Post by postscript on Jul 6, 2007 15:49:40 GMT
Apart from remembering it is the title of a film, I'm not sure I fully understand the meaning of the expression which I think is of American origin?
This thread may or may not develop. It is in direct response to a post from Peter T, my response to which was blocked by Richard's (quite understandable decision) to lock the thread on Independence Day 2007.
Now, bear with me while I get myself together and try and provide the relevant links by following the new guide from Roger, which I painstakingly printed out and now cannot find!
I think by doing this I will link back to Peter T's original post to which this is a reply and new thread.
hwi.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic2&action=display&thread=1183476492&page=3#1183729844
Essentially, in reply to Peter T's question as to which way the UK now lent, UK or US biased, my view is that it is balanced betwixt the two fairly evenly. This is as it should be but I see that as being only part of the story.
If one remembers the extent to which the Arab world physically entered southern Europe, leaving in south France and Spain in particular the influence of its architecture; then remembers the extent to which the British Empire, up to the Second World War, was deeply involved in both the Middle and Far East; and remembers the way the English language brought cohesion to India and Pakistan (separate though they became), a continent otherwise divided by 50 or so different languages, the UK comes across as a central pivot to all diversities. Perhaps more specifically, the English language.
Precisely why the world as a whole, and Europe in particular, would have gained so much more from the most recent developments if all the former colonies of European empires had been allowed access to the European concept.
Our world-wide concerns of vast distortions
The unacceptable social defects arising from all these juxtapositions are specifically hindered or worsened by artificial barriers to trade. We need to move to a concept of world government, which should be the United Nations' role to co-ordinate EFFECTIVELY for fair shares to all.
So, having given my reasons, my short answer in reply is actually 'Leaning neither way.' Entirely globally should be our (UK's) bias and independently so, but in common with all nations, each proud in their own cultures and history, while respecting the diversitiers of all the others and recognising that the long-term survival of each depends upon the rational and fairly debated interests of all.
In that, a seemingly inconspicuous microcosm within the whole, we here at WHI have a chance to wave the flag for reason and reasonableness in the way we conduct ourselves, openly discuss and interact: a diverse population, albeit small, but undeniably global.
Peter S.
This thread may or may not develop. It is in direct response to a post from Peter T, my response to which was blocked by Richard's (quite understandable decision) to lock the thread on Independence Day 2007.
Now, bear with me while I get myself together and try and provide the relevant links by following the new guide from Roger, which I painstakingly printed out and now cannot find!
I think by doing this I will link back to Peter T's original post to which this is a reply and new thread.
hwi.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic2&action=display&thread=1183476492&page=3#1183729844
Essentially, in reply to Peter T's question as to which way the UK now lent, UK or US biased, my view is that it is balanced betwixt the two fairly evenly. This is as it should be but I see that as being only part of the story.
If one remembers the extent to which the Arab world physically entered southern Europe, leaving in south France and Spain in particular the influence of its architecture; then remembers the extent to which the British Empire, up to the Second World War, was deeply involved in both the Middle and Far East; and remembers the way the English language brought cohesion to India and Pakistan (separate though they became), a continent otherwise divided by 50 or so different languages, the UK comes across as a central pivot to all diversities. Perhaps more specifically, the English language.
Precisely why the world as a whole, and Europe in particular, would have gained so much more from the most recent developments if all the former colonies of European empires had been allowed access to the European concept.
Our world-wide concerns of vast distortions
- of wealth and poverty
- health and disease
- advanced society and basic survival
- increasing demand for raw resources versus continuous depletion of such resources
- increasing demand of all the above in direct conflict with the planet's ability to sustain
The unacceptable social defects arising from all these juxtapositions are specifically hindered or worsened by artificial barriers to trade. We need to move to a concept of world government, which should be the United Nations' role to co-ordinate EFFECTIVELY for fair shares to all.
So, having given my reasons, my short answer in reply is actually 'Leaning neither way.' Entirely globally should be our (UK's) bias and independently so, but in common with all nations, each proud in their own cultures and history, while respecting the diversitiers of all the others and recognising that the long-term survival of each depends upon the rational and fairly debated interests of all.
In that, a seemingly inconspicuous microcosm within the whole, we here at WHI have a chance to wave the flag for reason and reasonableness in the way we conduct ourselves, openly discuss and interact: a diverse population, albeit small, but undeniably global.
Peter S.