:

I believe the jury is still out on whether the Iraq incursion was ultimately the lesser of evils, compared to allowing the dictator to continue to murder his own people, and threaten his neighbors. Time will tell.


#43

See
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/07/2010
7717324072400.html for news of the latest 50 to die
violently in Iraq (some pilgrims, yesterday). I wonder
how many would have preferred to be alive under Saddam
rather than dead in a dubious democracy which (given
Iraqi tribal structure) can last only while propped up by
US guns. See also e.g.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-iraqconflict/women_
2681.jsp
for the deteriorating situation of women in Iraq since
the invasion.

The Iraq invasion had nothing to do with democracy nor
with anti-terror (Saddam did not tolerate Al Quaeda). The
sole touted excuse for the invasion was non-existent WMD, and the UN inspectors had to be turfed out before they reached the unwelcome conclusion that there were no WMD. Numerous dictators elsewhere need not worry as they will not be bombed into democracy if they have no oil. Even in the anti-Nazi war (which you mention) the US was content to rake in the dollars for armaments (while I was being bombed nightly by Adolf Hitler) until it was forced into the war by Japan. Oh, and in the Iraq/Iran war Saddam was the US’s favoured belligerent.

"Time will tell", you say. Time was all that was needed for the democratisation of e.g. Portugal, Spain and the Soviet
satellites. Much better than democratisation by US bombs, bullets and depleted uranium.

#44

Quote:
The confusion occurs when people refer to U.S. citizens as North Americans excluding the other two nations.

Additionally, there's more to North America than Canada/Mexico/USA. The "continent" also includes central America down to Panama, the Caribbean, and Greenland. All said, there are approximately 23 countries defined being within the boundaries of North America.

Even Trinidad and Tobago, which is within eyeshot of Venezuela's urban glow (and you could probably swim there if you absolutely had to (sharks notwithstanding)), is regarded as part of North America.


#45

Usually, the american continent is divided in North America, Central America, and South America. Your classification effectively merges Central America as part of North America (granted, it is above the Equator, after all...)


#46

This isn't my classification, actually. (I.e., I'm not making this up.) There are many location-dependent definitions of continental boundaries (and yours may use the north/central/south demarcations), but this is the one most "officially" (if not commonly) employed by those in North America.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_america

Edited: 7 July 2010, 6:03 p.m.


#47

... some definitions state that Argentina belongs to the SoSA subcontinent: South of South America! (and they may be not wrong at all!) It depends on conventions and local uses, as you said.

#48

Quote:
your biblio tells you are in England

July 4, 1776 was not exactly a red-letter day in England. Probably a bit of animosity still exists. But, hey, you gave us the Beatles, for which I am thankful!!


#49

Quote:
But, hey, you gave us the Beatles, for which I am thankful!!

And Doctor Who.

Happy 4th!


#50

Quote:

And Doctor Who.

Happy 4th!


And Catweazle with his toad.

Happy 7/4!

#51

Not to worry, there are a vast number of Americans who know nothing about the meaning of July 4th, at least according to this poll. OTOH, I'll bet that this same 40% of 18 to 29 year olds could tell you everything about Lady Gaga.

Edited: 4 July 2010, 9:51 p.m.

#52

And for those who are still wondering. Today America celebrates the anniversary of our Declaration of Independence. This was written in Philadelphia in 1776 in the midst of the revolutionary war against England.


#53

Sorry for cutting the dramatics, but in my humble understanding that was a guerilla war of independence in 1776, not a "revolution". A revolution overthrows the government or administration in *its own* country or state. E.g. the British had their revolution in 1688, the French in 1789, the Russians in 1917, the East Germans in 1989. OTOH, former colonies had their movements, struggles or wars for becoming independent from their "motherlands" - and sometimes needed a revolution many years later.

Just my personal 20 Milli-Euros, of course d;-)


#54

Walter; you're right. i never looked at it that way. that's what the words mean though.

Luiz; i saw your original post and i just thought that Brazilians must use norte-americano as the polite replacement for "gringo" like the folks in spanish speaking South America do. Being one tenth our population; Canadians get lumped in with us a lot. They hate it. We like it, mostly because they are such good hockey players. And the Molsen. The fourm's main Canuk, George, didn't take offense so i guess you didn't make a bad mistake. I do the same thing by dragging "Americanisms" into my bad Spanish. Example: if an American girl is "hot", that's a compliment. I learned that a Chilean woman is NOT caliente, even if she is, and it's no compliment, and please remove your fangs from my throat so i can apologize again, senorita. por favor.


#55

Quote:
(...)i just thought that Brazilians must use norte-americano as the polite replacement for "gringo" like the folks in spanish speaking South America do.
You could not be more correct! Whenever we say 'norte-americano' (sounds closer to North-American) in Brazil, it is actually a general reference to anything related the U.S. : people, technology, movies, food, music and so. If the reference goes to anything else we use 'america do norte' (now meaning 'north american').

I honestly regret having started this thread the way I did. Have I briefly suspected it would cause such controversy, I'd never do it. And As I saw it drifting to politics, I gave up trying to clear it out. Thank you, db, for opening the correct door.

But I still keep my wishes to congratulate the nation and people who celebrate the 4th. of July. That´s all I wanted to do.

Best regards.

Luiz (Brazil)


Edited: 7 July 2010, 2:19 a.m.


#56

I once (1987?) wrote a column for a national newspaper, covering Videotex systems (Videotex was a prehistoric, primitive predecessor of the current WWW). I mentioned the NAPLPS protocol, expanding the acronym as "norteamericano" [northamerican]; which was right in this case because NAPLPS was sort of an offspring from the Canadian TELIDON. NAPLPS was an ANSI standard, but it was used both in the USA and in Canada, and it was far superior than its European counterparts.

The newspaper editor felt my "mistake" should be corrected, and published NAPLPS as "estadounidense" [from the USA]...

#57

Yep, as a (US)American, I agree with you, indeed. And our "revolution" was fought by a pretty small portion of the population, albeit an influential part.

And we did have our true revolution later: the Civil War.

(just to get the politics thing really going here...)

Edited: 7 July 2010, 9:33 a.m.


#58

Quote:
And our "revolution" was fought by a pretty small portion of the population, albeit an influential part.

Successful revolutions were always controlled by small fractions of the local "intelligenzia" - no other way the brute forces of the masses can be focussed sufficiently, wherever it may be. Seems to hold for guerrilla wars as well d;-)
#59

Quote:
And we did have our true revolution later: the Civil War.

I thought that was just a plain old civil (i.e. internal) war -- no overthrow of government was attempted, just a secession?

Where I'm from (Netherlands) the word "revolution" specifically means a popular overthrow of government, like the French Revolution of 1789 or the Russian October Revolution of 1917. Less popular takeovers like Hitler's power grab of 1933 are not usually called "revolutions" -- I guess we've mostly allowed Communists and other leftists to appropriate the word.

I was confused when I first saw books about the American Revolution in bookstores in the U.S. -- I thought to myself, didn't we cover modern history pretty well in High School? What did I miss? *grin* (In Europe the event is usually referred to as the American War of Independence or words to that effect.)


#60

Thomas, thanks for your support (please see my post above). Apparently, high schools in the Netherlands and Germany are pretty much alike in their history curricula.

BTW, congratulations for reaching the world cup final! Now, since Germany is out, I'll support the Oranjes against the Spanish (history repeats itself, but less bloody now).

Edited: 7 July 2010, 8:08 p.m.

#61

Quote:
...in my humble understanding that was a guerilla war of independence in 1776, not a "revolution".

Not at all. The main military effort on behalf of the American colonies was by a uniformed formal army, the Continental Army. Guerrilla tactics played only a small part. (Frances Marion comes to mind).

It was indeed a revolution against British Royal authority.


#62

Quote:
It was indeed a revolution against British Royal authority.

So in analogy you must call the Indian struggle for independence against British Royal authority before 1947 a revolution. Really? Hard to believe d:-?

Edited: 7 July 2010, 8:33 p.m.


#63

Walter, I must admit I do not know enough about the history of the Indian independence movement to comment on that (But perhaps now I will study it!).

My comment was mostly about the American Revolution not being a guerrilla war. That is, independence was openly declared by an elected representative body (Continental Congress), and the war (mainly) prosecuted by an army raised by the same body. With help from militias and the French, of course.

Now during 1775, it was more of a guerrilla war, fought by militias.


#64

Martin, my post was just for stating my opinion the term "revolution" is not the right word for the events at the north American east coast of 1776. So I used the history of another continent for a "reductio ad absurdum". Nothing more.


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  HP Prime: Quite Happy Helge Gabert 13 1,757 12-10-2013, 08:19 AM
Last Post: Eddie W. Shore
  Happy Mother's Day! Eddie W. Shore 1 372 05-12-2013, 11:35 AM
Last Post: Walter B
  happy fibonacci day 5/8/13 Allen 8 1,030 05-09-2013, 01:48 AM
Last Post: Gerson W. Barbosa
  OT: Happy Pi Day! Eddie W. Shore 13 1,260 03-22-2013, 10:44 AM
Last Post: Les Koller
  Happy New Year! Eddie W. Shore 8 1,010 01-02-2013, 01:50 PM
Last Post: Chris Dreher
  Happy Halloween! Dave Britten 5 673 12-25-2012, 09:00 PM
Last Post: Dave Britten
  HP-28S plays "Happy Birthday" Kevin F 0 308 08-06-2012, 04:53 PM
Last Post: Kevin F
  [OT] Happy Father's Day! Les Wright 7 777 06-18-2012, 07:54 AM
Last Post: Andrés C. Rodríguez (Argentina)
  Happy PI Day from Europe Raymund Heuvel 22 1,808 03-14-2012, 09:19 AM
Last Post: Eddie W. Shore
  Happy 40th Birthday, HP35 Jake Schwartz 8 905 01-05-2012, 10:42 PM
Last Post: db (martinez, ca.)

Forum Jump: