|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| wannago wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
She's earned her respect after a very long life fulfilling her role with dignity and hard toil. |
And, what is her "role" again?
|
She is our Head of State. I suppose you are very ignorant of the various structures of government around the globe. In America the roles of Head of State and head of government are given to the President. In some places, there is a seperation of powers. For example, Germany has a President (who functions as the Head of State) and a Chancellor, who functions as head of the executive branch (i.e. leader of the cabinet).
In Britain the Queen is Head of State while the Prime Minister is head of the government.
The Queen is also the Head of the Commonwealth (which is comprised of 53 nations).
Clear? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Even though royalty is an outdated heriditary priveledge, riddled with odd characters that in the modern world should be of no importance.... it is still extremely worthwhile, for any country, to have a royal family. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
Plus. WILL SMITH saves us from the aliens. Not the prez. |
The awe with which Americans regard the office of the President is quite astonishing. You've not been paying enough attention to your own popular culture. Perhaps because you are so used to it, it doesn't strike you as strange, they way it would an outsider peering in. |
Firstly, Independence Day was probably a bad example, and I counter it with the ridiculous portrayal of the office by Jack Nicholson in Mars Attacks. Any given respectful reference to a President could be countered with dozens of examples of lampooning or making fun. You'd have to be an outsider looking in not to realize this.
Secondly, I do concede that in your bumbling way, you have hit on something. Presidents are given respect in America, and a lot of the reason is that we've had a few very good ones. In particular, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln rise above the rest (the first more as a Commander-in-Chief who miraculously thwarted the Brits; and don't give me this 'the French saved your asses' crap, Washington had two solid victories before then, the first at sieging Boston using the guns of Ticonderoga pulled down by Henry Knox, and the second at the battle of Trenton and the famous crossing of the Delaware). Maybe now that your royal bloodline has branched away from incest, you'll understand the respect some Americans have had for the greatness of a few who have held the office. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whatever, Kuros. You've just made my point that Americans are at least as excited about their Presidents as the Brits are their Queen, something that Chimpum finds 'inexplicable.'
I don't mind, you can make as many arselicking movies about your President as you fancy. Whatever gets you lot hard. 
Personally though, I would much rather be represented by a dignified Elizabeth II than a silly old duffer like Dubya. But that's just me.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Personally though, I would much rather be represented by a dignified Elizabeth II than a silly old duffer like Dubya. But that's just me. |
Well, coming from a Brit, thinking QEII is "dignified" says a lot.  I wouldn't call her UNdignified, but she's really done nothing to be labeled dignified...except in the eyes of Brits, of course and, well....who else matters, right?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
The relationship you Americans have with your president (up until very recent times perhaps) is very interesting too. We don't make sychophantic dramas and films about primeministers they way you do. I was very amused to see the President of the United States saving the world from aliens in Independence Day. We would never make a film about a Prime Minister jumping into his spaceship and shooting down space craft. So cute.  |
Yes, it is cute. Maybe the reason the Brits don't make those movies is because their Prime Ministers have all been pansies and that's how Brits expect their PMs to be? Except Churchill and Maggie Thatcher, of course. |
Except also Pitt, Peel, Wellington, Gladstone, Palmerston, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Bonar Law, Harold Wilson, etc, etc although obviously Chamberlain and John Major were. I see not even you can bring yourself to say *all* British PMs are pansies, as much as you want to.
Personally I respect the Queen as a person but not the monarchy as an institution. It's always seemed ridiculous to me. Even though I feel an emotional attachment to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| The queen has not "earned" her right to be queen, she got it from her blood. This birthright idea is totally outmoded and against all principles of progress and modernity. |
Go back and read what I said.
I said she had earned respect. Most Brits would agree. |
I didn't suggest otherwise, I said she has not earned her right to be queen, and if the entire foundation upon which she exists is questionable I don't really think talk of what she has done is relevant. |
You were making a reference to my earlier post, and doing so in such a way as to appear to be misrepresenting what I'd said. If that was not your intention then fair enough, however I have every right to put the matter straight.
My post was in answer to Chimpum's comment on 'inexplicable respect' and so it was in fact very relevant. Context mate. |
No, I did not write anything at all that misrepresented what you had written. Nothing I wrote was crooked, and there was nothing to "put straight", as I never mentioned anything about respect at all. The common concept between your post and mine was the word "earned" not "respect". Yet you suggested I that needed to "go back and read what I said", when in fact I had not misinterpreted anything you said, and you had misinterpreted what I said. It's all about close reading. I always say what I mean. And I said she had not "earned" her "right to be queen". That does not mean Im challenging your idea that she earned "respect". But as I said, that discussion is moot if her entire reason for existance is faulty. Birthright is an archaic and outmoded system for finding special people to do important jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
Personally I respect the Queen as a person but not the monarchy as an institution. It's always seemed ridiculous to me. Even though I feel an emotional attachment to it. |
Yes, that's why when (if) it's passed over to Charlie, the monarchy may be in real danger. I think it's only that we've had such a good Queen that there's been no serious movement to have it dismantled.
However, as outmoded as monarchy may seem, when you look at the alternatives, are you going to get anything better? What system are you going to adopt? Are you going to retain the seperation of powers or are you going to make the PM the Head of State. Then, who will be head of the commonwealth? The 53 nations that comprise the commonwealth might not fancy an ordinary polititian to head their organisation. If we retain a seperate head of state, how will they be chosen. By the government? By big business (haha)? Or by the public? Knowing the public, they might vote some idiot like Beckham for the job! Whatever happens, the chances are the person chosen will be some rich priviliged bugger in the pocket of big business. If we truly lived in a meritocracy it would be altogether another thing, but as it is, we still live in an imperfect world where priviledge comes to the fore.
And frankly, the Queen commands a respect and interest that others wouldn't. Can you name Germany's head of state? Can you name Italy's head of state? Vietnam's head of state? I bet most people from those 3 countries can easily recognise the Queen. I think she is a boon to our nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| The queen has not "earned" her right to be queen, she got it from her blood. This birthright idea is totally outmoded and against all principles of progress and modernity. |
Go back and read what I said.
I said she had earned respect. Most Brits would agree. |
I didn't suggest otherwise, I said she has not earned her right to be queen, and if the entire foundation upon which she exists is questionable I don't really think talk of what she has done is relevant. |
You were making a reference to my earlier post, and doing so in such a way as to appear to be misrepresenting what I'd said. If that was not your intention then fair enough, however I have every right to put the matter straight.
My post was in answer to Chimpum's comment on 'inexplicable respect' and so it was in fact very relevant. Context mate. |
No, I did not write anything at all that misrepresented what you had written. Nothing I wrote was crooked, and there was nothing to "put straight", as I never mentioned anything about respect at all. The common concept between your post and mine was the word "earned" not "respect". Yet you suggested I that needed to "go back and read what I said", when in fact I had not misinterpreted anything you said, and you had misinterpreted what I said. It's all about close reading. I always say what I mean. And I said she had not "earned" her "right to be queen". That does not mean Im challenging your idea that she earned "respect". But as I said, that discussion is moot if her entire reason for existance is faulty. Birthright is an archaic and outmoded system for finding special people to do important jobs. |
That may be. But if so, why did you put the word "earned" in quotations. It looked like you were referencing my post. It's that which I was objecting to. However, any opinion you have on the matter is yours to express as you like. I don't actually mind, so long as you don't misrepresent me, or tell me how I ought to think/write/do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wondering
Joined: 23 May 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I would certainly feel far less shame in having Queen Elizabeth representing my country. George Bush is why I often pretend to be Canadian when a taxi driver asks where I'm from. (can't pull off a British accent or maybe I'd pretend to be English) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| The queen has not "earned" her right to be queen, she got it from her blood. This birthright idea is totally outmoded and against all principles of progress and modernity. |
Go back and read what I said.
I said she had earned respect. Most Brits would agree. |
I didn't suggest otherwise, I said she has not earned her right to be queen, and if the entire foundation upon which she exists is questionable I don't really think talk of what she has done is relevant. |
You were making a reference to my earlier post, and doing so in such a way as to appear to be misrepresenting what I'd said. If that was not your intention then fair enough, however I have every right to put the matter straight.
My post was in answer to Chimpum's comment on 'inexplicable respect' and so it was in fact very relevant. Context mate. |
No, I did not write anything at all that misrepresented what you had written. Nothing I wrote was crooked, and there was nothing to "put straight", as I never mentioned anything about respect at all. The common concept between your post and mine was the word "earned" not "respect". Yet you suggested I that needed to "go back and read what I said", when in fact I had not misinterpreted anything you said, and you had misinterpreted what I said. It's all about close reading. I always say what I mean. And I said she had not "earned" her "right to be queen". That does not mean Im challenging your idea that she earned "respect". But as I said, that discussion is moot if her entire reason for existance is faulty. Birthright is an archaic and outmoded system for finding special people to do important jobs. |
That may be. But if so, why did you put the word "earned" in quotations. It looked like you were referencing my post. It's that which I was objecting to. However, any opinion you have on the matter is yours to express as you like. I don't actually mind, so long as you don't misrepresent me, or tell me how I ought to think/write/do. |
I put "earned" in quotation marks because it's pretty hard for someone who got their position by birthright to also have "earned" that position. And I was referencing your post, only to the extent that you used the word "earned" and I had something to say about that. Nowhere did I misrepresent you or tell you how to think, but it appears you were just looking for anything you could enterpret in that way.
Now, the institution of royalty is ridiculous. It seems that a lot of otherwise right thinking people have just fallen into line with authodoxy on this one because it's been there for so long. It really does nothing, but far far worse is the principle that a family can simply hold a position of public office not on merit or performance but on blood, it's just medieval really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wondering wrote: |
| I would certainly feel far less shame in having Queen Elizabeth representing my country. George Bush is why I often pretend to be Canadian when a taxi driver asks where I'm from. (can't pull off a British accent or maybe I'd pretend to be English) |
Oh come on. More people voted against Bush in 2004 (ie for Kerry) than exist in Canada. The Great Lakes, the Northeast, and the West Coast (all Democratic strongholds) are most prosperous and technologically advanced regions in the most prosperous and technologically advanced country on the planet. American liberals have nothing to be ashamed of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wondering
Joined: 23 May 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Who said anything about Americans CHOOSING him? Fact is, as president, the dimwit represents us.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wondering wrote: |
| Who said anything about Americans CHOOSING him? Fact is, as president, the dimwit represents us. |
I understand where you're coming from. However, I think its important to make a distinction between the general public and the informed public. The general public of the world might assume that Bush represents America. The informed public should be aware of polls and other indicators of our opinion of him, and not make half-assed claims that Bush represents the US. The general public probably assumes these things, however. I personally don't put any stock in the opinions of the general public, but I'm sure it can quite tiresome to always hear the same reaction.
Last edited by jkelly80 on Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I always though that anyone who gets into a seething anger over a little old lady who spends most of the time riding horses and opening museums really needed to get a better focus on things |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
