That is quite a simplistic view. I fully believe the South was evil for maintaining slavery and the Union was correct to forcibly subdue them, but it was about more than just slavery.
Your theory on Texas would seem to indicate that when the population of Mexicans exceeds the populations of Americans it will be fine for Texas to secede and later join Mexico. Considering that currently 25% of Texans are Mexican and over a third are of Hispanic descent, this could be worrisome soon.
Jim
I think the point can be easily enough made if you send some friendly advice about what clothes to pack which includes a note that layering is best and that they oughtn’t forget to bring several layers of sweaters plus scarves, hats, and boots.
Least Original User Name Ever writes:
> It started with the Horatio Alger myths and grew from there.
It should be noted that the idea of success in the novels that Horatio Alger wrote is actually quite different from what is meant when someone today talks about a “rags-to-riches Horatio-Alger story”:
Alger’s heroes are poor boys who work hard, but it is basically pure luck that saves them. They happen to do some act of bravery or honesty which is observed by a rich man. This rich man offers the hero a fairly low-level job working for him. No hero in a Horatio Alger book ends up rich. They are on the lower rungs of the middle class as the book ends.
I have.
Not to get in to debates about the causes of the Civil War, it’s true enough to say in one case it was someone else getting seceded from, and in one case it was us. A lot of Southerners would not see any moral difference between those two. Some don’t even see a difference between the Civil War and the American Revolution.
That’s sometimes true, but not always. In some of his books, the hero ends up rich, and in others, he’s found a place, and “undoubtedly will be a success if he continues his hard work” or something like that.
Chiming in to say I’m so glad I’m not the only one who gets annoyed by this. I hate having to scroll to find “United States”, and I hate myself for hating such a trivial thing. [sheepish] But it would make sense to put countries with lots of internet users at the top, right? [/sheepish]
Re: the postal code thing, I really think it’s a force of habit for Americans rather than some arrogant presumption that everybody in the world should know all 51 postal codes. My mental default setting is “I’m an American talking to other Americans”, and we’ve all had the abbreviations pounded into our heads from the age of 6 or so. In the U.S., identifying your location by state is far, far more useful than saying you’re in Anytown, U.S.A. Admittedly, with the advent of the internet, we should be more sensitive to the fact that we’re interacting with non-Americans on a frequent basis and should re-evaluate the norms we take for granted. But old habits die hard, and all of that.
I’ve heard tell that in some places in the South, the Civil War is spoken of/taught as “The War of Northern Agression”.
OK; so webpage lists of countries should begin with “China” and have “United States of America” next?
Considering how many times I see España (spelled like that) in the S’s for multi-language websites because reordering the list is too much work… eeeeh… I’ll not write what you guys can do with your complaints since this is not the Pit and refrain from name-calling as well, ok? (Got a warning recently, don’t want to get on the mods bad side)
Nava, I recognize the complaint is silly and it would be totally unrealistic to change it. Surely, you have small things you get annoyed by, and at the same time understand that it’s a totally ridiculous thing to be irritated at? That’s all I was saying. I’m not really suggesting that all lists be re-ordered.
Sigh…that’s what I get for forgetting that tone is almost always completely lost in written text.
Strangely enough, I’ve noticed that on the majority of the Web forms I use, “United States” is at the top, with the rest of the countries following in alphabetical order.
Chicago’s winters aren’t nearly as bad as they were even a few years ago…the high today is 47/8. We have had mild winters for the past 3-4. The thing is-you can’t predict it one way or another. Any coat they use for UK winters should be fine, but they’ll need gloves, hat and scarf as well. I thought you all lived in sweaters (sorry, jumpers) anyways… 
I’ve been to UK twice in October and frankly, you all have exactly the same weather we do in October (maybe a few less sunny days). I’ve now been in March-and your spring is much more advanced than Chicago’s at that time of year. I left with daffodils just sprouting to find them in full bloom in London; came home to them just budding here…
I’ve never thought about the addresses, but I did know someone once who insisted that my Belgian penpal didn’t know how to address a letter properly (no states on his, different type of postal code). She wasn’t too bright then and hadn’t changed a bit…
What I find I am bugged by (of all things) is the UK’s phone numbers-who can remember such a long string of numbers? I get lost halfway through-I have to write it down. [slight, silly hijack]
You neglected to include the sequel where he gets the boss’s daughter as a “prize” and ends up climbing into the upper (or at least upper from where he started) crust of society.
It’s also not luck (at least not luck alone) that saves them. Ragged Dick is a good boy, but he’s a bootblack that’s also a spendthrift. He realizes that the clothes make the man and realizes, through a bunch of luck and doing good deeds, which are an offshoot of his good nature, that he socializes with a rich kid where he sizes the rich kid up and finds that the rich kid has nice things because of saving and dressing the part (in addition to being good). What it takes to move up in the world, according to the books, is a “sponsor” and usually an older person being that sponsor. It’s also worth noting that Dick also buys books in order to improve himself. The thing that changes Dick is his suit. When he wears it, the rest of the poor kids pick on him for “putting on airs”.
Compare where Ragged Dick is in the beginning and where Richard Hunter, Esquire is at the end of the book. Book one is about moving up from the lowest of the low and shows that class mobility is had through these means. Also, the implication is that if you DON’T move up in society, you’re not a good person. Being a “good” person is a necessary quality. It can also be construed that book one is about a kind of blackmail. I use that word very loosely, of course, but Dick gets his big break at the end of the first book when he does the ultimate good: saving the life of a child. Of course, that child’s father happens to be a big and rich man who hires Dick because of his appearance (not looking poor) because he can swim/save his kid (which a rich person couldn’t have necessarily done) and because he feels like he has to pay him back somehow.
Huh? They’re about the same length as American ones, aren’t they? (Bear in mind that the leading zero is, errrm, always a leading zero). Why is it harder to remember 0XXXX XXX XXX than XXX-XXX-XXXX (other than familiarity with the rhythm of the groups of digits)?
UK can certainly be misinterpreted. A few years ago I entered an international competition, gave my country as UK, and was surprised when I arrived to find they were expecting me to be Ukrainian.
Fair enough, I can see how that could occur. FWIW, the ISO two-letter and UN three-letter abbreviations use ‘UA’ and ‘UKR’ for Ukraine. And also the in-no-way-accurate ‘GB’ and ‘GBR’ for the United Kingdom.
And for me (and most people in this state) UK refers to the University of Kentucky, especially the basketball team.
In no way accurate? “Great Britain” does actually appear in the official name of the country – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – so I don’t see how that’s in no-way accurate. It seems pretty much exactly the same as referring to the United States of America as “America.” “America” and “Great Britain (and Northern Ireland)” are the geographical designators, like “France.” “United States of” and “United Kingdom of” are the governmental organization descriptors, like “Republic of.”
Or, if we change the bolding, you see my point: “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. Great Britain refers to a constituent part. To hopefully avoid getting dragged down a very convoluted hijack, this sums up the basic situation
Well, I realize it’s only one more, but it’s the spacing of the numbers. I can’t remember them. Must be a brain weakness or something. I can understand most accents, and the difference in vocab is no problem, but the “mobile” numbers…can’t do it.
Oh, that and when we rented the flat–to heat the oven…3? What is 3? (I managed, but that was an odd one).
Sorry-changing the focus of the thread and all.
Should I explain parades? Or Indian Guides? or pork rinds?
OK, I suppose the rhythms can be a problem. French numbers - xx-xx-xx-xx - no chance!
No bloody idea. Five quid for an oven thermometer and problem solved.
