Ayeshteni wrote:While I agree with the sentiment: That England and Britain are not interchangable, one could have presented it in a more polite fashion.
Stating it in the manner in which you have is not indicative of people listening to what you say, but tend to just note the rudeness of the manner in which it was said.
And could you give 'examples' rather than a generalisation with no 'evidence'
Also people make stereotypes of others as we do of others, for the most part due to accident or misunderstanding. Discussing it in a civilised manner is more productive than in argument.
Aye.
BattleCry wrote:Aye, reading it back it does come across as quite blunt. Wasn’t intended to be so, so let’s all calm down, ay? I was only intending to educate people that knew no better. No need for people to get as worked up as a French footballer in a World Cup final.
Have to say I’m not totally sure what you mean by ‘And could you give 'examples' rather than a generalisation with no 'evidence'’ England being a part of Britain isn’t a generalisation it’s a fact. I tried to give examples with the ‘German army isn’t interchangeable with Bavarian Army’ sort of thing. Perhaps a better example is England is to Britain as New South Wales is to Australia. Is that better?
BattleCry wrote: I was only intending to educate people that knew no better.
At the time (Late 1700's) the English within "Britain" used to interchange them all the time. While some Scotsmen (and Welsh and Irish) would object.
BattleCry wrote:Well I went to University in England and I never once heard an Englishman refer to the whole of Britain as England so perhaps we ought to forget their uneducated mistakes of 200 years ago and put the blame for the continued propagation of this error where it belongs, such as some French people and other foreigners who by their own admission know the difference between the two names and still call Britain, England. Lest we all become crazy and support the SNP like Ayeshteni.
oi_you_nutter wrote:very rarely the reverse happens, and even the History Channel gets it wrong, they were advertising a documentary on Bravehearts Scotland, part of the Lost Worlds series and had a voiceover soundbite who used "the British" when they meant "the English" and so corrupted the meaning of the soundbite that i almost choked on my cup of tea.
when they mean Britain or more correctly the United Kingdom
BattleCry wrote:Actually neither of those terms are more correct than the other, they both pertain to the entire country, it’s only when people start saying Great Britain meaning either the UK or Britain that they are wrong. Great Britain is a specific island, the main island, and not the entire archipelago that makes up the country as a whole. Whereas both simply Britain or UK are correct in referring to the entire country.
It is quite confusing and even many British people make that mistake. There ought to be a campaign to educate people on the correct usage.
Here’s a slightly off topic question for Ayeshteni, why do you support the SNP and thus a break up of the union? I did myself have some sympathy for the idea in the past but came to the conclusion that there are few, if any, tangible benefits for Scotland but a number of tangible downsides.
Sillywhim wrote:How much Autonomy does the SNP have? I have not really delved into the topic but it facinates me. How independant do the Scots (or some groups of Scots) want to be?
And what is really the core issue, is it economic or nationalistic, or both?
Sillywhim wrote:Well off topic is ok as long as we stay civil I guess. How popular is independance? Is it a large movement?
epsilon wrote:By the way, weren't all the officers and soldiers of the so called "British army" taking an oath of allegiance to the King of England ?, is'nt it enough to call them English soldiers ?
Return to “General discussions”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests