BS: GREAT Britain?

Subject: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: wilbyhillbilly
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 12:00 AM

My daughter just sent me this, it just made me think how much has changed in just my lifetime. When I went to school, 60 years ago, the map of the world was half red, we had an "Empire" and Britain was "Great".

WHAT HAPPENED?

Subject: Being British

Being British is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian
beer, then traveling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a
Turkish kebab on the way to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows
on a Japanese TV.

And the most British thing of all? Suspicion of anything foreign.

Oh and...... Only in Britain... can a pizza get to your house faster than an
ambulance.

Only in Britain... do supermarkets make sick people walk all the way to the
back of the shop to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy
cigarettes at the front.

Only in Britain... do people order double cheeseburgers, large fries and a
DIET coke.

Only in Britain... do banks leave both doors open and chain the pens to the
counters.

Only in Britain... do we leave cars worth thousands of pounds on the street and
lock our junk and cheap lawn mower in the garage.

Only in Britain... are there disabled parking places in front of a skating
rink.

(We might be British but hell we've got a sense of humour)!!



WHB

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Gurney
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:15 AM

Always something of a laugh, but Great Britain is a traslation from Norman French, as opposed to little britain, Brittany. William the Bastard named it, when he owned both.

Not only in Britain though. Some things are imported from the ex-colonies, like a warning label on my (English, wooden) dining suite that wood is flammable. Must be why they make matchsticks out of it, eh? Oddly enough, there is no warning on the lounge suite that the foam gives off a poisonous gas when burned!

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: bill\sables
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 05:11 AM

Britain was once an Empire ruled by an Empress,
Then it was a Kingdom ruled by a King,
Now it is a Country ruled ba a C Tony Blair

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 05:39 AM

Willy - there is much in there which offends me.

I realise it is an attempt at humour, but the fact is that people in England still have a long way to go when just extending normal courtesies to disabled people So provision of disabled places is a first shakey step - not to be disparaged. (And why wouldn't a a disabled person want to attend a skating rink - they might have business there, their disablity may not preclude them from skating, they may want to spectate.)


Ambulancemen are by and large the salt of the earth - they do not get to emergencies slower than pizza delivery people. I suppose it might happen in central London in rush hour - if the pizzaman had a moped. But it is not the general way of things for most people.

My apologies - but you struck a raw nerve.

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:05 AM

"Great Britain is a translation from Norman French, as opposed to little britain, Brittany. William the Bastard named it, when he owned both."

Not so:

The earliest known names for the British Isles come from ancient Greek writings. Ireland was referred to as Ierne and Britain as Albionum.

The travel writings of the ancient Greek Pytheas around 320 BC, referred to the British Isles, including Ireland, as the Pretanic Islands. Priteni is the source of the Welsh language term Prydain, Britain.

In Roman times around AD 100, Ptolemy includes both Britain and Ireland – he calls it Hibernia – in the island group he calls Britannia. He entitles Book II, Chapter 1 of as Hibernia, Island of Britannia, and Chapter 2 as Albion, Island of Britannia. While Ireland remained as Hibernia (possibly because the Romans did not bother to conquer it, the name Albion for Britain fell out of favour and the name Britannia was used for the province of Roman Britain. But as the entire group of islands was also referred to as Britannia, some means had to be sought to differentiate. As the main and largest island the name Britannia Maximus was given - Great Britain.

The Normans who invaded Britain almost a thousand years later did not coin the name, in fact Brittany came to be named so from the 4th century AD, by Britons who migrated from Roman Britain across the English Channel.

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:15 AM

Reminds me of a sketch by Al Murray, which goes something like this.
"A german beer and a french glass. Put them together and you have a BRITISH drink."
Makes you proud to be British.

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:37 AM

I think Gurney's comment may have been about the Great bit rather than the Britain bit. I don't know if I am right or not but it sort of makes sense and fits in with Teribus's notes about Brittany being formed by people leaving Britain. The Normans would then have been quite right in refering to Britain as 'Great' in the sense that is was the sire of Brittany. If it does work that way it answers a question that has puzzled me for years - Ie, where did the 'Great' bit come from?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:54 AM

That's Mudcat as I know it: Seriopus discussions about the appropriateness and the empirical validity of a joke.

May I add to the original listing in the first paragraph that they pray to a Palestinian born guy as God?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 08:22 AM

Britannica Maximus = Great Britain, the greatest in size of the British Isles - it came originally from the Romans, not the Normans.

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 08:31 AM

Source, please, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: bubblyrat
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 08:39 AM

But what did the people of Brittany call Brittany BEFORE the Brits went there and called it Brittany ?? Eh ??

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 08:42 AM

Armorica.

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Wesley S
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 09:11 AM

I've seen that post before with America as the focus. "Only in America...." So don't feel singled out.

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:37 AM

I never thought I'd find myself saying this, but I agree with Teribus. AFAIK he is correct. This is certainly what I was taught at one of London's most prestigious grammar schools, in the fifties.

The name came up in several classical texts, the authorship of which unfortunately I can no longer recall.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: autolycus
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 11:19 AM

I suspect that lots of those "Only in Britain"s lines are to be found elsewhere,too.

the Australians has a phrase for this sort of thing.





      I.

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 11:54 AM

Britannica Maximus (Teribus)

No exaggeration, please.

Britannia major it was as far as I know. Not "largest", but "larger", namely larger than Brittany.

But I wait to be proved wrong.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 08:14 PM

Time line for the terms was:

The Romans, Britannica Maximus - to differentiate between the collective name for all the islands and the island that they settled - somewhere between 55AD and 146AD

Grande Bretagne - used to differentiate between the former Roman Britannica maximus and Brittany

The first use of the title Great Britain was at the coronation, at Westminster, of James VI of Scotland, as King James I of England. From the departure of the Romans up until 1603 the term "Great Britain" had never been used to describe the largest island in the group of islands collectively known as the British Isles.

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 09:24 PM

Just as a matter of curiousity, why couldn't they have been known as the Irish Isles, or the Welsh Isles, or the Cornish Isles, or the Scottish Isles?

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:36 AM

Or the English Isles?

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:10 AM

Cool:-) What you can't learn on Mudcat isn't worth learning! Thanks, Teribus.

Mind you Britanica Maximus does sound like somewhere from 'Up Pompei' - I can just picture the look on Lurkio's face:-)

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Rasener
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:16 AM

Who needs to go to school - mudcat has it all.

I am with Doug, why not the English Isles:-)

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:17 AM

Ooh er Mrs; titter ye not!

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Rasener
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:29 AM

The prolapse :-)

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Stu
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:58 AM

"Just as a matter of curiousity, why couldn't they have been known as the Irish Isles, or the Welsh Isles, or the Cornish Isles, or the Scottish Isles?",

Because Britain is the name of the Island, those are the names of countries on the Island group.

Anyway, when Biggus Dickus invaded there were no countries on the largest Island, we were all one happy bunch of warring tribes.

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 10:22 AM

Just use the French language - Brittany is Bretagne we are Grande Bretagne, i.e. the larger of the two Bitains.

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 10:59 AM

Don't ask our American friends to use the French language - didn't you know they were the ones who saved the French from having to speak German? (Just ask them).

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: GUEST,Penny S. (elsewhere)
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 11:44 AM

And the Preta bit of the early name is cognate with Creta, meaning chalk, because it was in P Celtic not Q Celtic. So logically, it should only refer to the white chalky bits. The South East, Wessex, Northern Ireland and a very small block in the middle of Arran.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 11:57 AM

"So logically, it should only refer to the white chalky bits" -

Okay - so how should we refer to the naughty pink bits?

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 12:01 PM

meself, perhaps you could explain for us unenlightened and self absorbed colonials what the effect of the USA joining the war in Europe was? I surely don't have a problem with accurate history, and would welcome your views. What exactly was the contribution of the USA to the Second World War?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 12:17 PM

US saved the French wine industry, anyway....

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: jeffp
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 12:55 PM

I've been told that the general British opinion of the Americans during World War II was, "They're overpaid, they're oversexed, and they're over here!"

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 01:06 PM

Perhaps they should have ignored Churchill's pleading and just stayed out of the conflict? I admit that Roosevelt waited too long, but perhaps the world would have been better off if we had just stayed over here. That way we wouldn't have infected your island with our terrible American ways?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:38 PM

Big Mick: First of all, I'm more of a colonial than you are - I'm a Canadian.


The understanding that I received from the vets who raised me, and from the Canadian vets in general, was as follows. World War II was not about the USA saving Britain and several European countries from the Germans. It was a collective effort of virtually all the advanced democracies to defeat tyranny. Everyone did their part. The part of the USA was enormous, perhaps decisive - that's for the military historians to sort out - but they had enormous resources to put into the fight. Smaller, less prosperous nations did not have comparable resources, but they put in what they could. Among the French and other nations under the Nazi yoke, there were many brave men and women who gave their lives in the fight against tyranny. There were some treacherous cowards, and there were a lot of people just trying to survive. Just as there would be anywhere. I have never heard Canadian vets boasting about "saving" any country - not even Holland - or sneering at any of the nations who fell to or were immediately threatened by the Nazi war-machine. The feeling of the Candian vets, and presumably their fallen comrades, seemed to be that they were part of a great struggle for a noble cause that transcended national boundaries. They did NOT see themselves as going off to do some big favour for foreigners. So, that's where I'm coming from.

Perhaps many Americans who fought in the war felt the same way, I don't know. However, there seems to be a notion out there in American pop-culture and all over the internet - and I confess to having spent far too much time on the internet these past few months - that the USA single-handedly saved France and Britain from Germany, as a favour, and that the cowardly French really did not deserve to be saved - especially since their president had the nerve to express disapproval of the Iraqui adventure - and it's questionable if the haughty Brits deserved to be saved ...

I'm not one of those insufferably self-righteous Candian bashers of Americans, but this stuff gets on my nerves from time to time. It doesn't help that, with the rest of my generation of North Americans, I was raised on a diet of American movies, TV shows, comics, and even bubble-gum cards, that portrayed World War II as a battle between the US and Germany. I don't know if you can understand how that gets a little irritating for non-Americans.

I don't mean to diminish the enormous contribution made by the US to the war effort, nor to make light of the sacrifice of American lives in that war. I just have a bit of a different perspective on the whole thing ...

Oh - and the snide remark in my original post was really more in response to a joke that everyone seemed to find very satisfying on another thread. I can see that it must have seemed a bit of a gratuitous shot out of the blue here ...

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:01 PM

Now that is what I call a well thought out post. Thanks, meself.

I posed the question with a certain intent in mind. I certainly am aware of the attitude of many Americans to view the world through a very biased prism. But I really tire of the USA bashing that seems to be not much more than a penis envy on a nation state level.

Anyone who denigrates the sacrifices of the brave men and women who fought for what they believed to be honorable principles is loathsome in my estimation. World War II was won, as you point out, by a collaboration of countries, each with their own vital part to play. The US did, in fact, play the decisive role. But if the Brits had not held on so valiently for as long as they did, it is doubtful the US would have assumed the same role. The role of Canada, Australia, the Phillipines, and many others all played a key role.

Americans who view the rest of the world as mere hangers on are, IMO, the very ugly Americans many around the world see. But to suggest we are all that way is generalization at its very worst. George W. Bush, in my opinion, is the worst example of America that I have seen. But his piss poor foreign policy seems to exposed a latent Anti-Americanism that one cannot help but notice.

I guess what I am asking for is that my friends around the world try to not paint "Americans" a certain way. It is as bad as Irish Americans talking about "Brits", or Brits talking about "Paki's" or whatever.

Thanks for the response, meself. I know this post is a rambling bit of diatribe, but I think folks will catch my intent.

Le gach dea-mhéin,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 06:52 PM

Well, I suppose some people might say that "all the advanced democracies" would include the USSR, but it'd perhaps be stretching the point a bit. However it is pretty evident that the main agent in beating the Nazis was the Soviet Union, which doesnt get a mention in either of those posts...
................

My recollection from school is that the Romans used Britannia Major to refer to the southern part of the island of Britannia - in other words, what we call England.
..........................
I wonder if the ancient Bretons used to say "only in Armorica"? Sound like the kind of line you'd find in Asterix.

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 07:08 PM

My Gaelic isn't up to understanding that last phrase, but I assume it's in keeping with the conciliatory tone of rest of your post! Glad there's no hard feelings.

For the record: everything you say in your post is right on the money, IMO. Cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 08:28 PM

I didn't forget the USSR, actually, but I decided to "let it slide" since I was in effect passing on an understanding that had been passed to me, and in that understanding, the USSR didn't quite fit into the picture. Didn't fit RIGHT in the picture anyway, if you take my meaning. I felt that trying to explain its dubious place in the understanding I was expressing seemed like it would render the whole business too clumsy ... the same kind of thinking, I suppose, that led the producers of American pop-culture to dismiss all the Allies from their representations of the war. My apologies to all you Russians out there!

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 08:37 PM

All the OTHER Allies, that is!

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:28 PM

That last line simply means "All the best".

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 10:18 AM

Let's not forget the positive effect the US entry into WWII had on Germany! Without the US effort and weapon transfer there would most likely have been no successful invasion in Italy and, later, France. The Russians would have won the war a bit later but more or less alone. I would have lived most of my life behind the Iron Curtain (or, more likely, not lived at all).

I and most West Germans are grateful to the USA for entering the European war and not throwing away the empty threat of Hitler's declaration of war to the USA.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 12:33 PM

If it's any comfort to you, America is just as bad.

Subject: RE: BS: GREAT Britain?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 01:28 PM

Thank you Great Britain, you've been a wonderful role model.

And this started out as a joke?

Agreed Mick, please don't paint US with the "Brush of Bush". He has brought out the worst of US>

Barry