Misnomers, that get on your nerves?

[waldek1610]

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?

[russh]

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).

if this isn't "anti- Polish conspiracy" than what?

[waldek1610]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Europe spans from Portugal to Urals..did you know?

[waldek1610]

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]

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.

[kylie1]

>The bears and the lynxes wander daily between Europe and Aia at that border.

What? No way! See, Dave, we can't have that here between Canada and the US. All
are issued passports and are stripped searched for contraband. Our Lynx and
possums know better!

Davey: "Vladywostok is more European than Poland"

[waldek1610]

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]

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]

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]

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.

History of the term Great Britain - Well done Dave

[russh]

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.

[usenetposts]

And that's not even bringing Britney into the equation ..... oops I did it
again!

[waldek1610]

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]

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]

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]

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.

And another that Dave will like

[russh]

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.

The best of the lot

[russh]

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]

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???

[varsovian]

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.

Has Poland joined the EU or EU has joined Poland?

[waldek1610]

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]

(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.

Poor Waldo persecuted by Brits :-(

[ianek70]

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]

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!