Courtesy of Dana Goldstein. Never confuse "Britain" and "the UK" again.
« Best Macro Forecast Anywhere | Main | A Different Kind of Election Analysis »
Venn Diagram of the Day
06 Feb 2008 03:25 pm
Comments (74)
(I think it does anyway: I think they are in the set "British Isles" but not in the set "United Kingdom". Probably they are another red circle with two green circles inside it called "Jersey" and "Guernsey".)
It's OK to call the UK Britain. It is not OK to refer to the UK as the British Isles.
Not quit accurate. The UK is not a subset of the "British Isles". Channel islands are part of BI, but not UK.
Also, the UK includes overseas dependencies (e.g. Bermuda).
Where does the Isle of Man fit into all this?
Matt still hasn't noticed that he was wrong about who won last night, both on his blog and at bloggindheads?
Just as long as your Venn diagram does not confuse anyone into believing the Republic of Ireland is part of Britain. And many in N Ireland will say they are British faster than many Scots.
Also, there still is a good healthy mindset in many countries of the world that they are "of Britain" as former crown subjects, or active in the Commonwealth today. And through Britain, they extend their civilization and maturity of culture back to the Romans, thence to the Greeks and ME civilization's start.
And many former British subjects will privately tell you, notably in Africa and the Caribbean, that the worst thing that happened in a long while was their ditching British rule for native majority rule.
Some not even privately. In despair, some legislators in Africa have openly argued that they have made a total mess of things and need the whites and Asians back to fix their nation back up.
Wow, thank you for this. I've been looking for something similar for ages with absolutely no luck. It may not have everything, but it's more comprehensive than anything else I've seen.
The worst thing that happened wasn't ditching imperial rule for native rule, it was that the British didn't properly prepare these populations for full democratized self-rule. Instead, they mostly just cut them off like petulant children and then blamed them when they floundered. A generation spent preparing the way for these nations to govern themselves would have eliminated a great many of the problems we are having in this world right now.
Isn't Diego Garcia AKA British Indian Ocean Territory, considered part of the United Kingdom?
As well as Gibraltar?
did Chris Ford get here from sailer's site (although I haven't seen him comment too much here lately)?
The worst thing that happened wasn't ditching imperial rule for native rule, it was that the British didn't properly prepare these populations for full democratized self-rule. A generation spent preparing the way for these nations to govern themselves would have eliminated a great many of the problems we are having in this world right now.
And yet we're now told that the U.S. should repeat Britain's error by withdrawing rapidly from Iraq.
Ah I see Ikram beat me to it
Mixner and soullite have points, which is why it was so frustrating to see the Iraq war without much public debate for so long.
I tend to think that Iraq had a civil service capable of running the show, and if the US would have turned things over to them instead of de-Baathing and managing the place like colonial overlords, we might not be in such a bind. But based on what is coming out of the Republican party right now, it leads me to believe that this is exactly how they wanted it.
I don't see Poland on there.
A generation spent preparing the way for these nations to govern themselves would have eliminated a great many of the problems we are having in this world right now.
In some fairness, the Brits abandoned their empire so precipitously after WWII in large part because that war had left them broke, no longer able to afford to administer or defend their possessions. Plus the Yanks insisted, wanting access to those markets and also cognizant that continued Western imperialism gave the communists a rallying cry. Admittedly, the results weren't pretty but there were compelling reasons the Brits withdrew in the manner they did. Another generation of imperial rule just wasn't realistically in the cards.
Per JD, it's not a Venn diagram, but rather a Euler diagram. Just sayin'....
Sticking around in the colonies after WWII worked so well in Indochine et Algérie.
The key thing is not to refer to Britain, or the U.K., as England. Surprisingly widespread mistake, and not just in North America - the French do it all the time. But then, they have their own Britain (Brittany/Bretagne), and therefore at least have a bit of an excuse. And I'm English, so think how the Scots feel when they hear this.
Britain's colonial subjects wanted them to leave. End of story. Britain's moral obligation to fix what they broke does not trump the rights of those subject peoples to choose their own path and make their own mistakes. Another generation wouldn't have accomplished much anyway - changing an entire culture takes many many generations.
The Channel Islands are part of the UK for most external purposes. They don't elect MPs to Westminster, but the UK government decides unilaterally whether to include them in international treaties (in practice after consultation).
The pretty constitutional fiction is that the Queen is sovereign as Duchess of Normandy. Toast: "la Reine, notre Duc!" In the old days (Treaty of Paris, 1241 or thereabouts) it was a major diplomatic Question that the King of England, ergo nobody's vassal, held the islands as vassal of the King of France - should he pay homage (French view) or not (English view)? 1792 ended that problem.
Note also the gradual breakup of the so-called United Kingdom. There is for example one "National Health Service" for England, another for Wales, another for Scotland, another SFIK for Northern Ireland. Modern devolution adds to the old oddity that the Queen becomes Presbyterian at Berwick-on-Tweed. In sports, there is one UK team at the Olympics, but four at the Commonwealth Gamers and the soccer World Cup. So Britain is not England either.
Admittedly, the results weren't pretty but there were compelling reasons the Brits withdrew in the manner they did.
A highly dubious claim. And neither of the reasons you mention apply to the current situation in Iraq.
Sticking around in the colonies after WWII worked so well in Indochine et Algérie.
But France wasn't grooming them for democracy and self-rule, it was trying to retain sovereign power.
chris said And through Britain, they extend their civilization and maturity of culture back to the Romans, thence to the Greeks and ME civilization's start.
But only very indirectly thanks to the Norman Conquest and the civilizing influence of the French. Italy, France, Spain and Southern Germany can proudly trace their civilizations directly back to Rome. Prior to 1066 Great Britain was just a stew of backwater Celts mixed with their barbaric Saxon and Viking conquerors. No real Roman would have given those people the time of day.
I agree with everyone else about chris ford's odious opinions, particularly vanya, but that's all ford's opinions are — opinions. He gave no link, no cite, no quote. He's talking out his ass.
Isn't Diego Garcia AKA British Indian Ocean Territory, considered part of the United Kingdom?
They definitely aren't part of the British Isles, though. Presumably the United Kingdom circle should not be entirely contained within the British Isles circle.
Also, are they considered co-equal with the rest of the United Kingdom? Genuinely don't know here. Do they more resemble Hawaii or Puerto Rico? I ask because the rest of the United Kingdom actually were kingdoms, once upon a time.
"Isn't Diego Garcia AKA British Indian Ocean Territory, considered part of the United Kingdom?
As well as Gibraltar?"
No, they are British Overseas Territories.
Whereas the Channel Islands & the Isle Of Man are Crown Dependencies.
The first belong to britain as a country and ultimate sovereignty rests with Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, but are not part thereof.
In the latter sovereignty rests with the actual holder of the Crown and are direct holdings of the Crown.
England, Scotland and Wales all have their own national soccer teams but compete on the same Olympic team as Great Britain. Venn, shmenn. Crazy Brits...erm...whatever.
In sports, there is one UK team at the Olympics, but four at the Commonwealth Gamers and the soccer World Cup.
Another sporting quirk: Ireland's national rugby team represents the entire island, Republic and North.
***
Vanya at 4:59PM is completely wrong.
Oh please, Thlayli. Britain was a backwater of a Roman province, and Roman influence there was pretty superficial - most of the Romans stationed there were soldiers, administrators or other transients - it was never properly colonized by Romans the way Italy, Hispania or Gaul were. The indigenous Celts never even learned Latin properly and chose to eventually adopt a barbarous Germanic dialect instead.
Matt, good Venn diagram. However, I'm wondering whether you know that if you ask a person from the UK what *country* they are from, or what their *nationality* is, they will often respond "Great Britain."
So they even tend to make the mistake themselves.
"Never confuse Britain with the UK again."
But the diagram doesn't mention "Britain"!
if you ask a person from the UK what *country* they are from, or what their *nationality* is, they will often respond "Great Britain."
Twenty years ago, hell even ten years ago, that was definitely true. But on my last few trips to the UK I noticed that English nationalism is really on the uptick, I suppose in response to Scottish demands for more independence. More and more English people will say their *nationality* is English, not British.
As well as Gibraltar?
British Overseas Territories aren't part of the UK. The language has changed, but they're basically the last vestiges of the Empire. The people who live there have Overseas Territories passports.
And the Queen is the Duke of Normandy. Not the Duchess. She's also Duke of Lancaster, as an honorary title.
However, I'm wondering whether you know that if you ask a person from the UK what *country* they are from, or what their *nationality* is, they will often respond "Great Britain."
The USCIS is particularly bad on this: you can't say 'UK' for citizenship; 'UK' is the abbreviation for Ukraine. You have to state your country of citizenship as 'England', which is just plain wrong.
England, Scotland and Wales all have their own national soccer teams but compete on the same Olympic team as Great Britain.
That's partly because the English, Scottish and Welsh FAs predate the modern Olympics; there's no British team in the Olympic soccer tournament because it would open the door for demands from FIFA and UEFA members for a unified British league and national team. Which ain't happening.
The official name for the Olympic team, though, is 'Great Britain & Northern Ireland', or 'Team GB' colloquially, not 'United Kingdom'.
And the Queen is the Duke of Normandy. Not the Duchess. She's also Duke of Lancaster, as an honorary title.
Aren't the intricacies of meaningless British aristocratic titles fascinating?
God save the Queen and all who sail in her!
"Prior to 1066 Great Britain was just a stew of backwater Celts mixed with their barbaric Saxon and Viking conquerors. No real Roman would have given those people the time of day."
Vanya you don't know what you are talking about. At all Lowland Britain was in fact settled by fairly large numbers of Romans who introduced an extensive system of cities and villas.
During the last quarter of the first century AD (75-100), cities expanded considerably - theatres, amphitheatres, public monuments, baths & market places were constructed. The Romans were efficient engineers who provided cities with good water supplies.Rome had effective control of lowland Britain from from the mid-first century through to the end of the third, devoting approximately 1/10 of their total military force defending it. And maintained military control through the fourth until a series of rebellions on the continent required a drawdown of the troops.
Urbanization went alongside Romanization. Public policy consciously aimed at persuading Britons to adopt the customs, dress and habits of Romans.
Another sign of wealth and Romanization was the construction of county villas. These comfortable, heated houses were usually within ten miles of a town.
The Second and Third Centuries AD were a time of general prosperity and the population of Roman Britain reached about 3.5 million by 400 AD.
The ocean protected Britain from the barbarian invasions that ravaged the Roman provinces of Gaul during the 3rd Century.
http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123%204%20roman.htm
There are abundant text and visual sources on the scope of the Roman Empire in Britain over that 350 year of so period of Roman control. Perhaps you could follow the very good rule of actually knowing something about a particular subject matter before writing about it. All in all pretty pathetic effort. Plus you show exactly zero understanding of the material culture of the Celts during and after the successive invasions of first the Angles and Saxons and hundreds of years later the Vikings.
Man it is a big internet out there, you don't have to remain a clueless doof on these matters.
http://www.roman-britain.org/places/_mapfile.htm
Ah, those silly otaku glibertarians and their votes for warmongering neoimperials scions.
The Romans made a valiant effort in Britain, but they finally succumbed to the howling savages native to the place. In any case, many or most of the so-called Romans were actually barbarian auxiliaries such as Alans, Goths, and Isaurians.
Back in the civilized Mediterranean world, the threat being sent to Britain was routinely used against disobedient children, though some Roman courts regarded such threats as prosecutable child abuse.
The term "Britain" and "British" are understood in the UK to refer to the country of the United Kingdom, and not the island of Great Britain.
Example: a UK passport lists citizenship as "British".
Example: Gordon Brown recently announced plans to determine a "British national motto." Note: NOT an English motto, as Brown is Scottish, and wishes to promote specifically BRITISH patriotism, both to inure the English to his prime-ministership, and to dissuade the Scots from separation.
The term "Britain" and "British" are understood in the UK to refer to the country of the United Kingdom, and not the island of Great Britain.
Example: a UK passport lists citizenship as "British."
Example: Gordon Brown recently announced plans to determine a "British national motto." Note: NOT an English motto, as Brown is Scottish, and wishes to promote specifically BRITISH patriotism, both to inure the English to his prime-ministership, and to dissuade the Scots from separation.
Example: Gordon Brown recently announced plans to determine a "British national motto."
Yes, I saw that. The London Times asked its readers to submit suggestions. My favorite: "At Least We're Not French."
It's also interesting that recent genetic analysis has determined that today's English aren't really Anglo-Saxons after all.
Basically, the traditional view had been that the invading Angles, Saxons, and Jutes had mostly killed or driven away the native Celts, pushing them into corners of the island such as Wales. Then, later in 1066, the Anglo-Saxons were conquered by and eventually assimilated a small upper crust of Normans, having previously absorbed various small inflows of Viking raiders.
But it now looks like that picture was wrong, and the Anglo-Saxon conquerors had also been a relatively small ruling group, who were absorbed by the previous natives although they shifted the population to a Germanic language and culture.
Thus, the ancestry of most of today's Englishmen actually goes back a couple of thousand years or more on the Islands, and they're very closely related to the "Celtic" peoples such as the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish. Incidentally, it also looks like none of these "Celts" are actually that closely related to the Celtic Gauls of the Continent, but had simply adopted their language and culture for some reason or other before we have any records.
Wait. So England and Britain aren't the same?
No England Wales and Scotland are a Kingdom, a Principality and a Kingdom respectively Wales was annexed to England in 1298 but in part organized and administered separatetly. Scotland after centuries of fighting and generally losing against the more powerful England, in a true irony actual took over England as James VI of Scotland became James I of England after the death of Elizabeth I It is amazingly complicated. While some rationality was introduced with the Act of Union in 1701 this only combined England and Scotland into a single State while leaving them two separate Kingdoms. To this day the two kingdoms have separate civil law, education and even monetary systems.
But bottom line while you can call a Scotsman British on solid historical grounds going 2600 years back, God help you if you call a Highland or Island Scotsman ' English'
So is Fabio Cappello British or English?
John E you have collapsed a 350 year history of Roman occupation of Britain into something unrecognizeble to someone who studied this in the context of a History PhD program. Depending on whether you are talking second century military organization or fourth century you have vastly different compositions to both sources of soldiers and balance between legionaries who by and large remained Roman citizens in the early centuries (although often not ethnically Roman or Italian) and Auxiliaries who were often drawn from subject populations or even outside the actual borders of the Empire.
There is a tendency to compress the thousand years plus of history in Britain from 66 BC to 1066 into one unvarying picture. In fact the thousand years prior to William the Conqueror have much the same variety as the thousand years since, something obscured by the relative paucity of textual material.
"Britain" is distinct from "Great Britain." "Britain" is an acceptable term for the UK as a whole .. e.g. Gordon Brown is the British PM. Gordon Brown is not, however, the PM of Great Britain, since Great Britain is an island, one that comprises Scotland, England, and Wales, and has no PM as such.
The Act of Union of 1707 created a single Kingdom of Great Britain (later the UK of GB and I). So there is no Queen of England or Queen of Scotland, only the Queen of the United Kingdom of GB and NI.
I stopped confusing them the day I called my Limey friend a Brit. Damn, that dude was pissed, and ex Royal Navy. You think us American squids cuss?
Without rechecking sources, I think Bruce Webb has it correct here:
Scotland after centuries of fighting and generally losing against the more powerful England, in a true irony actual[ly] took over England as James VI of Scotland became James I of England after the death of Elizabeth I[.] It is amazingly complicated.
To restate what I think he's saying, The "United Kingdom" unites Scotland and England. There never was a King of Northern Ireland (or Ireland), so it is an add-on (and a very controversial dependency from both a Catholic and Protestant point of view) to the United Kingdom, not a sovereign piece originally included in the phrase United Kingdom.
What always confuses me is the Queen Mary (of England, before Elizabeth I, and very Catholic) and Mary Queen of Scots (Elizabeth I's Catholic sister - raised in Scotland, but never really ruling because of her religion, and later held in captivity by Elizabeth in England to prevent Catholic conspiracies to regain rule. Making this even more confusing, James VI, King of Scotland while Queen Mary ruled in England, was a Protestant, after being raised by Presbyterian overseers in Scotland to prevent Catholic contamination. [It's late at night, so I hope I haven't mauled this history too badly]. No PhD in History here.
This is one of those things I've wondered about for years but never bothered to actually look up.
Henry VIII had three (legitimate) children: Mary, Elizabeth, and Edward. All of them held the throne at some point, and all died childless.
Mary Queen of Scots was a first cousin once removed, the granddaughter of Henry VIII's sister. Her son James VI inherited the English throne as "James I" after all of the above had died.
Anyway, at a certain point all the civilized Romans returned to the civilized world and let the howling savages return to a barbarous state they were more comfortable with. Probably some of the more brutish Romans stayed behind, having developed a taste for painting themselves blue and living on turnips, oatmeal, and lard.
Bruce, Bruce,
Congratulations for having watched the History Channel once or twice but please, don't embarrass yourself further. An occupation does not a civilization make. By your standards Libya and even Crimea would also be directly descended from ancient Rome and Greece, and we all know Chris Ford wouldn't want that. You certainly are not seriously trying to compare a few dirty trading posts, military camps and some unfashionable villas built by provincials with poor taste to the civilized part of the Empire - the refined taverns serving olla putrida in Tarraco, the poets of Dalmatia or the girls of Mediolanum. You couldn't even buy a decent slave in Britain in those days, they were mostly scrawny Celts, all the impressive Germans got sent south. When you've finished reading Asterix and Obelisk then get back to us.
Sed in serio, non comprehendes me Chris deridere? Stultus es aut legere non potes?
The idea that the British Empire would have actually attempted a generation of grooming locals for self-rule is laughable. In places like Kenya, the brutality of the Kenyotto administration were an outgrowth of how the British ruled Kenya, especially during the Mau Mau insurgency. Indirect rule and divide-and-conquer policies were aimed at exacerbating local ethnic tensions to prevent native unity leading to self-rule. They might have been better colonial administrators than the Spanish and the Portuguese, but that isn't saying much. Such responsible colonial governance for a generation would have been counter to everything the British Empire stood for and thus would have found no real support among the British people. The left wanted out of the colonies and the right wanted to be able to have pride over ruling over dark-skinned peoples but lacked the money. In addition, Britain wouldn't have been able to finance the infrastructure upgrades that their colonies needed. Britain had focused on building railroads from mines, etc. to ports for export and resource extraction, but was uninterested in helping out the local populace besides those needed for resource extraction. Basically such a generation-long interim would have required British companies and British politicians to fundamentally change their opinions of the Other and the nature of their politics.
God save the queen!
Fascist regime!
A highly dubious claim.
Oh really? Why don't you tell me how it's dubious. No? That's really all you've got? Thought so.
And neither of the reasons you mention apply to the current situation in Iraq.
I didn't try to apply them to Iraq. I didn't mention Iraq in fact. You're the one trying to push that analogy. Get your head out of your ass, Mixner.
Cabbages and beets. I forgot to mention cabbages and beets.
"The London Times asked its readers to submit suggestions. "
Of all possible threads, this is surely the least appropriate place to refer to the "London Times". There is no such newspaper.
On the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, they are not EU member states, or part of the UK for those purposes, but they do participate in a few EU treaties.
they were mostly scrawny Celts, all the impressive Germans got sent south
Mmmmmm, racism...
"...I forgot to mention cabbages and beets."
All of those foods are vastly preferable to pudding made from used urine filters.
Reality Man said "The idea that the British Empire would have actually attempted a generation of grooming locals for self-rule is laughable".
Actually they did exactly that in India, which is one reason India has been more successful than many other post-colonial areas. This, despite the fact that Britain sabotaged India by partitioning the country into three parts even though there was no historical precedent for it, much like they did to Ireland.
And there lies the lesson. Partition is bad. It ruined Ireland. It nearly ruined India. It ruined Israel. So let us not partition Iraq, as it will surely ruin that country too.
Sadly, vanya sort of has a point; the idea of England as being some sort of heir to the Roman civilization is laughable. The Romans army left the British Isles as the Germanic people began their invasion, and after the Scandanavians began to invade many of the Romans left for Brittany. Which is why there is very little trace of old Rome in England. Aside from Bath, which is mostly Victorian mucking, there are few ruins. The language completely died there, which is why English is a Germanic language and not a Romance language. The Latin influence in English comes from the French speaking Normans who invaded in 1066 and imposed their culture. Even Richard the Lionheart spoke French and not English. Really you can make a good case that Turkey is more Roman than England.
Mixner,
There is a vast difference between Iraq and countries like Kenya. Iraq is in Mesopotamia, which has been a center of civilization for much of human history, unlike most of Africa or even Europe for that matter. Moreover, Iraq had a long run of self-rule long before the US invasion and occupation. (In fact, it was a former British colony, and before that it was part of the Ottomon Empire) So the idea that ending the US occupation is akin to ending the British occupation of their African colonies is simply wrong. Comparing these two is not an apples-to-apples comparison; it's more like an apples-to-watermelons comparison.
Furthermore, the continued US occupation of Irags exacerbates the civil war dynamics that are engulfing Iraq right now. There is no incentive for the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq to politically reconcile, so long as the American military is occupying the country. The problem with Iraq is not that the Iraqis are incapable orf self-rule (they managed to rule themselves long before we invaded them); the problem is that the Shiites and Sunnis have very different ideas of how Iraq should be ruled, and at this moment prefer to resolve this conflict through a sectarian civil war, instead of reaching a peaceful political accomodation. So again, your argument rests on an invalid comparison.
There is one valid comparison to made between the civil wars consuming Iraq and the civil wars consuming many African countries right now. Both are the direct result of an outside power interfering in the workings and development of indigenous cultures and societies. Interfering with other cultures and societies often has unintended consequences, and it is not a decision to be made lightly and flippantly. (Maybe someone should have the introduced the concept of Star Trek's Prime Directive to Dubya and Cheney.)
"Sed in serio, non comprehendes me Chris deridere? Stultus es aut legere non potes?"
What a delight to know that somewhere on the planet there is still someone who recalls the correct form for indirect discourse.
Njarl, I limited myself to the British haute cuisine.
Really you can make a good case that Turkey is more Roman than England.
I should hardly think that's controversial. There are Turks to this day who will tell you that Turkey is in fact the direct successor state to the Roman Empire.
eltoro,
There is a vast difference between Iraq and countries like Kenya. Iraq is in Mesopotamia, which has been a center of civilization for much of human history, unlike most of Africa or even Europe for that matter. Moreover, Iraq had a long run of self-rule long before the US invasion and occupation. (In fact, it was a former British colony, and before that it was part of the Ottomon Empire) So the idea that ending the US occupation is akin to ending the British occupation of their African colonies is simply wrong.
There's a "vast difference" between most pairs of countries. Unless you can show that Iraq is "vastly different" from Britain's former colonies in a way that is relevant to the issue we're discussing, your assertion isn't particularly relevant.
Furthermore, the continued US occupation of Irags exacerbates the civil war dynamics that are engulfing Iraq right now. There is no incentive for the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq to politically reconcile, so long as the American military is occupying the country.
Why would the incentive for the Shiites and Sunnis to reconcile politically increase if the American military withdrew rapidly?
Not quit[e] accurate. The UK is not a subset of the "British Isles". Channel islands are part of BI, but not UK. Also, the UK includes overseas dependencies (e.g. Bermuda).
Ikram: the Channel Islands example doesn't make the diagram inaccurate, just incomplete. "Channel Islands" ought to be a little circle outside the "UK" circle and inside the "British Isles" one. Plus, no one cares about them.
Re overseas dependencies, British overseas territories are fourteen territories which the United Kingdom has under its sovereignty, but not as part of the United Kingdom itself. Plus, no one cares about them. Though I guess the Falklands War is a counterargument.
To clarify JimPortlandOR's post, there was a legal fiction that Ireland was a kingdom. The Irish Parliament, which was composed of Englishmen, declared Ireland a kingdom in 1542, with Henry VIII of England its king. This was a by-blow of the English Reformation, since before then the kings of England had in theory held the Lordship of Ireland as Papal vassals.
Moving forward, in 1801 there was an Act of Union joining the Kingdom of Ireland with the United Kingdom of Great Britain to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The modern form, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reflects the changed reality with the formation of the Republic of Ireland.
So it is true that there was never a king of Northern Ireland, but there was (if only as a legal fiction) a king of Ireland. More to the point, the form "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" does not imply that Northern Ireland is or ever was a kingdom.
"The Latin influence in English comes from the French speaking Normans who invaded in 1066 and imposed their culture."
That's not entirely true. Quite a few (but still a very small proportion of) Latin words entered the English language with the conversion of "England" in the 7th century. Most words directly derived from Latin actually entered the language long after the Norman conquest, through the efforts of people like Dryden in the 17th and 18th century. The Norman conquest introduced a lot of French words, which are in turn derived from Latin, but a) the effect wasn't felt very strongly until at least the 13th century, as there was little intermixing between English and French until then, and b) the French and Latin words are usually semantically distinct. There are many examples of terms with synonyms of Anglo-Saxon, French and Latin origin, each denoting a different register.
Mikeo beat me to the point about Venn vs. Euler. The Wikipedia entry does a good job explaining the difference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_diagram
The confusion is common, and one that I always have to address in my logic class.
"There's a "vast difference" between most pairs of countries. Unless you can show that Iraq is "vastly different" from Britain's former colonies in a way that is relevant to the issue we're discussing, your assertion isn't particularly relevant. "
Mixner,
I did show the relevant difference. Iraq's civilization is ancient, and has an actual history of self-rule. It doesn't need the US to show it how to rule itself, the way countries like Kenya allegedly needed the British to do. Talk about deliberately ignoring the facts in front of your face.
"Why would the incentive for the Shiites and Sunnis to reconcile politically increase if the American military withdrew rapidly?"
The Shiites will no longer have a powerful American patron to prop up the Shiite-led government in Bagdhad if the US withdraws, and the Sadr militias will no longer have the American occupiers to use as a rallying point for their insurgency. Meanwhile, the Sunni insurgents will no longer have the American occupiers to use as a rallying point in their war against the Shiite-led government in Bagdhad. In addition, the Sunni insurgents will no longer have powerful American patrons arming the Sunni militias as a counter-balance to both the Iranian-influenced Shiite militias, and the Iranian-friendly Bagdhad government. (You did notice that we have been arming the opposing sides in this civil war, didn't you?)
In addition, the US will have no ownership of the situation in Iraq. This means that the Saudis (who are supplying the Sunni insurgents) and the Iranians (who are supplying the Shiite militias) will need to be responsible and stop fostering the Iraqi sectarina civil war, or otherwise risk that this civil war will spread into a regional sectarian conflict that engulfs both their countries also.
Nobody wins in that situation, and all the players have a lot to lose if that situation comes to pass. On the other hand, so long as the Americans occupy Iraq, the playing field provides each of the players with an opportunity to win over the others, without risking widespread devastion of the whole country and the whole region. That is why the withdrawal of the Americans increases the incentive to reach a political reconciliation.
eltoro,
I did show the relevant difference.
Well, you didn't show, you merely asserted. A lot of people around here don't seem to understand the difference. But we'll let that pass for now....
Iraq's civilization is ancient, and has an actual history of self-rule.
Then it's presumably a better candidate for a successful transition to democracy. That seems to me a reason for the United States to stay longer and work harder for that transition, rather than withdraw rapidly.
The Shiites will no longer have a powerful American patron to prop up the Shiite-led government in Bagdhad if the US withdraws, and the Sadr militias will no longer have the American occupiers to use as a rallying point for their insurgency. Meanwhile, the Sunni insurgents will no longer have the American occupiers to use as a rallying point in their war against the Shiite-led government in Bagdhad.
That seems to be a recipe for a violent confrontation between the Shiites and the Sunnis, not a political reconciliation.
"Well, you didn't show, you merely asserted. A lot of people around here don't seem to understand the difference. But we'll let that pass for now...."
No, I did show why they are capable of self-rule. A country that has been the continual site for high civilizations since the beginning of human history, and which ruled itself long before the US invaded is capable of self-rule. This is not mere assertion; I have presented relevant evidence from history showing that the people of Mesopotamia have self-ruled throughout much of their history, starting with civilizations that well predate those found in the Western world. If anybody is merely asserting, Mixner, it is yourself, since you present no evidence for your assertion that the Iraqis are incapable of self-rule, and need us Americans to teach them how to do it.
"Then it's presumably a better candidate for a successful transition to democracy. That seems to me a reason for the United States to stay longer and work harder for that transition, rather than withdraw rapidly."
That assumes that the American occupation is actually aiding that transition. However, the American occupation is instead fueling the sectarian civil war which is dooming Iraq's chances of transitioning to democracy. Since the American occupation is fueling the very thing that is dooming the transition to democracy, continuing the occupation is not the solution to having Iraq achieve a transition to democracy.
"That seems to be a recipe for a violent confrontation between the Shiites and the Sunnis, not a political reconciliation."
The current sectarian civil war in Iraq is a violent confrontation between Shiites and Sunnis, which is exacerbated by the presence of American occupying troops. It is the very occupation that you seek to maintain that is the recipe for continual violent confrontation between the Shiites and the Sunnis, especially since we started arming BOTH sides in the conflict.
Talk about asserting instead of showing.
So is Fabio Cappello British or English?
If he hangs around long enough to become a citizen, he'd be 'British', because 'British' as a primary identity is more common for naturalized immigrants and their descendents (particularly from the Caribbean and South Asia).
The other demographic most likely to self-identify primarily as 'British'? NI Unionists.
Anyhoo, just watched an episode of Time Team which uncovered a ver' nice mosaic-floored Roman villa in the Cotswolds, on a site with potentially 400 years of building history. The Romans married into the local aristocracy; local worthies took on Roman practices and customs.
Yeah, most of the soldiers were auxiliaries from the outskirts, hoping to earn their citizenship; yeah, the 'Brut' myth is backfill; but vanya doth protest too much. Venerable Bede, backwater Celt? 'koff.
Well, you didn't show, you merely asserted. A lot of people around here don't seem to understand the difference. But we'll let that pass for now....
Wow. Is there some Guiness record for prickishness you're shooting for here, Mixner?
eltoro, you've got the goods.
Comments closed February 20, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
That diagram needs a spot for the Channel Islands.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | February 6, 2008 3:48 PM