posted
Yesterday, on The Guardian's website, I was acquainted with quotes from a number of hot-headed right-wing Americans (link appreciated).
It contained a badly written letter by a hot-head (using very rude words) complaining against England, Ireland/Scotland and I think also France for "intervening (interfering? Can't remember well) with American business".
Now, as for the "we beat the s**t outta you in 1776 and 1812" claim, I can only say that the victory was in 1783, not 1776, and if it weren't for France the Americans would still be pursecuted Catholics (by the same token as "if it weren't for us you'd still be speaking German"; totally out of proportion).
posted
I'm just trying to understand the purpose of the original post. Asking on the Hatrack forum about an article on a website he already knows....
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dear wonderful, loving friends from abroad, We Ohioans are an ornery sort and don't take meddling well, even if it comes from people we admire and with their sincere goodwill. We are a fairly closed community overall. In my town of Springfield, I feel that there are some that consider people from the nearby cities of Columbus or Dayton, as "foreigners"- let alone someone from outside our country.
As well as:
quote: Right on! Just wanted to say thanks from California for your effort and concern. This IS a very important election ... There are so many people here in the States that care about the impact America has on the rest of the world. I am personally saddened for the loss of all innocent lives. The best statement Americans can make to the rest of the world is to not elect Bush for president. Thank you so much for getting involved in our world.
Even:
quote: I am a student and life-long resident of Clark County, Ohio. I just wanted you to know that this is a wonderful idea you've initiated; people here love and respect the United Kingdom, especially the prime minister. I hope this campaign will be successful for your newspaper and for us voters.
Respect for the United Kingdom? Well, look at this:
quote: KEEP YOUR ****IN' LIMEY HANDS OFF OUR ELECTION. HEY, SHITHEADS, REMEMBER THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR? REMEMBER THE WAR OF 1812? WE DIDN'T WANT YOU, OR YOUR POLITICS HERE, THAT'S WHY WE KICKED YOUR ASSES OUT. FOR THE 47% OF YOU WHO DON'T WANT PRESIDENT BUSH, I SAY THIS ... TOUGH SHIT!
Here's another one:
quote: Hey England, Scotland and Wales, Mind your own business. We don't need weenie-spined Limeys meddling in our presidental election. If it wasn't for America, you'd all be speaking German. And if America would have had a president, then, of the likes of Kerry, you'd all be goose-stepping around Buckingham Palace. YOU ARE NOT WANTED!! Whether you want to support either party. BUTT OUT!!!
Sorry if I confused you with France. But let's see, who had the most powerful fleet in the world during WWI and WWII alike? Britain. Who was reluctant to go to war? The USA. Who supported the Americans during the war wit Japan? The UK. By the same token (sorry for changing the old claim), if it weren't for the UK, the USA would be speaking Japanese (not quite, but by the same token).
quote: As I recall we kicked your asses out of our country back in 1776.
Well, kindly try to recall better. The victory was only in 1783, it was not a rout or a crush of the English, but rather a tough fight; and even with France's support, you didn't do it so easily there in the Puritan States. England DID have an army and it DID give the 13 Colonies trouble. No-one kickd no-one's arse.
My conclusion is this, to the hot-minded ones rather than the cool-minded, rational feedbackers:
Try to know what you're writing about without too many contradictions when you're on the web, on a website like The Guardian. And please, please, don't make fools out of yourselves.
Or as one person said it well:
quote: Dear British friends, I think you have an interesting idea to encourage international grassroots efforts, but I sincerely doubt most Springfielders are going to be influenced by letters from a country they probably can't even point to on a map. I wish you luck with your campaign, but I warn you that you're not likely to accomplish much.
posted
The purpose? I'm just trying to get more opinions about it, aside mine.
I have nothing against either Ireland or Scotland (and let's keep Northern Ireland out of it), but the message, one of them, was to Scotland and Wales (sorry, but at the time I didn't fully remember). Jonny
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Guardian's desire to get US voters to vote for Kerry will be as useful as Vladimir--Lets Buy Off This Democracy And Then Go Back To a Dictatorship--Putin's endorsement of George W. Bush will convince people to vote for President Bush.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue here is that a number of Europeans have taken it upon themselves -- at the Guardian's rather foolish (IMO) request -- to write to undecided voters in swing states and ask them to vote for John Kerry, on the grounds that these undecided voters must not know -- and should care -- how much the rest of the world hates George Bush and fears (and fears for) America while he remains in office.
The problem is that most people who would already care about this are already Kerry voters. I suspect Europeans overestimate the number of Americans who actually care what Europeans think; they don't have much experience with our particular kind of insular bravado. So, as you can see from some of the responses, they risk pissing off exactly the sort of ignorant people who would look at this kind of campaign as "meddling."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, I wouldn't say the Guardian is "slanted" in the same way that we use the term in America.
To the Brits, America's moderates are erratically and even unnervingly right-wing -- and the Brits are among the more conservative people in Europe. To them, what's happening in America -- the steady growth in power of a slim right-wing majority that seems determined to make the country even more militarily aggressive and socially conservative -- is so far outside their comprehension that the mainstream European press regards that movement as dangerous in the extreme, particularly when coupled with the attitude of disdain that many American conservatives have expressed towards Europe in recent years. No one likes to think that a powerful country gearing up for lots of wars is being led by people who actively dislike you.
Now, Europe's dealt with this before; there have been a number of cases where fascist, isolationist, and even openly neo-Nazi governments managed to win control of a country (something that's made easier by their political systems, which give extra power to fringe parties). In those cases, the countries of Europe have found that expressing concerted disapproval generally worked (from their POV, at least) to get the citizens of those countries to change their minds.
So here they see a powerful country sliding in what is, from their position, a dangerously right-wing direction -- and, as they did with Austria and others, they're letting us know that they think we're being irresponsible.
posted
I'm not a great British magazine reader, but the Guardian did go overboard.
Why would people want choices to be made for them? Whether the top political analysts in Washington DC or the 'rednecks' living in midland states, why would they want European influence?
Now, I do have a lot against the attempt to try and use 200 y.o. wrong history to claim otherwise; but really, why would a person want influence? Much of it was reflected there.
I'm personlly against Bush 100%, but others who vote for him have the absolute right; even though I think it's wrong. Again, I can't vote so what does it matter?
quote:Why would people want choices to be made for them?
I'm pretty sure the Guardian readers were not trying to cast votes. They seem to have been, as Tom said, expressing their opinions under the assumption that voters in the US would be interested [and appreciative].
I don't think it's an attempt to influence as an attempt to inform. But yes, misguided -- mostly because I have yet to come to the conclusion that the average US citizen is much interested in pretty much anything outside our country's borders.
[ October 25, 2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon, even ignoring the bit about the farm--I mean, how many Americans still live on the farm?--in this day and age of international economics, your question is kind of odd.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I understand it, the mailings were targeting registered independants in Clark County, OH ("swing state") to persuade them to vote.
I can understand people discarding the letters as a "nuisance", but sending back letters ranting about limeys trying to take-over the election seem pretty silly to me.....
posted
I'm not really blaming anybody, just acknowledging the way things are, Jonathon. If it reads as a condemnation, I should rewrite it. I was trying very hard to be noncomittal; i.e., refraining from judging that this characteristic can never change or that it should change.
Welcome to Hatrack, by the way. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, even though that does include 'modern-style' farms.
Still, your average US citizen (hate the 'average' term), in a small town or a big city. Unless working in an international stock market, or a tourist site, would probably not need much from the outside world. Whether a barber, a butcher, a salesman or any other job - most won't require too much of an external influence. The melting pot woked in the long run.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Unless working in an international stock market, or a tourist site, would probably not need much from the outside world. Whether a barber, a butcher, a salesman or any other job - most won't require too much of an external influence.
Hmmm. This may well be at the heart of our difference in perspective.
My morality calls me to task not for what I need but for what the consequences of my actions are, regardless of whether I need anything from those I may affect.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
2. The French lost. That was, however, only a related war and I think the British retreated; it was all around a misunderstanding (like the 1898 war, except that might have been deliberate).
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. Wasn't 1812 when the States invaded Canada, had the White House burned down in retaliation, and eventually resulted in the Treaty of Ghent being signed, thus returning the territorial control essentially to what it had been before the States invaded?
I think that was a successful rebuff of an intended advancement, so I'd pretty much consider it a loss for the invaders.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I remember, it was with the British invading the USA following some 'misunderstanding' (conceptualisation), and the Cheroke were allied with England. Do I really need to say the Cherokee's consequences? I think the British retreated.
[Then again, I only saw a TV show about the Cherokee in 1812 and read in an awful '100 wars that changed the world' book (doesn't even deserve capitals)(so partial, that every single Israeli war was inserted).]
posted
1. These comments were already posted and its not much of a wonder that The Guardian is going to present the most extreme comments in order to portray America as it seems fit.
2. The War of 1812 was essentially a draw. The US gained no concessions from the UK and there were no soldiers occupying the US. The US did for the first time did win desicive naval battles on the Great Lakes and the Atlantic. The US under the command of Andrew Jacksonvalso crushed British forces at the Battle of New Orleans after the war was actually over.
quote: Sorry if I confused you with France. But let's see, who had the most powerful fleet in the world during WWI and WWII alike? Britain. Who was reluctant to go to war? The USA. Who supported the Americans during the war wit Japan? The UK. By the same token (sorry for changing the old claim), if it weren't for the UK, the USA would be speaking Japanese (not quite, but by the same token).
During WWII the US had the far superiour fleet, the UK barely had a naval presence outside of the Atlantic and with the sinking of the Bismark, almost all the major naval action of WWII was in the Pacific. Since Japan was invading English possesions in the Pacific I should hope that they would get involved not that they did much even then. In the Pacific theater it was almost entirely the US Marines and US Navy vs the Empire of Japan.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't find the reference, but I believe the British had also not abandoned territory in accordance with the treaty to end the Revolution. They certainly started the aggression by kidnapping American sailors and siezing ships - basically piracy.
So while the invasion of Canada was a failure, the U.S. did end British manipulation of the Indian tribes and interference with U.S. commerce on the high seas.
Please note I used it as 'rednecks', not rednecks.
ven though it IS regarded as offensive slang, I'd generally regard it as a rural, white Amrican, not necesserily educated or uneducated, but mainly a modern American-style of the classic Europan 'peasant'. The ones referred to as the "people of the land".
Please not I wasn't using this as an insult, just as the classic opposite of the Harvard/Priceton graduate who's working in the Pentagon or something. No offence intended.
posted
If anybody has good enough tatste to enjoy bluegrass or old tyme music, then they get to be labeled a redneck.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding (drawing heavily from Lewis Grizzard, the famous academic historian ) is that rednecks were initially those who had red necks from working the fields themselves in honest labor, rather than gathering the fruits of others as, say, a plantation owner did.
It is an honorable heritage.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like sugar-in-the-form-of-honey on my cornbread. God meant honey and butter to be melted together on the golden loaves of corn. Amen.
I've had two open-heart surgeries for valve replacement, and I felt a close connection with Grizzard after reading about his.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to post specific news articles about what happened with the Guardian's campaign and the American reaction to it, but instead, I'll link to a page of news articles about it.
But first...
TomDavidson wrote,
quote:they risk pissing off exactly the sort of ignorant people who would look at this kind of campaign as "meddling."
I looked at that kind of campaign as meddling, it pissed me off, and I'm NOT ignorant. If I had received a letter like that I would have been appalled at the audacity of it, but it wouldn't have swayed me either way. However, I wasn't worried. I knew the only result it COULD have was the opposite of what was intended, if any result at all.
I know what the world thinks of Bush, I know what the other half of this country thinks of Bush. But I still have my OWN opinion, and the majority doesn't automatically mean right to me.
posted
Personally it offends me that someone from another country would dare to tell me who I should vote for for my elected official. It would also bother that my address is being posted for all to see. I get enough junk mail as it is.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
(sorry couldn't resist)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) is that rednecks were initially those who had red necks from working the fields themselves in honest labor, rather than gathering the fruits of others as, say, a plantation owner did.![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
