The British burned down Washington D.C.???? Exactly 200 years ago today????

[belamyi]

Your entire post is nonsense, except for the last paragraph.

[/hijack]

Ok, since reasons are "nonsense" to you, because they made you appear as a fool, there is nothing else to say.

Say, who would be the one poisoning this thread, me, or someone who appeared to be the only one having a serious problem with my posts in it?

 

[Kulindahr]

Oral tradition is what got you the Iliad and the Odyssey, both in production and transmission, and oral transmission is more accurate than our imperfect notation that gives no account of intonations and other subtleties to the clueless, and barely indications of verse to the deaf: if you were referring to some accurate form of notation, like musical notation, it would be ok, but given what we have as written language, as long as there is a transmission, the only advantage of written over oral is the one I pointed out at the beginning of this post.

Ah, there's a point about oral tradition that we English speakers, with our excessively sloppy language, miss: structured languages -- Greek being an excellent example -- enable a much higher degree of accuracy in oral tradition than the game of "telephone" provides for the simple reason that it is much, much harder to get a wrong word in somewhere. When it's done in poetry, it's even harder, because the meter and rhyme constrain the possibilities.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kuli,
Forgive me for using an incorrect term - I was painting with broad brush strokes, not a sable point.
She was one of our "go to" ships and did stand and fight - to earn her stripe of Old Ironsides - at least once.

I didn't mean for my word choice to turn the thread from its primary purpose.

Sorry I pounced, however lightly. My fascination with the Royal Navy, as well as its predecessors to some extent, makes me wince at inaccuracies.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Ah, there's a point about oral tradition that we English speakers, with our excessively sloppy language, miss: structured languages -- Greek being an excellent example -- enable a much higher degree of accuracy in oral tradition than the game of "telephone" provides for the simple reason that it is much, much harder to get a wrong word in somewhere. When it's done in poetry, it's even harder, because the meter and rhyme constrain the possibilities.

Not to mention that cultures without written traditions had all kinds of cultural traditions that do not exist at all today to improve or preserve accurate transmission. The fact that we're ignorant of what these were doesn't support the general western distrust of "anything not written." I'm sure Kuli you're familiar with the story of how a colonial delegation once tried to abrogate a treaty with a Native tribe on the assumption that, not being able to read, they would not know that the written document had been changed. The tribe brought out its memory keepers (if I recall, they were a team of women) who recited the terms of the treaty verbatim (in translation.)

 

[Kulindahr]

I watched a video about the whole Fort McHenry attack and was reminded of what the situation there was: the ultimatum from the British admiral was that if the flag was struck (taken down) the bombardment would stop, and it would be assumed that the Americans had surrendered and were all going to be British subjects again. So every time the flag started to fall, volunteers rushed out to put it back up, the the point that by morning there were numerous dead heaped at the bottom of the battered, shattered pole, with men standing atop the corpses to make sure the flag did not come down.

So the poem/song/anthem is asking, really, if the people -- soldiers, women, children -- in the fort had given up under the incredible bombardment. The flag had been visible "by twilight's last gleaming" and by "rocket's red glare" and due to "bombs bursting in air" as the British ships just kept firing through the night, and when dawn approached, every eye in that fleet (remember, Key was on the British flagship) both hostile and friendly was intent to see if "the flag was still there".

And the admiral, seeing the flag, couldn't grasp how anyone who had suffered through what was arguably the most intense naval bombardment in history at that point would stubbornly keep that flag up!

Shifting gears.... When they burned Washington, and bombarded Fort McHenry, it was an attempt at "shock and awe" that was supposed to make rational people capitulate, an effort made by men who couldn't grasp "Give me liberty or give me death!" and thus demonstrated that just as Edward "Longshanks" failed completely to understand the Scots, the British Empire of the time failed just as completely to understand this new creature, the American.

So looking back, this anniversary should make us ask ourselves: would we have just let the flag fall, and submitted to tyranny, or would we have been among the volunteers who used their own bodies to keep it flying?

 

[Kulindahr]

Not to mention that cultures without written traditions had all kinds of cultural traditions that do not exist at all today to improve or preserve accurate transmission. The fact that we're ignorant of what these were doesn't support the general western distrust of "anything not written." I'm sure Kuli you're familiar with the story of how a colonial delegation once tried to abrogate a treaty with a Native tribe on the assumption that, not being able to read, they would not know that the written document had been changed. The tribe brought out its memory keepers (if I recall, they were a team of women) who recited the terms of the treaty verbatim (in translation.)

Yes.

And when studying old dusty documents in ancient near eastern history, I recall an incident where in response to some invader's demands, the local elders recited a treaty establishing their rights -- and it was, word for word, the text of a document that had been gathering dust for a dozen generations.

For that matter, a team of researchers following Alexander the Great's route of conquest encountered village elders who took them to a nearby battle site and recited the course of the battle -- exactly as Alexander's people had set it down. After over two thousand years, they hadn't missed a beat. Though their motive wasn't the usual one: they wanted to remember every last thing that invader had done, to keep the anger and hate alive.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

from way it write ups a 1814s sunday barbi a comedy a kinda a
maybe make movie

anyway

thankyou

 

[Alnitak]

"Striking distance" is a bit of a gloss to avoid the issue of total destruction put in the hands of an individual combatant which did not exist in the 18th century. A single warrior could not effect the destruction of the Constitution with a single fired weapon. Torpedoes did not exist at that time, much less the more powerful ones now.

Much has changed.

In 1775, an attempt was made by the first military submarine to sink the British flagship in New York Harbor. The explosive was referred to as a "torpedo."

Yes. My point was not to take away from its victories at sea, but to note that the damage to the British fleet was negligible in the big picture. However, the psychological role of taking down the erstwhile indomitable master of the seas was its ultimate real value. Much as Washington embodied a paternal figure for generations of patriots, the Constitution rallied a young nation that was shaken by the burning of her capitol.

We were under the Jay Treaty at the time it was ordered. The USS Constitution was not built in anticipation of war with Great Britain.

 

[nyctopgam]

^ They didn't invade Vietnam. Same with Korea.

Then what happened?

 

[Yooper]

Gentlemen, as a quick aside, tomorrow I will be going to a very interesting Historical site regarding the War of 1812.

History I did not know until quite recently is the United States Army burnt down a good portion of what is now Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan in 1814--one of the last battles of the War of 1812--in reprisal for the British forces recapturing Ft. Michillimac [sic...it is late], aka Mackinac Island in order to settle who was going to control the Fur Trade going forward.

According to what I've been able to find out--the history books are not super forthcoming--this 'battle' pretty much ended up settling the US-Canadian border to this day; the border ended up being the Great Lakes (with the exception of Lake Michigan) because of this. What I've learned is the result was considered the 'War that both sides won'.

I'll be asking the Docents at this event about it and will report on my findings.

 

[cgymike]

England is a failure ....just inflated real estate and NO manufacturing or significant service industry. No shiiping hub, No EPZ, No nothing....What a POS.

 

[belamyi]

England is a failure ....just inflated real estate and NO manufacturing or significant service industry. No shiiping hub, No EPZ, No nothing....What a POS.

http://cdn.gifbay.com/2013/09/we_are_notamused-81109.gif

What about Britain?

 

[gsdx]

Then what happened?

North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. North Korea invaded South Korea. The US went to help South Vietnam and South Korea. That is why there were so many protests and draft dodgers during the Vietnam War. Many Americans felt the US should have even become involved.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

England is a failure ....just inflated real estate and NO manufacturing or significant service industry. No shiiping hub, No EPZ, No nothing....What a POS.

You do realise we are all service industry. What the hell do you think the City of London does?

 

[palbert]

Net migration to UK soars by 39% to 243,000 [The Guardian]

Theresa May's vow to reduce Britain's net migration to under 100,000 in tatters after ONS says figure rose 68,000 in last year

Is there room left for the "English" in the UK? How many more people can that island hold?

At least my ancestors got out in the 1600's.

 

[Alnitak]

North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. North Korea invaded South Korea. The US went to help South Vietnam and South Korea. That is why there were so many protests and draft dodgers during the Vietnam War. Many Americans felt the US should have even become involved.

North Korea has been contained and South Korea has become a burgeoning world economy. Vietnam is not home to a maniacal dictator.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

North Korea has been contained and South Korea has become a burgeoning world economy. Vietnam is not home to a maniacal dictator.

Vietnam is a communist state still, albeit a very successful one.

 

[belamyi]

North Korea has been contained and South Korea has become a burgeoning world economy. Vietnam is not home to a maniacal dictator.

North Korea hasn't "been contained", they just decided to freeze: wait until they thaw. Remember they are still at war and is not mere technicality: it's the sign of an unsolved problem, and not a minor one.
But in the case of Vietnam, the bad guys of the North beat the good guys of the South... and today Vietnam is a burgeoning world economy.

In any case, your assessment of the role of America in the Korea and Vietnam wars is pretty naive: since the people in the country started it all, and there were also other foreign powers, like France, involved, when you send your troops to those countries you are not invading, just pitching in.

Reminds me of the sham arguments of the Halliburton and the likes to defend themselves from the allegations of being mercenaries, because they get paid by a government to do some of the army's job, but without being subject to any responsibility for their actions, as is the case of mercenaries. It seems that there is one fundamental, definitive difference: mercenaries do not have the [further] privilege of having a national passport of the country that is paying them.

 

[belamyi]

No time to add to the editing, damn it, posting here is like painting fucking frescoes...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_extended_by_diplomatic_irregularity

 

[belamyi]

Reminds me of the sham arguments of the Halliburton and the likes to defend themselves from the allegations of being mercenaries, because they get paid by a government to do some of the army's job, but without being subject to any responsibility for their actions, [STRIKE]as is the case of [/STRIKE] just like mercenaries. It seems that there is one fundamental, definitive difference: mercenaries do not have the [further] privilege of having a national passport of the country that is paying them.

The other way it seemed to mean the contrary of what it is supposed to mean...