French block airlift of British troops to Basra

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Peter McLelland wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Vince Brannigan wrote:


A description of some activities in the American colonies. Not a characterization
of the pro-Revolution crowd.

Smuggling was rampant and England as well at the same time. Prominent people
also benefited from it, as they did from piracy as well. Doesn't make England
an nation of pirates, or any opposition to the crown driven by it.

It's a lame, one dimensional characterization.

Whilst smuggling was common on both side of the Atlantic, in the UK it
was accepted that it was against the law, where as in the colonies the
attitude was that whether it was against the law or not it should be
allowed, smuggling was one of the new American freedoms

"Smuggling" in America was often simply not selling, or more importantly,
not buying, goods from Britain as required of a good colony.

Remember, the concept of having a colony was to buy raw materials from
the colony at low cost, and then sell manufactured goods from those raw
materials at high cost.

Did I ever say this was not the case, most of the basis of the revolt
in America was economic.

The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
their benefit./

Fair enough. But if you're talking revolution, and a very risky one at that,
you'd better have more than the landed, propertied gentry involved. You need
some help from common people who think the activity is going to get them more
than just killed, imprisoned or financially destitute.

Much of the 'political' agitation which helped lead up to the revolt
in the colonies was orchestrated by a few 'professional' agitators who
had skipped to the colonies after the UK had become to hot for them.
The story they promoted in America was much the same as they had tried
in the UK, but in the US they managed to get serious backing from a
number of the large landowner/business men in the colonies, who could
see that independance would be financialy beneficial for them and
their friends.

Ahhh yes, the evil corporate interests were doing their despicable deeds
even then! And they did it much as they do it today, with such skill and
subtlety, that the dumb public has no clue they've been manipulated.

I hear this all the time about todays politics, so it is interesting to
see this theme being retrofitted to past history.

Much of recent history has been greatly influenced by economic
considerations, dammit the whole British Empire was based on the
generation of wealth from the colonies. There is no real reason to
shay away from such things, it is what drove all our for fathers, and
what drioves us.

Peter

Peter McLelland wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...

Ahhh yes, the evil corporate interests were doing their despicable deeds
even then! And they did it much as they do it today, with such skill and
subtlety, that the dumb public has no clue they've been manipulated.

I hear this all the time about todays politics, so it is interesting to
see this theme being retrofitted to past history.

Much of recent history has been greatly influenced by economic
considerations, dammit the whole British Empire was based on the
generation of wealth from the colonies. There is no real reason to
shay away from such things, it is what drove all our for fathers, and
what drioves us.

Certainly true. Don't mean to imply the revolution was purely some
idealistic crusade to put human rights above all other factors.

Economics always has, and always will be, a powerful motivating force
in the behavior of governments and individuals, and there is nothing
really wrong with that in basic concept.

What I argue against is the notion that the American Revolution (or
even American actions today) are driven solely by economic forces
(and usually portrayed as underhanded ones at that). The OP to this
sidetracked OT thread appeared to portray the revolution as motivated
by raw [and illegal] self serving low life that manipulated the
majority of Americans into revolt. That is simply not the case.

In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
independence from British rule.


SMH

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 08:27:03 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Economics always has, and always will be, a powerful motivating force
in the behavior of governments and individuals, and there is nothing
really wrong with that in basic concept.

What I argue against is the notion that the American Revolution (or
even American actions today) are driven solely by economic forces
(and usually portrayed as underhanded ones at that). The OP to this
sidetracked OT thread appeared to portray the revolution as motivated
by raw [and illegal] self serving low life that manipulated the
majority of Americans into revolt. That is simply not the case.

Indeed, but there was a confluence of several motivations behind the
personal actions of the revolutionaries. Some of them (e.g. Sam
Adams) were undoubtedly agitating in order to secure partisan and
personal self-interest, while others risked and endured enormous
financial sacrifices over what they genuinely considered to be an
ideological and patriotic struggle against tyranny.

In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
independence from British rule.

True, but the nature of the war, and the successful embedding of
"patriot" propaganda in the shaping of the developing national
consciousness tends to obliterate the very real contemporary nuances
that existed historically.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Peter McLelland wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...

Ahhh yes, the evil corporate interests were doing their despicable deeds
even then! And they did it much as they do it today, with such skill and
subtlety, that the dumb public has no clue they've been manipulated.

I hear this all the time about todays politics, so it is interesting to
see this theme being retrofitted to past history.

Much of recent history has been greatly influenced by economic
considerations, dammit the whole British Empire was based on the
generation of wealth from the colonies. There is no real reason to
shay away from such things, it is what drove all our for fathers, and
what drioves us.

Certainly true. Don't mean to imply the revolution was purely some
idealistic crusade to put human rights above all other factors.

Economics always has, and always will be, a powerful motivating force
in the behavior of governments and individuals, and there is nothing
really wrong with that in basic concept.

What I argue against is the notion that the American Revolution (or
even American actions today) are driven solely by economic forces
(and usually portrayed as underhanded ones at that). The OP to this
sidetracked OT thread appeared to portray the revolution as motivated
by raw [and illegal] self serving low life that manipulated the
majority of Americans into revolt. That is simply not the case.

In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
independence from British rule.

I certainly have never suggested that the revolutionary leaders were
'low life', but I am convinced that most of them, that is the
established american colonists, rather than the recently arrived
political agitators, which there were a few of, were as motivated by
the belief that an independant USA as it became would be a lot better
for their pockets than being a UK colony. The reality was that the
American colonists were pretty well unaffected by events in Europe,
taxation and in terferance was really minimal, but complete economic
freedom was even better, and worth the fight, especially with French
money. I don't think they were wrong, just feal that it was not just
all about basic freedoms, more about money, but after all most of life
is about money so why be shy about it.

Peter

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

snip
..

In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
independence from British rule.

Which was _precisely_ the point the "OP" (me) was making
in responding to a posting that claimed 'the Loyalists sided
with the British'. As you, quite rightly comment "most all
Americans at the time considered themselves British,with
British rights" and it was a _minority_ of rebels that started
an armed insurrection for their own purposes.
Of course they then got to write the history and control the
curriculum in all the schools of their colonies and subsequent
possessions ....
and eventually produce screen plays such as "The Patriot".

--

Brian

Brian Sharrock wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

snip

In fact, most all Americans at the time considered themselves British,
with British rights, and came around rather slowly to the concept of
independence from British rule.

Which was _precisely_ the point the "OP" (me) was making
in responding to a posting that claimed 'the Loyalists sided
with the British'. As you, quite rightly comment "most all
Americans at the time considered themselves British,with
British rights" and it was a _minority_ of rebels that started
an armed insurrection for their own purposes.

Most all the farmers in militias at the Lexington-Concord fight
regarded themselves as British. Just like both sides of the
English civil war never doubted they were British.

Just because you have two sides to a conflict doesn't mean one side
as declared itself a new nationality.

For a long time, American colonists made the assumptions that good
King George III would straighten out his ministers and policies once
the American colonial displeasure at their perceived loss of rights
was made known to him.

The fact that these policies did not change, and in fact grew more
dominating is what eventually led to the change in attitude about
being part of the British Empire. Not a small group of bandito
types manipulating the public for their own financial gain.

Of course they then got to write the history and control the
curriculum in all the schools of their colonies and subsequent
possessions ....
and eventually produce screen plays such as "The Patriot".

"The Patriot" was actually based on a lot of historical fact in the
fighting in the southern states during the later stages of the war.

Of course liberties were taken as is typical in Hollywood. Instead
of the British Army doing all the "war crimes" depicted in the movie,
it would actually have been loyalist bands doing the deeds.

But in fairness to the movie, it did show that British soldiers under
the ruthless antagonist didn't like his vicious orders, and the high
command didn't like it either. Thus the need to be given Ohio
territory after the war, since he could never return to Britain with
honor.


SMH

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:24:23 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

For a long time, American colonists made the assumptions that good
King George III would straighten out his ministers and policies once
the American colonial displeasure at their perceived loss of rights
was made known to him.

When you talk about "American colonists", you're not talking about all
of them; not even a majority. The converse applies, by the post-facto
binary divisions are inaccurate. There was a wide spectrum of loyalty
to principle, greed, crown, parliament, country, colony and family on
display, and which is eliminated by the excessive simplification
involved in lumping all factions into two clear camps.

The fact that these policies did not change, and in fact grew more
dominating is what eventually led to the change in attitude about
being part of the British Empire. Not a small group of bandito
types manipulating the public for their own financial gain.

Who had the most to gain from ending vie-admiralty courts in Boston?
Face it, the vast majority of ordinary Bostonians were not ship or
cargo owners engaged in smuggling. Look at what happened after the
revolution at Worcester and in Shay's Rebellion: the things which had
antagonised local people and which they had rebelled against did not
end after British rule ended. In fact Sam Adams in power backed a
vigourous anti-sedition policy way beyond General Gage was prepared to
tolerate, at the same time as raising the property qualification for
the vote. There really was a sizeable amount of political cant and
hypocrisy involved in the guld between the revolutionaries claimed
ideals and how many of them behaved.

Of course they then got to write the history and control the
curriculum in all the schools of their colonies and subsequent
possessions ....
and eventually produce screen plays such as "The Patriot".

"The Patriot" was actually based on a lot of historical fact in the
fighting in the southern states during the later stages of the war.

"The Patriot" was an inaccurate load of xenophobic crap, and can only
be considered appropriate if Hollywood is required to make
propagandistic war movies for the home front more than two centuries
after that war actually ended. I strongly doubt any other historical
conflict in American history could be displayed with such prejudicial
demonology in any movie, but the British are a safe target.
Especially when regurgitating "Braveheart" with different costumes. I
doubt anybody could get away with such an offensively one-dimensional
and inaccurate portrayal of blacks or American indians in a
contemporary American movie: the howls of outrage from the domestic
pressure groups would, quite rightfully, hinder such a project.

No such problems when you want to peddle offensive myths and
distortions about the British, however. All Americans are familiar
with their satanic position as puppets in the pantomime they've known
as the war of independence since childhood.

Of course liberties were taken as is typical in Hollywood.

But what is the sum of those "liberties": an All-American hero who
uniquely refuses to own slaves on a Carolinan estate*, British forces
performing atrocities like the Waffen SS under a leader modelled more
on Heydrich than Tarleton, the invincible American woodsman slaying
the redcoats with impunity, etc, etc.

What these "liberties" amount to is a distinct and discernable agenda,
and is just as ideologically driven as a Communist-controlled film
about revolts in the Imperial Russian Navy.

[* The slaves issue is a prime example. There is no way a
contemporary American film can offend the African-American audience as
cavalierly as it can the British, so the historical role of the hero
in regard to them and their role in the period is distorted so
blatantly as to make it comic. Nonetheless, compare his positioning
towards the blacks on his estate and their role and contrast it to the
British. So much for historical accuracy.]

Instead
of the British Army doing all the "war crimes" depicted in the movie,
it would actually have been loyalist bands doing the deeds.

It would be a mixture of _all_ combatants committing war crimes,
including "patriot" guerilla bands and state and continental troops if
historical reality was actually a matter of concern. This immunity
from looting, rape and crime allocated according to uniform colour is
infantile.

But in fairness to the movie, it did show that British soldiers under
the ruthless antagonist didn't like his vicious orders, and the high
command didn't like it either.

That's a transparent fig-leave of consideration in the torrent of
national prejudice being poured out in that movie.

Thus the need to be given Ohio
territory after the war, since he could never return to Britain with
honor.

Given that this would contravene Royal Proclaimations on colonial
expansion, this is just another neo-feudalistic fantasy, impugning
feudal motives to senior aristorcratic and class-ridden British
officers. This has nothing to do with the historical reality and
everything to do with American self-image and national stereotyping.

There is a very good movie to be made on the reality of the experience
of the American revolution, from corrupt and hypocritical Boston
agitators, to loyal and selfless farmers suffering stoically at Valley
Forge, from colonial milita looting and destroying "traitors" property
on both sides, to colonial militia facing a regular army and beating
them face-to-face after severe fighting at Saratoga, to the mass of
ordinary people seeking to evade the worst consequences of a war being
fought in their locality regardless of their private sympathies.

But that kind of movie will never be made. It just doesn't hit the
right buttons in an audience that has been simply brainwashed on the
subject since their earliest history lessons in school.

Gavin Bailey


--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:24:23 -0400, Stephen Harding

The fact that these policies did not change, and in fact grew more
dominating is what eventually led to the change in attitude about
being part of the British Empire. Not a small group of bandito
types manipulating the public for their own financial gain.

the vote. There really was a sizeable amount of political cant and
hypocrisy involved in the guld between the revolutionaries claimed
ideals and how many of them behaved.

We don't have a true to ideals, working democracy in this country yet
either. Doesn't mean everyone in government is hypocritical in their
promotion of democratic values. It just means imperfect people are
implementing a pure ideal.

"The Patriot" was actually based on a lot of historical fact in the
fighting in the southern states during the later stages of the war.

"The Patriot" was an inaccurate load of xenophobic crap, and can only
be considered appropriate if Hollywood is required to make
propagandistic war movies for the home front more than two centuries
after that war actually ended. I strongly doubt any other historical
conflict in American history could be displayed with such prejudicial
demonology in any movie, but the British are a safe target.
Especially when regurgitating "Braveheart" with different costumes. I
doubt anybody could get away with such an offensively one-dimensional
and inaccurate portrayal of blacks or American indians in a
contemporary American movie: the howls of outrage from the domestic
pressure groups would, quite rightfully, hinder such a project.

It was a *movie* not a documentary.

No such problems when you want to peddle offensive myths and
distortions about the British, however. All Americans are familiar
with their satanic position as puppets in the pantomime they've known
as the war of independence since childhood.

It wasn't "offensive myths". It represented a composite character in a
war with a full range of good/bad elements.

It was a *MOVIE*!!!

Of course liberties were taken as is typical in Hollywood.

But what is the sum of those "liberties": an All-American hero who
uniquely refuses to own slaves on a Carolinan estate*, British forces

Not so unique, or even if it was, so what?

It was unique but not unheard of for Blacks to own slaves as well. Again,
so what? I suspect a movie about such individuals would not be well
received by the political Black community here, although I think it would
be an interesting study.

performing atrocities like the Waffen SS under a leader modelled more
on Heydrich than Tarleton, the invincible American woodsman slaying
the redcoats with impunity, etc, etc.

IT WAS A MOVIE!!!

Road runners don't blow up coyotes. Police don't regularly flip and
flame automobiles in chases. Most cops don't even draw their guns on
the job through most of their entire careers, CIA agents largely don't
kill people, and even during the height of abuse by J. Edgar Hoover's
FBI, agents were not regularly breaking in to peoples homes or
politically harassing them, investigative reporters usually don't break
Presidents and corporate executives, etc., etc., etc.

Not so on TV or movies.

What these "liberties" amount to is a distinct and discernable agenda,
and is just as ideologically driven as a Communist-controlled film
about revolts in the Imperial Russian Navy.

So I take it you're giving the movie a three thumbs down?

[* The slaves issue is a prime example. There is no way a
contemporary American film can offend the African-American audience as
cavalierly as it can the British, so the historical role of the hero
in regard to them and their role in the period is distorted so
blatantly as to make it comic. Nonetheless, compare his positioning
towards the blacks on his estate and their role and contrast it to the
British. So much for historical accuracy.]

Contemporary films do their share of simplification of issues in the other
direction as well. Although there aren't many projects involving Indian
characters, is there any such thing as a "bad" Indian in a movie any more?

Instead
of the British Army doing all the "war crimes" depicted in the movie,
it would actually have been loyalist bands doing the deeds.

It would be a mixture of _all_ combatants committing war crimes,
including "patriot" guerilla bands and state and continental troops if
historical reality was actually a matter of concern. This immunity
from looting, rape and crime allocated according to uniform colour is
infantile.

It was a *MOVIE*!!!

But in fairness to the movie, it did show that British soldiers under
the ruthless antagonist didn't like his vicious orders, and the high
command didn't like it either.

That's a transparent fig-leave of consideration in the torrent of
national prejudice being poured out in that movie.

You're not going to give it any points whatsoever are you.

Thus the need to be given Ohio
territory after the war, since he could never return to Britain with
honor.

Given that this would contravene Royal Proclaimations on colonial
expansion, this is just another neo-feudalistic fantasy, impugning
feudal motives to senior aristorcratic and class-ridden British
officers. This has nothing to do with the historical reality and
everything to do with American self-image and national stereotyping.

Oh dear. Mel missed the Royal Proclamations against westward expansion
in the colonies. There goes any shred of believability anyone would have
had!

I'd have to wonder if you've ever found a military aviation movie to your
liking, given the vast majority of them are so blatantly wrong in the
technical depiction of the subject.

There is a very good movie to be made on the reality of the experience
of the American revolution, from corrupt and hypocritical Boston
agitators, to loyal and selfless farmers suffering stoically at Valley
Forge, from colonial milita looting and destroying "traitors" property
on both sides, to colonial militia facing a regular army and beating
them face-to-face after severe fighting at Saratoga, to the mass of
ordinary people seeking to evade the worst consequences of a war being
fought in their locality regardless of their private sympathies.

But that kind of movie will never be made. It just doesn't hit the
right buttons in an audience that has been simply brainwashed on the
subject since their earliest history lessons in school.

There are lots of great subjects, with complex interactions, that
could be made into great movies, that aren't. Doesn't mean there is any
"guarding of myths" political agenda being carried out to suppress such
enterprises.

People go to the movies to be entertained, not educated. If you want
to brush up on the intricacies of Revolutionary War history, even Ken
Burns isn't going to do it fully right. You need to read a lot of books.

If you stay true to your demands on pure historical and technical
accuracy in movie making, you're probably not going to like *any*
movie that makes *any* reference to historical record.

The "Patriot" was simply a *movie*. It wasn't the gumint preparing for
war against the UK by initiating a brainwashing campaign on its citizens,
who will now riot if war is not declared.


SMH

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 05:27:32 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

["The Patriot" being a pack of xenophobic rubbish]

It was a *movie* not a documentary.

So was "The Eternal Jew".

It wasn't "offensive myths".

I'll be the judge of that, as my nationality was on the receiving end
of the mythology concerned. I'll let an American judge how offensive
or otherwise a Vietnamese movie portraying Americans as effette,
murderous war criminals might be. If you find the demonisation of
American which passes for popular analysis in Arab and European
culture to be offensive, I can tell you right now I wouldn't be
appearing to patronisingly lecture you about why you shouldn't feel
offended about the inaccuracies and lies this involves, in fact I
would be agreeing with you.

But what is the sum of those "liberties": an All-American hero who
uniquely refuses to own slaves on a Carolinan estate*, British forces

Not so unique, or even if it was, so what?

So much for the historical factual background you attribute to it.
When the level of accurate representation involved means that the hero
happens to employ a sizeable percentage of the entire free black
population in the Carolinas at the time, you should question the
validity of the historical representation involved. And if the
validity of the historical representation doesn't matter, just give
them all automatic weapons and make the British invading Space Aliens
instead. Somehow, I suspect you'd agree in those cases that
historical accuracy can become significant.

It was unique but not unheard of for Blacks to own slaves as well. Again,
so what? I suspect a movie about such individuals would not be well
received by the political Black community here, although I think it would
be an interesting study.

It would indeed, and it would serve a more valid pupose than yet
another outing for the hackneyed Anglophobic rebels vesus effete
aristocratic British tyrants hero myth.

Road runners don't blow up coyotes.

The road runner cartoons aren't specifically and deliberately located
in a particular historical framework. "The Patriot" was.

What these "liberties" amount to is a distinct and discernable agenda,
and is just as ideologically driven as a Communist-controlled film
about revolts in the Imperial Russian Navy.

So I take it you're giving the movie a three thumbs down?

As I stated, it's a pile of ****, relying on the exploitation of
prejudice to entertain. Strangely enough, being on the sharp end of
that prejudice isn't particularly entertaining for some people.

Contemporary films do their share of simplification of issues in the other
direction as well.

All films simplify. The point is that the simplifications and
distortions in this case are specifically designed to demonise one
specific agency in an ahistorical manner.

Although there aren't many projects involving Indian
characters, is there any such thing as a "bad" Indian in a movie any more?

Indeed, precisely my point. For whatever reasons (political
opposition, political correctness, even genuine fatigue with the
cliches involved) Hollywood has moved, or been forced to move, from
the prejudicial portrayal of American Indians and blacks. No such
sensitivity or ability to cast aside historical prejudice exists when
it comes to staging a drama based on the American revolution. Even
the Germans in WW2 get a more diverse approach these days.

It was a *MOVIE*!!!

So you keep saying. As I said, "The Eternal Jew" is also a movie. Do
you find *it* entertaining? Or are you aware of the prejudice and
antagonism that particular production exploits, and do you find it
subtracts from the entertainment value somewhat?

That's a transparent fig-leave of consideration in the torrent of
national prejudice being poured out in that movie.

You're not going to give it any points whatsoever are you.

Not after "Braveheart", but then I actually have to live in the
country that Randall Wallace and Mel Gibson liked to inflame
nationalist prejudice in. I am aware of the consequences of it. They
can fly back to Hollywood.

I'd have to wonder if you've ever found a military aviation movie to your
liking, given the vast majority of them are so blatantly wrong in the
technical depiction of the subject.

I've enjoyed several. I'll willing to suspend my disbelief if the
simplifications, generalisations and compromises inevitable in any
film production aren't grossly offensive. In "Angels One Five", for
example, there is plenty of stock cliche which was dictated by the
contemporary context, including a rather patronising portrayal of a
pilot from northern Scotland (i.e., where I come from) which relied on
blanket stereotyping. That could very easily have been gratuitously
offensive, but it was written and acted in a subtle and shaded enough
fashion to be believeable.

But that kind of movie will never be made. It just doesn't hit the
right buttons in an audience that has been simply brainwashed on the
subject since their earliest history lessons in school.

There are lots of great subjects, with complex interactions, that
could be made into great movies, that aren't.

Indeed, but "The Patriot", with a little less graphic violence could
have been made in 1956 or 1936 or written as a stage play in 1876.
Charles Laughton reprising his role as Captain Bligh as Tavington,
Clark Gable as Gibson's character, etc, etc. If it had been made then
I wouldn't have the same problems with it to any extent. It wasn't.

Doesn't mean there is any
"guarding of myths" political agenda being carried out to suppress such
enterprises.

I don't believe anybody is suppressing such movies. I believe Randall
Wallace and Mel Gibson knew very well that a movie celebrating the
traditional cliches of the murderous, aristoctatic British and the
rough-hewn, down-home, heroic American guerillas would hit the right
requirements to capitalise on existing American prejudices.

People go to the movies to be entertained, not educated.

It's not a question of education. There's no reason a film which
avoids such gratuitous stereotypes and ahistorical distortions has to
be worthy, dull and boring.

If you want
to brush up on the intricacies of Revolutionary War history, even Ken
Burns isn't going to do it fully right. You need to read a lot of books.

It's not a question of the minutae, it's a question about the most
basic and fundamental approach taken. Why did Mel Gibson make a
propaganda movie about a conflict when ended two centuries ago?

If you stay true to your demands on pure historical and technical
accuracy in movie making, you're probably not going to like *any*
movie that makes *any* reference to historical record.

It's not a question of moving to a ridiculous extreme to discredit any
attempt to make better movies. In the case of "The Patriot", it's a
question of moving it away from a ridiculous extreme that it inhabits
_already_.

The "Patriot" was simply a *movie*. It wasn't the gumint preparing for
war against the UK by initiating a brainwashing campaign on its citizens,
who will now riot if war is not declared.

It was a movie which was designed to reinforce existing popular
historical mythology about the very origin and definition of the
American state, and what defines you as an American. I'm sick and
tired of that depending upon the demonisation of the other nationality
involved.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

Just like both sides of the
English civil war never doubted they were British.

I would doubt that any of them, with the possible exception of the king,
considered themselves anything but English, Scottish or Irish.

The idea of 'Britain' as a nation wasn't actually around to any extent then.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three