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

not a vote nor close but the question was debated back when the nation was founded. in fact the decision was to have no "official" language.

in the same vein, benjamin franklin thought our national symbol should be the turkey instead of the eagle.

that makes sense, we're a smaller country with a smaller population... It would follow that we'd have less people moving... I wonder what the percentages were (of each country's population, not the final population of the USA)

Choosing to have no official language explains why american english is so mangled...

One of those "what ifs", isn't it! It is said that after 1812, realisation of a shared origin and a common cultural heritage made further war unthinkable between Britain and the USA.

Had the USA adopted German as its first language (ie, the means by which cultural heritage is transmitted), I wonder what side they'd have come in on in WW1, when there was precious little to choose between two squabbling blocs of European imperialist powers, morally and ethically speaking. If a Germanic USA had come in on the German side...

We'd probably see European speakers of German grumbling about variant North American uses of the German language, whatever the equivalent would be of "honor/honor" or "color/colour" ("Treue" missing off the final "e"? "Farben" without the "n"?)

"One of those "what ifs", isn't it! It is said that after 1812, realisation of a shared origin and a common cultural heritage made further war unthinkable between Britain and the USA."

I doubt that very much. Britain unofficially supported the Confederacy during the American Civil War (allegedly out of the desire to weaken the young republic) and the UK would undoubtably have gone to war with the USA again if our interests had been seriously threatened. Britain and the USA didn't become serious allies until the early 20th century when the US joined us in the war against Germany.

"Had the USA adopted German as its first language (ie, the means by which cultural heritage is transmitted), I wonder what side they'd have come in on in WW1, when there was precious little to choose between two squabbling blocs of European imperialist powers, morally and ethically speaking. If a Germanic USA had come in on the German side..."

I don't think it was as "morally equivalent" as people pretend. Germany had become more and more aggressive as its confidence grew after the formation of the Empire and the militarist rightwing (who were very much proto-nazis) pretty much took control of the Empire during WWI (hence unrestricted submarine warfare, etc). Of course, entente propaganda exaggerated the threat of Germany to freedom but looked at objectively, they were pretty-much the "bad" guys in WWI (if nowhere near as much as they were in WWII).

"I understand that at one time there was a vote to choose the language of the US, and German ran in a close second to English."

Urban myth alert! This is untrue. It actually stems from a genuine scenario where there was a decision on whether or not to distribute some written items (laws, I think) in several languages (including German) rather than just in English around the time of the formation of the USA. I think the decision not to issue them in German was defeated by only one vote. There was, however, never any sort of vote to determine whether German would be chosen over English as the official language of the USA.

Most Americans I have met have been very nice courteous people. Similarly most Europeans I have met have been nice people.

>>>"One of those "what ifs", isn't it! It is said that after 1812, realisation of a shared origin and a common cultural heritage made further war unthinkable between Britain and the USA."

I doubt that very much.<<<

yeah... we Americans were pretty much considered ruffians, eh?



and i think the only language we have serious debates about is Spanish.

why, thank you visitor to planet earth! you are very nice, too!

"yeah... we Americans were pretty much considered ruffians, eh?"

Well, kind of. I think the British establishment was more afraid of what America represented. A lot of the ideals of the American revolution were leftovers from England's ultimately-thwarted revolution of the 1640s. The political forces that the English revolution set in motion ultimately lead to the final forced-removal of the Stuart dynasty from the throne and the beginnings of "constitutinal monarchy" in the so-called "revolution" of 1688. However, this was halfway-house republicanism that merely entrenched Parliament's power *alongside* the monarchy and the aristocracy. When the American revolutionaries formed a republic it was scoffed at in Britain by conservatives since it was a "fact" that republics could not exist on such a scale and were doomed to collapse (both the example of ancient Rome and the failure of the English Commonwealth were presumably the sources of this). America did no such thing and, indeed, during the revolution many British liberals supported the colonists. I think the British establishment was afraid that the American revolution might one day cross the atlantic and finally do what Cromwell failed to. However, with the rise of the bourgeoise and capitalist class at the expense of the aristocracy in the 19th century, the shift in power in the UK changed and America was no longer seen as a threat as Britain became more and more ruled by Parliament and less and less by the aristocracy.

wow how did that shift in power come about? specifically.

Gradually, with full complicity by the monarchy. i believe King John was the first and most infamous to sign away the rights of the royalty to govern Britain. Ever since then, they've been dismantling the powers of the throne in bits and pieces. But that's just what i remember from history class - i'm sure I've got a few things wrong.

as john lennon sung power to the people




the usa were the superpower in the 20th centry



but in the 21th centry it will be china



so what do you think of that.
what will the usa do about that

Well said. I heard traveling explained this way once.

There are two types of travelers.

Tourists, who go somewhere to see the people and culture. They see that culture as just one more attraction of their vacation.

Then there are travelers. People who go somewhere and immerse themselves into the culture. They tend to see the other culture as an opportunity to learn, grow and experience new things.

Tourists arrive at their destination and think about the day they will go home.

Travelers arrive at their destination and wonder if they will go home.

Unfortunately, because tourists so obviously stand out in a crowd, they are the ones who influence the worlds opinions about their culture.

They'll struggle to maintain the status quo.

Concerning the Chinese Superpower, this just in:

' China Threatens War Escalation Over Bush Handshake'

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/130607threatenswar.htm

thats ridiculous. he is an ambassador right? is not that portocol to shake hands?

<<"I understand that at one time there was a vote to choose the language of the US, and German ran in a close second to English."
Urban myth alert! This is untrue.>>

Thinking about it, it would have to be a myth, wouldn't it? I mean, it's not one of those things you can just *change* by magic 'cos of a vote.

But it's a very tenacious myth, all the same.

What's wrong with Americans?
My colleague here says "They voted for George W Bush - twice."

no we didn't even vote for him once.... figure it out for yourself