h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You're probably right. Most Americans probably don't even understand it. Having lived in the southern United States for most of my adult life, I've come to understand how southerners feel about it. I've come to sympathise with their point of view on the matter even though I was born and raised in states that sided with the Union, California and Oregon respectively.

we are still called convicts by the Poms on occasions, usually when we beat them at cricket or rugby. Not something i let worry me, part of the expected banter.

I thought you were supposed to be the UNITED states? I'm having trouble working out why people would still be upset at having their slaves taken from them generations ago

A good question Linus. It will be interesting to read the replies.

I'll try and clear up a couple of points raised earlier.

Why don't Kiwis hate/despise America's foreign policy?

1/ In the 80s we did not (and still don't) appreciate being treated like lepers because we barred nuclear powered or armed ships (from all nations) from our ports.

2/ We still remember the deathly silence emanating from America after the French Government's terrorist bombing of a Greenpeace boat in Auckland harbour (also in the 80s). One person died.

This comes from a debate in New Zealand's parliament today.

Question from an Opposition Party leader: Why didn't Tony Blair (in his speech on Monday to the British Parliament) include New Zealand with France, Britain, Germany and Australia when he named the nations who have offered to supply ground troops (SAS) to America.

Answer from the New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark (more balls and brains than Dubya will ever have) Tony Blair obviously doesn't subscribe to Newsweek magazine who got it right.

Make that... Why do some Kiwis hate/despise America's foreign policy?

better convicts than religious fanatics...

{*betrays gross ignorance of history*}

Linus - my understanding (culled from the episode of The Simpsons where Abu has to take a 'citizenry test') is that there were more critical things in the civil war than slaves. Slavery, as so often in these cases, was a convenient cover for much baser reasons. Kinda like the Kurds in the Gulf War, or the 'holy land' in the crusades...

In regards to the slavery question...
Probably the biggest issue in the civil war was states' rights versus federalism. There were also a lot of other smaller ones. But slavery was the sticking point. It was the issue where there was no compromise. Recent revisionist american history has tried to downplay its importance, and a strong point can be made that most whites in the South did not own slaves. However, events leading up to the civil war included a slave revolt, debate over slavery laws, and stronger actions by abolitionists.
As for how 'United' the United States are- lets just say its probably more united than the United Kingdom and certainly more of a union than the Soviet Union was. I don't know how to compare it with the United Arab Emirates, though.

Both sides were fighting for different causes. The South was trying to maintain states' rights and the North was trying to preserve the Union. Slavery was a catalyst.

Spoken in a deep southern drawl-
"Down here we refer to it as the War of Northern Aggression."

Two Bit, I just looked at one of your previous posts and noticed you've already used that northern aggression phrase. Darn! One of these days I'm going to read first, post later.

Loony

Thank you for that bit of history. I understand a bit more about the attitude of NZ. I could see where the roots of it start.

I still casually sometimes refer to Americans as "Yanks", although I understand why it is mildly offensive and highly inaccurate.

As a Scot, I personally cannot stand it when Britain is referred to as "England", this is very common and not helped by the English tendency to do the same thing . The UK, despite what you may have heard, is almost entirely centred around the English identity. Things that are quintissentially English are described as "British" whilst things that are Scottish or Welsh or N.Irish are never described as British (except Ulster Unionism, which has political reasons for calling itself "British" over "Irish)

What does America hope to achieve? The removal of the Taliban from power and the killing/capture of Bin Laden. And it will probably achieve those aims.

I'm not happy with the bombing. I think it's a pretty gutless way to fight a war and it's the best (so to speak) way of killing civilians, since it tends to be highly inaccurate.

However I think America is right to prosecute this war. They have been, lest we forget, hit by the worst terrorist attack in living memory - mostly against civilians. Are you saying if America perpetrated such an attack on another country, that country would be wrong to fight back?

I am no great fan of a US foreign policy, I've read my recent history and I know they're not angels and have done some dreadful things for less-than noble reasons. I am also British and I think that the influence and control that the US can exert over Britain is downright sinister.

That is not the point here, though. The point is here you have the US versus Religious fundamentalist terrorists and I, for one, am one lefty happy to side with the USA in this war. Getting rid of the Taliban and Bin Laden will be good for the Afghans (who have had to live under these lunatics) and good for the rest of us.

Having said that, I'm a little unhappy about the immediate involvement of UK forces. As well as the reasons stated above, I think that this allows us to become a target for terrorist attacks by these people. I feel that the UK, France, Germany and the rest should have stood by ready to help the US militarily *if they needed it* rather than just jump in. Tony Blair has told the British public to be ready for retaliatory attacks. Well, this is all very well for him to say, since he has all the security. Are the rest of us all just potential martyrs?

Our own PM (little Johnny Howard) was very quick to write the US a blank cheque, which of course had nothing to do with the fact that he has just called an election.

He also has security arranged for himself, while the people in Sydney especially (which would be the most obvious target) will just have to hope for the best.

I wonder whose bright idea it was to include a moist towellette in the food packages they have been dropping in the minefields for the Afgani people

First, Listener, I am a 'Pom' in NZ.. I do not identify as a NZer, and they don't identify me as one. NZers don't, by and large like Poms..
Secondly, I am shocked that you could possibly think that of me as *happy* that WTC happened! I am a total peacenik, and I loathe the thought of anyone, female, male, black, white or brindle, Martian, Vulcan, Klingon or other - being killed by bombs, guns, gas, or any form of aggression. I don't want any bad fate for any soldier, whatever side he or she is on. My father was wounded, my grandparents' house bombed, my uncle killed all in Europe or England in WW2 and the very thought of such things makes me endlessly sad.
Regarding 'Dubya' - it is my opinion that the guy is a total, complete and utter idiot. That's how it is. But the same things would probably be happening if Gore or Clinton was in power.
Repeat - I do not approve or *anyone* being bombed. Ever.

In NZ, I am sure many people don't understand how the system works in the UK, Zagreb. Two thirds of NZers are of Scots descent, I am told - and there is some very heavy anti-English feeling, that's anti-English - AND I have had to explain to some NZers I was a teacher's training college that English and British are not synonyms. We had a lecturer who used the words interchangeably - after declaring her proud Scottish heritage and reiterating her anger at 'British' colonialism - she kept saying English/British=bad, Scottish good. I was pretty darn confused by the end, I tell you.. and I was an 'older' student. The mostly younger students were completely confuzzled (near word that, from a girl on the Star Trek msg board.)

*NZers don't, by and large like Poms..*

The word Poms refers to the English, not Scots, Welsh or either brand of Irish.

As for the reference to Kiwis not liking Poms, in common with our Aussie neighbours, it's the whinging Poms who are disliked. One of the highest compliments that can be paid to an English person by a Kiwi/Aussie is: "He/she's a good Pommy b*****d".

OK LET´S HAVE IT AGAIN!!

"The worst terrorist attack in living memory" was NOT 11 sept.

That happened 6 and 9 of august 1945 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Let´s get the proportions down to earth here.

And as for German soldiers being involved in actual war even "if needed" has too many historical and constitutional implications.
As I understand it Japan are discussing their constitution also(regarding involvement in actions of war) as a result of this attack on the USA.


T´mershi Duween

totally disagree on that one.

When the first bomb was dropped there was definately a war on. Not dropping the bomb would have meant the war dragged on for months possibly years as the fighting continued island by island with who knows how much loss of life.

If you want to argue about war time civilian casualties, look at the German blitzes, the allied retaliation later in the war. The Japanese killed civilians when they bombed Darwin in northern Australia so now we are only talking about the scale of the deaths rather than the act of bombing civilians during the second world war.

Basically, what i am saying is that your pint is irrelevant to this discussion.

Killing civilians during wartime is NOT ok, and no matter who does it, it will be a terrorist action. That´s all I stated in relation to 11 sept, wich I think is highly relevant as I see a tendency all over the media to call this incident xactly "The worst terrorrist action in living mind" all as part of western disinformation and general ignorance and arrogance!Dresden was terrorism in my eyes, but I´m sure u think that was ok as it was in wartime and that Dresden was high risk area the next many years had the allied not massacred the people there?
But in ur logics the WTC attack must have been ok as several arab countrys have declared war on USA for many years now.

As I said I think this is not only relevant but also one of the central issues in this (original) discussion.

Thanx.

T`m.. D...