Dodaj do ulubionych

Misnomers, that get on your nerves?

18.12.05, 10:33
1. "Former Eastern(Communist) Block Country"??? Why is the reference to the
past so important? Let's move on....You wouldn't call the university
student; "a preschooller" 16 years later, would you?

2. "Eastern" European Country (refering to Poland), this happen to be
as "eastern" as Sweden, besides Finland and Greece are east of Poland, so why
aren't they called "eastern"?

3. "Great" Britain ??? no offense, but teritorially UK is slightly smaller
than Poland ...

4. Poland- nation with "tragic"? history, as you can read in most english
language books. But really, does history of Poland starts in 1770's? Is the
latest 200 years of partition and dependence more definitive than 400 years
of expansionist and agressive Poland?

P.S. Some of you might percieve those examples as trivial and unimportant,
but why should I as a Pole, let others belittle and deny Poland the role and
a status that it deserves?

In case you were about to lecture me on triviality of the subject, if those
names are so unimportant, why then Great Britain didn't call itself Miediocry
Britain or in some other insultive ways?
Obserwuj wątek
    • russh Re: Misnomers, that get on your nerves? 18.12.05, 11:59
      waldek1610 napisał:

      > 1. "Former Eastern(Communist) Block Country"??? Why is the reference to the
      > past so important?

      It's not.

      Let's move on....You wouldn't call the university
      > student; "a preschooller" 16 years later, would you?

      No, but you would quite often hear of something called an 'ex', meaning former.

      > 2. "Eastern" European Country (refering to Poland), this happen to be
      > as "eastern" as Sweden, besides Finland and Greece are east of Poland, so why
      > aren't they called "eastern"?

      Why should this bother you? GB is also referred to as in 'Northen Europe', but
      half of it is no further north than Poland! So what.

      >
      > 3. "Great" Britain ??? no offense, but teritorially UK is slightly smaller
      > than Poland ...

      Why should this bother you? I have no problem if you want to call Poland 'Great
      Poland'. In fact, the meaning was geographical ('great' meaning 'large'), not
      political. There is also 'Greater Manchester', does this bother you?

      >
      > 4. Poland- nation with "tragic"? history, as you can read in most english
      > language books. But really, does history of Poland starts in 1770's? Is the
      > latest 200 years of partition and dependence more definitive than 400 years
      > of expansionist and agressive Poland?


      I have not read most English language books - but would assume that it is not an
      insult, but a reflection on the history of the last few centuries. I do not
      believe the term is common only in English language books, in that talking to
      many Poles about their history (always through a translator, my partner) they
      are the ones to call their history tragic. They have all told me of the way
      Poland has been taken bit-by-bit by its neighbours. Then there is, obviously,
      the 20th century - how more tragic could you get. Again, why does the reference
      bother you?


      >
      > P.S. Some of you might percieve those examples as trivial and unimportant,
      > but why should I as a Pole, let others belittle and deny Poland the role and
      > a status that it deserves?

      Again, why are you taking these phrases as belittling? They are not.

      >
      > In case you were about to lecture me on triviality of the subject, if those
      > names are so unimportant, why then Great Britain didn't call itself Miediocry
      > Britain or in some other insultive ways?

      As mentioned before, the term great was meant in geographic terms (i.e. large
      Britain, as opposed to smaller Britain when it was separate nations). As with
      many words in the English language, great had many meanings.

      As asked before Waldek, why have you this fixation relating to the United
      Kingdom, or Great Britain? Especially when you say they are so closely united in
      their political ideals (and normally this would also indicate a certain cultural
      unison).
      • waldek1610 if this isn't "anti- Polish conspiracy" than what? 18.12.05, 12:46
        russh napisał:

        > waldek1610 napisał:
        >
        > > 1. "Former Eastern(Communist) Block Country"??? Why is the reference to t
        > he
        > > past so important?
        >
        > It's not.
        Why then BBC used this frase when reffering ot Poland? Why not say "central
        european country"?


        > Let's move on....You wouldn't call the university
        > > student; "a preschooller" 16 years later, would you?
        >
        > No, but you would quite often hear of something called an 'ex', meaning
        former.

        ok, but noone calls Germany "former-Nazi state" anymore...I'm sure Germans feel
        releaved not to be associated with its gloomy past. Why than Poland, 16 years
        after defeating communism is often called "ex-communist. This is not helping to
        change Poland's negative image...

        > > 2. "Eastern" European Country (refering to Poland), this happen to be
        > > as "eastern" as Sweden, besides Finland and Greece are east of Poland, so
        > why
        > > aren't they called "eastern"?
        >
        > Why should this bother you? GB is also referred to as in 'Northen Europe', but
        > half of it is no further north than Poland! So what.


        GB is Northern Europe because there's nothing north of British Isles, only
        Arctics, but that's different continent. On hte other hand if oyu look at the
        European continent, Poland is in the dead center, so why call it eastern???

        > > 3. "Great" Britain ??? no offense, but teritorially UK is slightly smalle
        > r
        > > than Poland ...
        >
        > Why should this bother you? I have no problem if you want to call
        Poland 'Great
        > Poland'. In fact, the meaning was geographical ('great' meaning 'large'), not
        > political. There is also 'Greater Manchester', does this bother you?

        If you reversed the process (in theory), let's say GB broke apart and Nothern
        Ireland and Scotland seceded from UK, would you change it's name to Smaller or
        Lesser Britian?


        > > 4. Poland- nation with "tragic"? history, as you can read in most english
        >
        > > language books. But really, does history of Poland starts in 1770's? Is t
        > he
        > > latest 200 years of partition and dependence more definitive than 400 yea
        > rs
        > > of expansionist and agressive Poland?
        >
        >
        > I have not read most English language books - but would assume that it is not
        a
        > n
        > insult, but a reflection on the history of the last few centuries. I do not
        > believe the term is common only in English language books, in that talking to
        > many Poles about their history (always through a translator, my partner) they
        > are the ones to call their history tragic. They have all told me of the way
        > Poland has been taken bit-by-bit by its neighbours. Then there is, obviously,
        > the 20th century - how more tragic could you get. Again, why does the
        reference
        > bother you?

        So was Grecce and Roman Empire but noone says today's Grecce and Itally have a
        tragic past, but if you think about it Grecce was occupied by Ottomans for at
        least 5 centuries!!! But today Grecce is associated with it's long passed
        Imperial period, but few western scholars write about Polish Commonwealth, the
        kindom that occupied 1/4 of entire European continent between 1450-1700, and
        was for quite while by far largest European state.....



        > > P.S. Some of you might percieve those examples as trivial and unimportant
        > ,
        > > but why should I as a Pole, let others belittle and deny Poland the role
        > and
        > > a status that it deserves?
        >
        > Again, why are you taking these phrases as belittling? They are not.

        Because all those, prove the rule that in the west there is tendency only to
        point out Poland's flaws and weeknesses, almost never anyone cares to speak of
        Poland's achievements. One example; everybody associates Mozart with Austria,
        and Bach with Germany, but when one I read about Chopin, (in western
        literature) I "find out" that Chopin was polish-born French man....Why French,
        because it sounds better? Or is it because most associate romantic music and
        arts with France, not Poland?


        > > In case you were about to lecture me on triviality of the subject, if tho
        > se
        > > names are so unimportant, why then Great Britain didn't call itself Miedi
        > ocry
        > > Britain or in some other insultive ways?
        >
        > As mentioned before, the term great was meant in geographic terms (i.e. large
        > Britain, as opposed to smaller Britain when it was separate nations). As with
        > many words in the English language, great had many meanings.
        >
        > As asked before Waldek, why have you this fixation relating to the United
        > Kingdom, or Great Britain? Especially when you say they are so closely united
        i
        > n
        > their political ideals (and normally this would also indicate a certain
        cultura
        > l
        > unison).
        • waldek1610 Re: if this isn't "anti- Polish conspiracy" than 18.12.05, 13:04
          waldek1610 napisał:

          > russh napisał:

          > > > In case you were about to lecture me on triviality of the subject,
          > if tho
          > > se
          > > > names are so unimportant, why then Great Britain didn't call itself
          > Miedi
          > > ocry
          > > > Britain or in some other insultive ways?
          > >
          > > As mentioned before, the term great was meant in geographic terms (i.e. l
          > arge
          > > Britain, as opposed to smaller Britain when it was separate nations). As
          > with
          > > many words in the English language, great had many meanings.
          > >
          > > As asked before Waldek, why have you this fixation relating to the United
          > > Kingdom, or Great Britain? Especially when you say they are so closely un
          > ited
          > i
          > > n
          > > their political ideals (and normally this would also indicate a certain
          > cultura
          > > l
          > > unison).

          We are in fact closer united ideologicaly with GB than with former USSR, but
          for some reason western part of Europe, the old EU has this fixation on
          associating Poland with east (culturaly and geografically),with Russians and
          backwardness.

          But just because we Poles are Slavs doesn't mean we have to be thrown into same
          bag along with Russians and Ukrainians. After all Poland have chosed over 1000
          years ago to associate itself with west, hence you got roman catholicism and
          strong libelitarian ideals among Poles....

          I'm not against UK, but it's policy to deprive Poland's it's full potential,
          which was always equal if not bigger than France's, Germany's, Britain's...is
          making me reconsider Polish-British friendship...because history has tought us
          that no European's allies can be trusted.
          • russh Re: if this isn't "anti- Polish conspiracy" than 18.12.05, 13:48
            waldek1610 napisał:

            > waldek1610 napisał:
            >
            > > russh napisał:
            >
            > > > > In case you were about to lecture me on triviality of the sub
            > ject,
            > > if tho
            > > > se
            > > > > names are so unimportant, why then Great Britain didn't call
            > itself
            > > Miedi
            > > > ocry
            > > > > Britain or in some other insultive ways?
            > > >
            > > > As mentioned before, the term great was meant in geographic terms (
            > i.e. l
            > > arge
            > > > Britain, as opposed to smaller Britain when it was separate nations
            > ). As
            > > with
            > > > many words in the English language, great had many meanings.
            > > >
            > > > As asked before Waldek, why have you this fixation relating to the
            > United
            > > > Kingdom, or Great Britain? Especially when you say they are so clos
            > ely un
            > > ited
            > > i
            > > > n
            > > > their political ideals (and normally this would also indicate a cer
            > tain
            > > cultura
            > > > l
            > > > unison).
            >
            > We are in fact closer united ideologicaly with GB than with former USSR, but
            > for some reason western part of Europe, the old EU has this fixation on
            > associating Poland with east (culturaly and geografically),with Russians and
            > backwardness.

            I think that you should re-tense this to 'the old EU had this fixation'; and it
            would have been true. If you were then to say that it was the fault of the west
            (that Poland was part of the Warsaw Block) I would agree with you, but that's
            another story.


            >
            > But just because we Poles are Slavs doesn't mean we have to be thrown into same
            >
            > bag along with Russians and Ukrainians.


            They are not. They were (see above). Poland is now part of the EU, and has equal
            rights, even if not equal wealth (for now).


            After all Poland have chosed over 1000
            > years ago to associate itself with west, hence you got roman catholicism and
            > strong libelitarian ideals among Poles....
            >
            > I'm not against UK, but it's policy to deprive Poland's it's full potential,
            > which was always equal if not bigger than France's, Germany's, Britain's...is
            > making me reconsider Polish-British friendship...because history has tought us
            > that no European's allies can be trusted.

            It's not for us to re-consider; only to have an opinion about, although I would
            remind you that GB is one of the few countries to have 100% opened its labour
            market to Poland (and the other accession countries). The UK is a friend of
            Poland, but has also got to look after its own interests (something that I do
            not think happened in these budget talks), as has Poland.


            • waldek1610 Re: if this isn't "anti- Polish conspiracy" than 19.12.05, 06:41
              russh napisał:

              > waldek1610 napisał:

              > > I'm not against UK, but it's policy to deprive Poland's it's full potenti
              > al,
              > > which was always equal if not bigger than France's, Germany's, Britain's.
              > ..is
              > > making me reconsider Polish-British friendship...because history has toug
              > ht us
              > > that no European's allies can be trusted.
              >
              > It's not for us to re-consider; only to have an opinion about, although I
              would
              > remind you that GB is one of the few countries to have 100% opened its labour
              > market to Poland (and the other accession countries).

              Sure, it's very nice of our British friends, but I heard another version of the
              story (from british sources) for example that UK suffered a shortage of the
              qualified blue collar workforce; and it was hard to find a decent contractor in
              UK who could fix the pipe or remodel apartment....

              > The UK is a friend of
              > Poland, but has also got to look after its own interests (something that I do
              > not think happened in these budget talks), as has Poland.

              Russh,
              While it's certainly true that british has allowed polish workers into their
              country, but you don't bother to mention the fact that in return UK got almost
              unlimited acces to lucrative polish market....
        • russh Re: if this isn't "anti- Polish conspiracy" than 18.12.05, 13:18
          waldek1610 napisał:

          > russh napisał:
          >
          > > waldek1610 napisał:
          > >
          > > > 1. "Former Eastern(Communist) Block Country"??? Why is the referenc
          > e to t
          > > he
          > > > past so important?
          > >
          > > It's not.
          > Why then BBC used this frase when reffering ot Poland? Why not say "central
          > european country"?


          Because it's still current history. It will cease in time. People talk often of
          India as a former British colony, and that ceased to be more than 50 years ago.

          >
          >
          > > Let's move on....You wouldn't call the university
          > > > student; "a preschooller" 16 years later, would you?
          > >
          > > No, but you would quite often hear of something called an 'ex', meaning
          > former.
          >
          > ok, but noone calls Germany "former-Nazi state" anymore...I'm sure Germans feel
          >
          > releaved not to be associated with its gloomy past. Why than Poland, 16 years
          > after defeating communism is often called "ex-communist. This is not helping to
          >
          > change Poland's negative image...

          I don't believe it's got so negative an image. It's still poor in relation to
          the majority of the EU countries (but that will be rectified if the Polish
          government can spend the billions of Euros coming to it effectively), but that
          is not the definition of negative image. Historically speaking 16 years is a
          very short time.


          >
          > > > 2. "Eastern" European Country (refering to Poland), this happen to
          > be
          > > > as "eastern" as Sweden, besides Finland and Greece are east of Pola
          > nd, so
          > > why
          > > > aren't they called "eastern"?
          > >
          > > Why should this bother you? GB is also referred to as in 'Northen Europe'
          > , but
          > > half of it is no further north than Poland! So what.
          >
          >
          > GB is Northern Europe because there's nothing north of British Isles, only
          > Arctics, but that's different continent. On hte other hand if oyu look at the
          > European continent, Poland is in the dead center, so why call it eastern???

          I think we are looking at different maps. Poland is as eastern as the UK is
          northern in my opinion. But you have not answered the question as to why it
          bothers you.
          >
          > > > 3. "Great" Britain ??? no offense, but teritorially UK is slightly
          > smalle
          > > r
          > > > than Poland ...
          > >
          > > Why should this bother you? I have no problem if you want to call
          > Poland 'Great
          > > Poland'. In fact, the meaning was geographical ('great' meaning 'large'),
          > not
          > > political. There is also 'Greater Manchester', does this bother you?
          >
          > If you reversed the process (in theory), let's say GB broke apart and Nothern
          > Ireland and Scotland seceded from UK, would you change it's name to Smaller or
          > Lesser Britian?

          No, they would call it Britain I assume (being at that point England & Wales),
          although it is a pointless question.
          >
          >
          > > > 4. Poland- nation with "tragic"? history, as you can read in most e
          > nglish
          > >
          > > > language books. But really, does history of Poland starts in 1770's
          > ? Is t
          > > he
          > > > latest 200 years of partition and dependence more definitive than 4
          > 00 yea
          > > rs
          > > > of expansionist and agressive Poland?
          > >
          > >
          > > I have not read most English language books - but would assume that it is
          > not
          > a
          > > n
          > > insult, but a reflection on the history of the last few centuries. I do n
          > ot
          > > believe the term is common only in English language books, in that talkin
          > g to
          > > many Poles about their history (always through a translator, my partner)
          > they
          > > are the ones to call their history tragic. They have all told me of the w
          > ay
          > > Poland has been taken bit-by-bit by its neighbours. Then there is, obviou
          > sly,
          > > the 20th century - how more tragic could you get. Again, why does the
          > reference
          > > bother you?
          >
          > So was Grecce and Roman Empire but noone says today's Grecce and Itally have a
          > tragic past, but if you think about it Grecce was occupied by Ottomans for at
          > least 5 centuries!!! But today Grecce is associated with it's long passed
          > Imperial period, but few western scholars write about Polish Commonwealth, the
          > kindom that occupied 1/4 of entire European continent between 1450-1700, and
          > was for quite while by far largest European state.....

          I said it all in the first reply.

          >
          >
          >
          > > > P.S. Some of you might percieve those examples as trivial and unimp
          > ortant
          > > ,
          > > > but why should I as a Pole, let others belittle and deny Poland the
          > role
          > > and
          > > > a status that it deserves?
          > >
          > > Again, why are you taking these phrases as belittling? They are not.
          >
          > Because all those, prove the rule that in the west there is tendency only to
          > point out Poland's flaws and weeknesses, almost never anyone cares to speak of
          > Poland's achievements. One example; everybody associates Mozart with Austria,
          > and Bach with Germany, but when one I read about Chopin, (in western
          > literature) I "find out" that Chopin was polish-born French man....Why French,
          > because it sounds better? Or is it because most associate romantic music and
          > arts with France, not Poland?

          This is not an answer to my point that these phrases are NOT belittling, and
          remember you are not now a Pole (only by birth), but a nationalised American,
          and you swore allegiance to them.

          Also, obviously I read different articles than you, for most of the articles I
          have read in the past months have clearly identified Poland as a major EU force.

          As said before, your opinions seem to be isolated.

          By the way, I am sure that Chopin being Polish or French is a conspiracy theory.
          He was in reality British, from Cambridge in fact.
          >
          >
          > > > In case you were about to lecture me on triviality of the subject,
          > if tho
          > > se
          > > > names are so unimportant, why then Great Britain didn't call itself
          > Miedi
          > > ocry
          > > > Britain or in some other insultive ways?
          > >
          > > As mentioned before, the term great was meant in geographic terms (i.e. l
          > arge
          > > Britain, as opposed to smaller Britain when it was separate nations). As
          > with
          > > many words in the English language, great had many meanings.
          > >
          > > As asked before Waldek, why have you this fixation relating to the United
          > > Kingdom, or Great Britain? Especially when you say they are so closely un
          > ited
          > i
          > > n
          > > their political ideals (and normally this would also indicate a certain
          > cultura
          > > l
          > > unison).


          Why have you not anwered the last point, especially where on the one hand you
          are pointing to the Political closeness of the three countries (Poland, the UK
          and the USA) which which would also suggest a cultural closeness, and on the
          other hand 99% of your posts suggest that they are so far apart.

          To sum up, I would again refute your perennial message that Poland is eternally
          criticised by the UK (I do not read American papers, so cannot have an opinion
          on their treatment of Poland). I would also point out, in reponse to an older
          post of yours where you intimated that the UK did not value the effor
          • waldek1610 Europe spans from Portugal to Urals..did you know? 19.12.05, 07:25
            russh napisał:

            > waldek1610 napisał:

            > > On the other hand if you look at the European continent, Poland is in the
            > > dead center, so why call it eastern???
            >
            > I think we are looking at different maps. Poland is as eastern as the UK is
            > northern in my opinion. But you have not answered the question as to why it
            > bothers you.

            This is a map of Europe, which shows EU countries.
            > > www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ee.html
            Do me a favour, take a protractor or a measure and scribe two lines across the
            picture...You can also go to any library or a bookstore and open the atlas on
            the Europe section you'll see that Poland is in dead center. I think that
            problem is that you don't consider that the eastern limit of the Europe is Ural
            Mountains in Russia..that's the problem. Europe spans from Portuagal to
            Urals...not Portuagal to Poland ....can you once for all understand that?



            > remember you are not now a Pole (only by birth), but a nationalised American,
            > and you swore allegiance to them.

            Chopin too had a French passport, but read his letters..they are all in polish,
            and are constantly making references to Poland...France to him was only land of
            his exile.

            > Also, obviously I read different articles than you, for most of the articles I
            > have read in the past months have clearly identified Poland as a major EU
            force

            They are learning......


            > As said before, your opinions seem to be isolated.
            >
            > By the way, I am sure that Chopin being Polish or French is a conspiracy
            theory
            > .
            > He was in reality British, from Cambridge in fact.

            Read a Chopin biography, you'll find out details about his two trips to England
            and Scotland. He was constantly ridiculing english manners, and admited that he
            was bored to death in the company of his British hosts.....

            • usenetposts Re: Europe spans from Portugal to Urals..did you 19.12.05, 18:45
              waldek1610 napisał:

              > russh napisał:
              >
              > > waldek1610 napisał:
              >
              > > > On the other hand if you look at the European continent, Poland is
              > in the
              > > > dead center, so why call it eastern???
              > >
              > > I think we are looking at different maps. Poland is as eastern as the UK
              > is
              > > northern in my opinion. But you have not answered the question as to why
              > it
              > > bothers you.
              >
              > This is a map of Europe, which shows EU countries.
              > > > www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ee.html

              > Do me a favour, take a protractor or a measure and scribe two lines across
              the
              > picture...You can also go to any library or a bookstore and open the atlas on
              > the Europe section you'll see that Poland is in dead center. I think that
              > problem is that you don't consider that the eastern limit of the Europe is
              Ural
              >
              > Mountains in Russia..that's the problem. Europe spans from Portuagal to
              > Urals...not Portuagal to Poland ....can you once for all understand that?

              I disagree that Europe stops at the Urals. Places like Vladivostok in Eastern
              Russia are pretty much as European as a lot of places to the West of the Urals.

              You cannot stick a line down the middle of a country. Either Russia is in
              Europe or it isn't. For me, Russia is entirely a European country, since that
              is de facto the dominant culture. In many ways Vladivostok is more European
              than Poland is.

              There is no physical geographical cut-offs in the middle of Eurasia, only human
              geography determines where that cut-off is, so having it mid-country is
              nonsense. The bears and the lynxes wander daily between Europe and Aia at that
              border. You can't think of it as the same as the border between Australia and
              America, possums.

              Europe for me means the entirety of Christian Eurasia, and Muslim and Hindi and
              Taoist and Buddhist and Sikhi etc parts of Eurasia are all Asia.

              Oh yeah... how does the song in the airline advert put it? Malaise, you're
              truly Asia?

              Seriously, historically there has been great debate as to what the boundaries
              of Europe are, and the Urals were one of the dumber suggestions.
              • waldek1610 Davey: "Vladywostok is more European than Poland" 20.12.05, 23:26
                usenetposts napisał:

                > I disagree that Europe stops at the Urals. Places like Vladivostok in Eastern
                > Russia are pretty much as European as a lot of places to the West of the
                Urals.
                >
                > You cannot stick a line down the middle of a country. Either Russia is in
                > Europe or it isn't. For me, Russia is entirely a European country, since that
                > is de facto the dominant culture.

                "dominant culture" in tespect to what?


                > In many ways Vladivostok is more European
                > than Poland is.

                I'm sure that Russian sub-syberian prostitiutes that wait for american sailors
                in the Vladyvostok's port look more European than the polish call-ladies in
                Warsaw.I just hope you're not voiceing such opinions among Poles in
                Warsaw....because if you did your life would be in jeopardy. By the way
                seriously what's european about Vladivostok?

                > There is no physical geographical cut-offs in the middle of Eurasia, only
                human
                >
                > geography determines where that cut-off is, so having it mid-country is
                > nonsense. The bears and the lynxes wander daily between Europe and Aia at
                that
                > border. You can't think of it as the same as the border between Australia and
                > America, possums.
                >
                > Europe for me means the entirety of Christian Eurasia, and Muslim and Hindi
                and
                >
                > Taoist and Buddhist and Sikhi etc parts of Eurasia are all Asia.
                >
                > Oh yeah... how does the song in the airline advert put it? Malaise, you're
                > truly Asia?
                >
                > Seriously, historically there has been great debate as to what the boundaries
                > of Europe are, and the Urals were one of the dumber suggestions.

                If you suggest that Vladivostoc is more Euorpean then Poland and whole of
                Russia is "European", then where's the center of Europe? In the Syberia?? This
                contradicts the widespread opinion that Poland is the eastern European country.
                I just can't understand why "eastern Europe have to be twice bigger
                than "western Europe"?

                Don't you think that "old EU" countires want to have an exclusive rights to be
                considered Europe proper, while anything east of Berlin is considered second
                category Europe?
          • waldek1610 Re: if this isn't "anti- Polish conspiracy" than 19.12.05, 07:47
            Russh napisal;

            > Why have you not anwered the last point, especially where on the one hand you
            > are pointing to the Political closeness of the three countries (Poland, the UK
            > and the USA) which which would also suggest a cultural closeness, and on the
            > other hand 99% of your posts suggest that they are so far apart.

            They (USA, UK and Poland) should be close given the their political ideals, but
            this closness of ideals don't often translate into cooperation and real
            friendship. Poland has made an effort to stand by those common ideals of
            freedom by standing by USA and UK in Iraq...Poland took the responsibility of
            the military alliance and has send 3rd biggest contingent of troops into Iraq,
            one of the reasons for this move was to prove that Poland is realiabe ally,
            unlike the GB who in 1939 failed it's Polish Allies when Nazis invaded.

            If you lived in Poland long enough I'm sure you can sence the same anglo-
            american liberitarian ideals among Poles, and the general distrust towards
            authorities.

            > To sum up, I would again refute your perennial message that Poland is
            > eternally criticised by the UK (I do not read American papers, so cannot have
            > an opinionon their treatment of Poland).

            Not as much "critisized" but dismissed as less-important. Besides it takes to
            be polish to see clearly all negative stereotypes and highly selective memory
            of the UK regarding Polish state...but if you look at both countries, they have
            a lot in common only with the exception that the times of expansionist Poland
            and UK came at the different times, but if you look back to 1400-1700's it was
            Polish Comonwealth that was the eastern european empire, comprising of at least
            7 different nations; Poland, Belarus, Lituenia, Latvia, Western Ukraine, and
            even bits of Russia, Balkans, Romania...

            > I would also point out, in reponse
            > to an older post of yours where you intimated that the UK did not value the
            > effor

            ?? You didn't finish the sentence.

            • russh Re: if this isn't "anti- Polish conspiracy" than 19.12.05, 12:27
              waldek1610 napisał:

              > Russh napisal;
              >
              > > Why have you not anwered the last point, especially where on the one hand
              > you
              > > are pointing to the Political closeness of the three countries (Poland, t
              > he UK
              > > and the USA) which which would also suggest a cultural closeness, and on
              > the
              > > other hand 99% of your posts suggest that they are so far apart.
              >
              > They (USA, UK and Poland) should be close given the their political ideals, but
              >
              > this closness of ideals don't often translate into cooperation and real
              > friendship. Poland has made an effort to stand by those common ideals of
              > freedom by standing by USA and UK in Iraq...Poland took the responsibility of
              > the military alliance and has send 3rd biggest contingent of troops into Iraq,
              > one of the reasons for this move was to prove that Poland is realiabe ally,
              > unlike the GB who in 1939 failed it's Polish Allies when Nazis invaded.

              Waldek, we all know the 'truth' about the pre-war appeasement of Hitler by
              Chamberlain, the lack of preparation by Poland France and Great Britain, the
              start of WW2 (the invasion of Poland by the Germans), and the inevitable delays
              in assisting Poland afterwards (in rality due to the lack of preparation etc.).

              We also know the outcome, both in terms of an Allied victory against the
              Germans, and the cession, often thought inexcusable, of the 'Eastern European
              Nations' (and I say Eastern not to rile you, but in the context of the Yalta &
              Potsdam Agreements). I personally, especially after gaining more knowledge since
              living here, feel very sorry for Poland and its people, and have been horrified
              to learn of the atrocities committed of the Russians in the aftermath of the war
              (my previous ignorance of them is down my lack of previous education, or
              learning). There were many reasons (which are still being debated), for the
              decisions taken at those summits. The blame for the war cannot be put at the
              hands of the British; only the Germans were to blame.

              The point is that neither you or I, or the British / American /Polish people can
              do anything about the past, anymore than you can. We can learn (hopefully) from
              our mistakes and those of others and analysing history, to create a better
              future. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

              Poland now has the chance to make an economic & social comeback, and it is the
              EU's moral duty, I believe, to ensure that this happens. Much has already been
              done, but it will take generations to fully rid the country of 50 years of pain.

              Poland is now my country as well, for I live and work here with my family. We
              must not forget the past, but we cannot live in it, as you sometimes seem to do.
              We (in Poland) can have a great future if we want to.

              > If you lived in Poland long enough I'm sure you can sence the same anglo-
              > american liberitarian ideals among Poles, and the general distrust towards
              > authorities.

              I think this has much to do with having been under a totalitarian regime for so
              long.

              > > To sum up, I would again refute your perennial message that Poland is
              > > eternally criticised by the UK (I do not read American papers, so cannot
              > have an opinionon their treatment of Poland).
              >
              > Not as much "critisized" but dismissed as less-important. Besides it takes to
              > be polish to see clearly all negative stereotypes and highly selective memory
              > of the UK regarding Polish state...but if you look at both countries, they have
              >
              > a lot in common only with the exception that the times of expansionist Poland
              > and UK came at the different times, but if you look back to 1400-1700's it was
              > Polish Comonwealth that was the eastern european empire, comprising of at least
              >
              > 7 different nations; Poland, Belarus, Lituenia, Latvia, Western Ukraine, and
              > even bits of Russia, Balkans, Romania...
              >
              > > I would also point out, in reponse
              > > to an older post of yours where you intimated that the UK did not value t
              > he
              > > effor
              >
              > ?? You didn't finish the sentence.

              I did, but it would seem that there is a maximum length of post. What I wrote
              has been covered elsewhere.
              >
    • usenetposts Re: Misnomers, that get on your nerves? 18.12.05, 15:43
      waldek1610 napisał:

      > 1. "Former Eastern(Communist) Block Country"??? Why is the reference to the
      > past so important? Let's move on....You wouldn't call the university
      > student; "a preschooller" 16 years later, would you?

      No, but if up to 16 years ago he had been in a coma for 40 years, you might
      still remark upon it occasionally.

      >
      > 2. "Eastern" European Country (refering to Poland), this happen to be
      > as "eastern" as Sweden, besides Finland and Greece are east of Poland, so why
      > aren't they called "eastern"?

      This is a fair point. The person who has made that point loudest and clearest,
      by the way, is historian Norman Davies, an Englishman.

      >
      > 3. "Great" Britain ??? no offense, but teritorially UK is slightly smaller
      > than Poland ...
      >

      It is not about size, it is about what you do with it.

      Historically, the French referred to two places where they encountered
      Britannic (or "prythonic") Celts as "Bretagne". The standard "Bretagne" is
      Britanny, in the west of France. The term "Grande Bretagne" is because of the
      land of Britain being much larger than Britanny.

      It is no more a patriotic term in origin than "Wielkopolska/Malopolska".

      It only became popularised after the Norman conquest. They were in charge of us
      as well as Britanny, and they used the term to avoid confusion.

      The three Britannic Celtic languages,Welsh, Cornish and Breton are fairly
      mutually intelligible. More so than the three Goidelic Celtic languages of
      Eirse, Scots gaelic and Manx, since these separated earlier, it is thought.

      > 4. Poland- nation with "tragic"? history, as you can read in most english
      > language books. But really, does history of Poland starts in 1770's? Is the
      > latest 200 years of partition and dependence more definitive than 400 years
      > of expansionist and agressive Poland?

      Read Norman Davies, especially the Introduction to "Europa". You are knocking
      on an open door as far as mainstream British academic opinion is concerned.

      >
      > P.S. Some of you might percieve those examples as trivial and unimportant,
      > but why should I as a Pole, let others belittle and deny Poland the role and
      > a status that it deserves?
      >
      > In case you were about to lecture me on triviality of the subject, if those
      > names are so unimportant, why then Great Britain didn't call itself Miediocry
      > Britain or in some other insultive ways?

      We always do do exactly that. Barely a week goes by without some international
      figure denigrating this country, and if they don't do it, we do it for
      ourselves in case we go soft.
      • russh History of the term Great Britain - Well done Dave 18.12.05, 17:31
        usenetposts napisał:

        >
        > >
        > > 3. "Great" Britain ??? no offense, but teritorially UK is slightly smalle
        > r
        > > than Poland ...
        > >
        >
        > It is not about size, it is about what you do with it.
        >
        > Historically, the French referred to two places where they encountered
        > Britannic (or "prythonic") Celts as "Bretagne". The standard "Bretagne" is
        > Britanny, in the west of France. The term "Grande Bretagne" is because of the
        > land of Britain being much larger than Britanny.
        >
        > It is no more a patriotic term in origin than "Wielkopolska/Malopolska".
        >
        > It only became popularised after the Norman conquest. They were in charge of us
        >
        > as well as Britanny, and they used the term to avoid confusion.

        I stand partially corrected. I had always taken it that it was James 1st who was
        the first to use it - proclaiming himself the King of Great Britain, instead of
        King of England and Scotland. I've just searched, and low and behold it was just
        the first official usage.

        See below:

        Britain and Brittany

        The original reference seems to have been to the territory in which the
        Brythonic languages were spoken, which more or less coincided with the Roman
        province of Britannia, an area equivalent to modern England, Wales and southern
        Scotland. In the Early Middle Ages speakers of a Brythonic language which later
        evolved into Breton migrated from Cornwall to Armorica, Western France, possibly
        because of pressure from Saxon invasions. This is why different forms of the
        same name apply to insular Britain and continental Brittany.

        In French the similarity is even more obvious: Bretagne and Grande Bretagne.

        Geoffrey of Monmouth used the names Britannia minor to refer to the Armorican
        region and Britannia major for the island. The element great in the term Great
        Britain thus simply means large, to make the distinction from Brittany.

        Historical evolution of the term Britain

        The kingdoms established on the island of Great Britain were perceived to be
        dominant over the whole archipelago, which thus came to be known as the British
        Isles. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, the queen's astrologer
        and alchemist, John Dee, wrote mystical volumes predicting a British Empire and
        using the terms Great Britain and Britannia. After Elizabeth's death in 1603 the
        kingdoms shared one King, James VI of Scotland and I of England. On 20 October
        1604 he proclaimed himself "King of Great Brittaine" (thus including Wales and
        also avoiding the cumbersome title "King of England and Scotland"). This title
        was eventually adopted formally in 1707 when the Kingdom of Great Britain was
        formed.
      • waldek1610 Re: Misnomers, that get on your nerves? 19.12.05, 08:00
        usenetposts napisał:

        > waldek1610 napisał:
        >
        > > 1. "Former Eastern(Communist) Block Country"??? Why is the reference to t
        > he
        > > past so important? Let's move on....You wouldn't call the university
        > > student; "a preschooller" 16 years later, would you?
        >
        > No, but if up to 16 years ago he had been in a coma for 40 years, you might
        > still remark upon it occasionally.

        And the reason why Poland was in comma is; Poland was burned down and buldozed
        by Germans, stabbed in the back by Russians, abandoned by French and British
        allies, later it was exploited by Soviets. In other words Poland found
        itself "at the wrong place at the wrong time"....So UK's 27 miles of water
        barrier is to be envied....


        > > 2. "Eastern" European Country (refering to Poland), this happen to be
        > > as "eastern" as Sweden, besides Finland and Greece are east of Poland, so
        > why
        > > aren't they called "eastern"?
        >
        > This is a fair point. The person who has made that point loudest and
        clearest,
        > by the way, is historian Norman Davies, an Englishman.

        Actually he's Welsh....

        > > 4. Poland- nation with "tragic"? history, as you can read in most english
        >
        > > language books. But really, does history of Poland starts in 1770's? Is t
        > he
        > > latest 200 years of partition and dependence more definitive than 400 yea
        > rs
        > > of expansionist and agressive Poland?
        >
        > Read Norman Davies, especially the Introduction to "Europa". You are knocking
        > on an open door as far as mainstream British academic opinion is concerned.


        If the door was opened, I would not hear the "eastern european" remarks on
        BBC...

    • ianek70 Re: Misnomers, that get on your nerves? 18.12.05, 21:41
      waldek1610 napisał:

      > 2. "Eastern" European Country (refering to Poland), this happen to be
      > as "eastern" as Sweden, besides Finland and Greece are east of Poland, so why
      > aren't they called "eastern"?

      Well, could you explain to us Europeans why North Carolina is in the Southern
      USA, and West Virginia is in the East?
      • waldek1610 Re: Misnomers, that get on your nerves? 19.12.05, 08:09
        ianek70 napisał:

        > waldek1610 napisał:
        >
        > > 2. "Eastern" European Country (refering to Poland), this happen to be
        > > as "eastern" as Sweden, besides Finland and Greece are east of Poland, so
        > why
        > > aren't they called "eastern"?
        >
        > Well, could you explain to us Europeans why North Carolina is in the Southern
        > USA, and West Virginia is in the East?

        Those are really bad examples. North Carolina is one of the two Carolinas, and
        it happens to be the Northern part of the two....

        West Virginia in fact lies west of the Virginia....so both of your examples can
        be dissmissed...

        On the other hand either way you look at the European continent Poland is in
        the dead center....I think the Old EU countries like to think of themselves as
        Europe, so they call Poland eastern Europe, but in fact Europe doesn't ends on
        Polish-Belorussian border. Europe's eastern frontier is on Urals Mointains...
    • russh Re: Misnomers, that get on your nerves? 18.12.05, 22:49
      Hey, I've just found one of your old posts - in Maggies forum, dated 5th July:

      'Living in US since 92, I've noticed how the english language media and
      especialy western schoolars, like to conclude about Polish state history; it
      was overrun, ruled by foreign powers, impoverished and backward...and so
      forth.
      My question is does in the western mind the history starts in the 1790's?
      Do you conveniently "forget" 400 years of Polish Commonweatlh (1300-1700's)
      being by far the largest and most expansive country in Europe.
      And this was not the one generation Macedonia-Alexander the Great, or
      Mongolia- Ginghis Khan phenomenon. Not for reason Poland was the only power
      to take modern Moscow, 1610-1613 even Napoleon and Hitler failed to do
      that....
      Can you be more objective even if it makes you seem smaler? '

      And another one from the same thread;

      'Poland had a European
      Superpower status for almost 400 years being territorialy bigger than France,
      England , Russia or Germany. Yet people like to remember only "troubled"
      shorter part of Polands history. Why?'

      And another from the same thread;

      'I was being sarcastic, when I said: "let's continue being realistic"
      parafrizing your words.You simply don't understand Polish mind.
      Are you run out of arguments, because what I say doesn't fit negative image of
      Polands registered in your mind.'

      Ian said that you repeated yourself, but I thought it was only on this forum!

      I'm enjoying myself now, lets see what else I can find out.
      • russh And another that Dave will like 18.12.05, 23:13
        This was in a 'conversation' with Kylie in the middle of July:

        'For all those that are not familiar with everyday English used in America; the
        frase "I feel you" simply means: I symphatise, I understand you pain..
        I should not have used coloquial American'

        Reply from Kylie

        'Wherabouts in US do they say that, Waldek? Shouldn't that be "I feel for you",
        instead?'

        Waldek (and this is the real killer)

        'Nope, I hear that frase a lot around here.I guess it's the abbreviated version,
        propably started with the black and hispanics but everybody started using "I
        feel you"...
        Whereabouts I heard that: in the burbs of Chicago,and elsewhere..'

        'The abbrevaited version'!

        I'm fairly ignorant, but I have a friend (Polish) in the USA, in Chicago, who
        said to me it is more Polish than American, with its own newspapers - the lot.
        She said that she didn't need to speak English.
        • russh The best of the lot 18.12.05, 23:19
          From another thread in the middle of July:

          'In this case I would prefer that Poland was occupied by Britain or USA in the
          past...Just look at former British colonies; USA, Canada,Australia, New Zeland
          they standards of living are all the way up there, even India is doing quite
          good'

          He admitted it!! He loves us really.
          • waldek1610 Re: The best of the lot 19.12.05, 08:17
            russh napisał:

            > From another thread in the middle of July:
            >
            > 'In this case I would prefer that Poland was occupied by Britain or USA in the
            > past...Just look at former British colonies; USA, Canada,Australia, New Zeland
            > they standards of living are all the way up there, even India is doing quite
            > good'
            >
            > He admitted it!! He loves us really.

            I could sign my name under all of my past postings....

            Can you find first part of the above thread? You quoted me, taking it out of
            context, and I don't recall to what "case" I was refering in it???
              • waldek1610 Has Poland joined the EU or EU has joined Poland? 20.12.05, 23:34
                varsovian napisał:

                > I must admit I didn't read any of these posts apart from the dumb first one.
                I
                > didn't want to be bored - Waldo's got serious problems.

                ...and those problems are Varsovian and others complete ignorance of
                historical truth and logic!?

                If I get a Brit comming to me and telling me what I suppose to be thinging and
                bullying me....(just because in his mind he knows better)..I think whatever the
                problem is it's going to disapear once "old EU" citizens will understand that
                the "new EU" is neither "new" or "new Europe".
                • varsovian Re: Has Poland joined the EU or EU has joined Po 21.12.05, 11:11
                  (Yawn)
                  Complete ignorance?
                  I would tend to agree that my fellow Brits in Britain are generally as ignorant
                  about Polish history as the average Pole is about Kazach history, but the
                  mental problem you have yet to overcome Waldo is that the people who contribute
                  to this forum seem to be extraordinarily well-informed. Perhaps that has
                  something to do with the fact that foreigners coming to Poland from richer
                  countries do so because they are slightly out of the ordinary.
                  Moreover, with exceptions, they tend to be well-disposed towards Poland (as
                  they actually chose to live here) and towards Poles who do not behave like you.
                • ianek70 Poor Waldo persecuted by Brits :-( 21.12.05, 11:14
                  waldek1610 napisał:

                  > If I get a Brit comming to me and telling me what I suppose to be thinging
                  and
                  > bullying me....

                  You're always writing about Brits telling you how to think and behave.
                  Where does this weird obsession come from? Do bossy Brits often knock on your
                  door over there in America and try to brainwash you?
                  • usenetposts Re: Poor Waldo persecuted by Brits :-( 23.12.05, 01:01
                    ianek70 napisał:

                    > waldek1610 napisał:
                    >
                    > > If I get a Brit comming to me and telling me what I suppose to be thingin
                    > g
                    > and
                    > > bullying me....
                    >
                    > You're always writing about Brits telling you how to think and behave.
                    > Where does this weird obsession come from? Do bossy Brits often knock on your
                    > door over there in America and try to brainwash you?

                    Iiiiiiiiiiit's Tony!

Nie pamiętasz hasła

lub ?

 

Nie masz jeszcze konta? Zarejestruj się

Nakarm Pajacyka