Ever been shocked at what some people don't know?

[notquitekarpov]

To add to Peter Morris’s post and link I could add that the only people that lost the War of 1812 were the Native Americans.

The Treaty of Ghent that ended the War did not even address the supposed causes. Nothing screams recognition that it was a waste of time on both parties more than those peace terms - everything reset as it was - let’s call it a draw.

[Kaio]

@amanset

Gets even better when an American asks me (a Brit) if I celebrate the 4th of July.

“Of course! Hindsight being 20/20, we’re glad to be rid of you. What a pity we fought so hard to keep you.”

[thelabdude]

@Little_Nemo

The official reasons for declaring war were British restrictions on American trade, British impressment of sailors off American ships, Britain’s refusal to withdraw its military from the Northwest Territory and the Great Lakes, and Britain giving support to various Indian tribes that were attacking American settlements.

And at the end of the war, Britain agreed to stop doing all of these things. Hard to see how you can’t call it an American victory when the United States got everything it asked for. Granted, some of these things were due to other factors: the trade restrictions and impressment were part of Britain’s war against France and when that war ended, Britain no longer had a need for those policies. (And when Napoleon returned from Elba and Britain rebuilt its fleet, it pointedly did not attempt to impress any American sailors this time.) But there’s no reason to think Britain would have withdrawn from the disputed territory in North America as a result of winning the war in Europe - that was a result of the American military effort.

The main result of the War of 1812 was that Britain accepted that the United States was a real country and it couldn’t just ignore American rights.

Many American history books are East coast centric and fail to record the British support of the Indians on our frontier. While the war and its results make less sense from an East coast perspective, it was a major victory in the midwest.

[Dr.Woo]

@WhyNot

That babies, poop and pee all come out of different orifices in a woman’s nether regions.

This is exactly what popped into my head when I saw the thread title.

[Dr.Woo]

@Alias

I get a lot of customers who own pets they can’t identify. That drives me crazy.

“I have a lizard.”
“What kind?”
“Oh, I don’t know. It’s brownish green.”

Seriously? You can’t be bothered to remember what type of pet you own?

From my son the piano tuner: “Yes, I can come out this afternoon. What kind of piano is it?”

“Brown”.

[Trinopus]

I got my own ignorance painfully highlighted yesterday… Went to a tax professional to do my taxes… They needed to know the “basis” for my IRA. Huh? What’s that? How could I possibly know it? They gave me a lot of pitying looks, and I spent a lot of time blushing. I wish someone had told me that I would need to know this when I opened the doggone thing!

Another one that’s kind of fun: one time, many (!) years ago, I was watching the moon at night, and saw how it was very near to a star. As I watched, the moon moved – an easy calculation shows that it moves through its own width in about an hour – and that was the first time I’d ever known that the moon moves west to east against the stars.

I would bet a pickle that a whole lot of people don’t know this…(nor, I suppose, much care…)

[leahcim]

@thelabdude

Many American history books are East coast centric and fail to record the British support of the Indians on our frontier. While the war and its results make less sense from an East coast perspective, it was a major victory in the midwest.

And yet, the previously linked staff report specifically says:

The part about exerting a malicious influence over the Indians wasn’t true, although Madison probably believed it was. The British in Canada had long supported the Indians, but far from urging them to assault Americans were trying to persuade them not to do so. The Indians were angry at American expansionist policies – the Americans had attacked them more than once. The British feared (correctly) that they would be blamed for Indian belligerence. Truth is, the last thing the British wanted was a war with America. They had their hands full with Napoleon.

[woodstockbirdybird]

At an old job, my manager and I were talking about his daughter (who was deaf) while two co-workers (they were sisters) listened. At one point my manager said (can’t remember the lead-up) “Beethoven was deaf.”
The sisters, in unison: “The dog?”

[TonySinclair]

@Trinopus

I got my own ignorance painfully highlighted yesterday… Went to a tax professional to do my taxes… They needed to know the “basis” for my IRA. Huh? What’s that? How could I possibly know it? They gave me a lot of pitying looks, and I spent a lot of time blushing. I wish someone had told me that I would need to know this when I opened the doggone thing!

I’m in the same boat. I stopped contributing to it about 15 years ago, transferred a 401K into it about 10 years ago, and have been investing with it ever since. This is the year I can start withdrawing from it without penalty, and I have no idea how to compute my basis, or where to find the numbers necessary to do so. I thought I only had to keep records for three years.

[Malleus_Incus_Stapes]

@Peter_Morris

speaking of which:

At school I learned all about the circulation of blood. They gave me diagrams like thisto help me understand. I thought for many years that blood really is blue, until it absorbs oxygen, then it turns red. I must have been about 30 when I discovered my error.

I think I was actually taught in class that it was blue.

[Shamozzle]

[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:197, topic:615416”]

This never fails to blow me away. When I travel to another country, I don’t take a history and language class, but I at least spend a little time looking at a map, reading the Wikipedia page, and learning how to say please, thank you, excuse me, and so forth in their language. That’s just common courtesy.
[/QUOTE]
I was in Turkey about 10 years ago. While many places in Turkey see heavy tourism with locals having a decent command of English, many areas have locals who speak no English. I was on a cross-country tour bus stopped in a little town to get a bite to eat. We were deep into the countryside:

American girl to waiter: Can I get a glass of water?

Turkish waiter, overwhelmed by random mystery bus: ???

AG: A glass of water?

TW: ???

AG: Water? A glass of water? Can I get a glass of water?

TW: ???

AG: CAN. I. GET. A. GLASS. OF. WATER.

TW: ???

AG, genuinely perplexed and incredulous: Geez. I dunno. I… don’t think he speaks English…
*
Well no friggin’ shit, sister. Look around you. Look over there. That old guy is plowing a field with a freakin’ ox and his wife, who is also eighty, is threshing grain with a flail. Ever seen that before? Christ, where do you think you are?*

[Little_Nemo]

@Peter_Morris

Staff report

With all due respect to gfactor, he describes a set of “unofficial” war goals and then says that the United States lost because it didn’t achieve those. Now I won’t deny that there were some people in 1812 who dreamed of conquering Canada but that was never an objective of the American government. The United States achieved all of the objectives it set out to achieve.

[Peter_Morris]

No, it didn’t “achieve” them.

The British was preventing trade with Napoleon. America wanted to trade with him. They went to war, in large part, to get trade with Napoleon.

They failed.

The blockade continued until Napoleon was defeated, then it stopped. The fact that it stopped had nothing, repeat nothing to do with the American war. The Americans did not “achieve” this. It was not an American “achievement”

And the same thing for all the other non-achievements.

[Bam_Boo_Gut]

I’ve got a friend called something similar to Juan Singh - I observed he’s got some Spanish and Indian connections. That’s interesting he says, he wondered why I would say that. Really?

[scootergirl]

In 1982 I had just moved from Toronto, Canada to TX. I met a woman in Houston who did know where Canada was in relation to the US. I stared at her in confusion and I think I said, “Um…it is adjacent to your country.” Woman: <stares back blankly>. It was then that I realized that she did not know what adjacent meant. I told her …" It borders the US" and then added, " to the North," just in case.

I’ve also known of people who refer to dolphins as fish instead of mammals. It drives me crazy. :smack:

[Nava]

@Bam_Boo_Gut

I’ve got a friend called something similar to Juan Singh - I observed he’s got some Spanish and Indian connections. That’s interesting he says, he wondered why I would say that. Really?

I’ve met several Indians with ‘Spanish’ firstnames. In some cases the name was actually Spanish (the priest they’d got it from was Hispanic), in some it was the identical Portuguese name (Portuguese priest or area with long Portuguese presence), or a Portuguese name which could easily be mistaken for its Spanish brother.

[Senegoid]

@scootergirl

I’ve also known of people who refer to dolphins as fish instead of mammals. It drives me crazy. :smack:

Such people might actually mean the dolphin fish (a.k.a. mahi-mahi), not to be confused (but often is) with the dolphin mammal. But I would guess that most people who use the word the way scootergirl mentions do, in fact, not know what they are talking about.

[thelabdude]

@Peter_Morris

No, it didn’t “achieve” them.

The British was preventing trade with Napoleon. America wanted to trade with him. They went to war, in large part, to get trade with Napoleon.

They failed.

The blockade continued until Napoleon was defeated, then it stopped. The fact that it stopped had nothing, repeat nothing to do with the American war. The Americans did not “achieve” this. It was not an American “achievement”

And the same thing for all the other non-achievements.

Blockade? I never remember anything about it reasons for the war.

The war did improve things for whites in the upper midwest.

[Little_Nemo]

@Peter_Morris

No, it didn’t “achieve” them.

The British was preventing trade with Napoleon. America wanted to trade with him. They went to war, in large part, to get trade with Napoleon.

They failed.

The blockade continued until Napoleon was defeated, then it stopped. The fact that it stopped had nothing, repeat nothing to do with the American war. The Americans did not “achieve” this. It was not an American “achievement”

And the same thing for all the other non-achievements.

I’ve addressed these points in previous posts.

I don’t see how you can say the Americans failed while also saying they got what they wanted.

And, as I pointed out previously, the British military presence in the Great Lakes and the Northwest Territory dated back to the Revolutionary War - long before Napoleon was a factor. There’s no reason to think the British would have withdrawn due to Napoleon’s defeat. They withdrew from these areas due to the War of 1812.

[Peter_Morris]

@Little_Nemo

I don’t see how you can say the Americans failed while also saying they got what they wanted.

Because the two are unconnected. It would only be a victory if the war had forced Britain to stop the blockade.