PDA

View Full Version : Our "Founding" Illigals!



VFS-214_Hawk
08-13-2007, 09:15 PM
http://www.superdeluxe.com/sd/contentDetail.do?id=D81F2...435CD76447B12CB10F71 (http://www.superdeluxe.com/sd/contentDetail.do?id=D81F2344BF5AC7BBAAB5086A147443 5CD76447B12CB10F71)

leitmotiv
08-14-2007, 12:26 AM
100%

LEBillfish
08-14-2007, 12:34 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Blutarski2004
08-14-2007, 04:12 AM
Intellectually stimulating.

;-]

ploughman
08-14-2007, 04:51 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

MEGILE
08-14-2007, 05:28 AM
Intriguing

Fox_3
08-14-2007, 05:45 AM
LOL! Classic!.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
08-14-2007, 05:51 AM
Funny! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

mortoma
08-14-2007, 06:10 AM
Politically immaterial as far as being juxtaposed with our current problem with illegals in the US, but funny nonetheless!!!
The irony is truly there but fact is, the Native Americans "allowed" us to overwhelm and conquer them. The fact that they were unable to prevent it is not relevant one way or the other. We as Americans in the here and now can either allow or disallow ourselves to be subjugated and conquered. The choice is ours. I hope we can stop the flow before it strangles us.

mortoma
08-14-2007, 06:32 AM
The Normans subjugated the British in the dawn of the last millienium and the official language of the British Isles was French for a long time. But would not the British have been the better had they quelled this from the onset? Cultures and peoples conquering each other is nothing new and it was certainly nothing new when we took this land from the Native Americans. But does that mean that cultures should turn their cheeks and not fight against such subversion? Remember that the Native Americans did in fact fight hard against us. They simply lost. So should we fight against this incipient Mexican insurgance which threatens our way of life.

BSS_Goat
08-14-2007, 07:45 AM
This should get good quick.....

Low_Flyer_MkVb
08-14-2007, 07:47 AM
The Normans actually became Anglicised - a bit like multiple Col. Kurtz's in 'Appolalypse Now' going native, albeit over a few centuries (Henry V was the first English king to speak English as a first language) whilst retaining hegemony via an established aristocracy. There are no Saxon reservations in England, the natives having adapted to, and (over a long, often unpleasant time) having linguistically and culturally assimilated their erstwhile conquerors. Although we should take into account that the Norman ambition was centred around the establishment of a powerful and independant English state - kingdom if you will - and to this end they certainly succeeded. As a small aside, for instance, my surname is derived from Norman - my mother's maiden name pure Norman - do I think of myself as Norman or English? Of course, the answer is obvious, but how many centuries ago did my direct ancestors stop thinking of themselves as members of a ruling elite and embrace their new nationality? Or did it just creep up on them?

To say English history is the victim of Norman propaganda would be an over simplification, but 'Englishness' was a primary objective of the Norman invasion, and the many conflicts and turbulent times ahead of the newly installed Norman ruling class had this in mind at all times. It just depends on your point of view. Was Henry II any less English than his lowliest peasant subject? As he saw it, he was probably more so. Maybe we should be asking 'am I (English) any less European than say, Cawimmer (German) or Foxyboy (Scottish)?' There is a bigger picture that would not have worried the Anglo Saxons evicted from their homes to clear land for Norman hunting estates.

Such is the success of the Anglo Saxon absorbtion of the Normans (note: different from French - we'll come to their eventual victory in their medieval wars with England later, perhaps - note: victory), virtually all traces of the Norman language has disappeared from these shores. There are scolars who will have you believe that there are a few English kings who have disappeared from history because their peers thought them literally unworthy of note. Who are we to disagree? It's all about relative perception, I suppose. Did you know Butch Cassidy never lost his Lancashire accent? "Ay oop lad! Go for thee gun an' 'appen as like as not I'll put thee in't Boot 'ill". But I digress. Time marches on. The history of most nations can draw parralells.

Oddly enough, our (the English) nearest cultural and linguistic relatives are the Germans, ironic when you read some of the less informed, isolationist, knee-jerk, jingoistic claptrap on these boards - still, nothing as vicious as a family row, eh? Maybe that's worthy of another thread (not, I fear, that it would last long on these boards).

It was a funny clip, though wasn't it?

p-11.cAce
08-14-2007, 08:08 AM
German Ancestry Leads in U.S.

Other large groups include Irish, African-Americans, English and Mexican

June 30, 2004 If your ancestors were German, then you are a member of the largest ancestry group in the U.S., according to the Census 2000, that reports nearly 43 million Americans claim German ancestry.

About 1-in-6 U.S. residents identified their ancestry as German, ahead of Irish (30.5 million), African-American (24.9 million), English (24.5 million) and Mexican (18.4 million), according to the report released today by the Census Bureau.

WOOT! I'm 3rd gen German American on both sides http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SeaFireLIV
08-14-2007, 08:19 AM
wow, that`s actually a very clever and very wise clip! Done jokingly but it has a real point.

NeuralTech
08-14-2007, 08:41 AM
L

O

L



That is hilarious!

Monty_Thrud
08-14-2007, 10:28 AM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//lolsroyce.gif

Ruy Horta
08-14-2007, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
Politically immaterial as far as being juxtaposed with our current problem with illegals in the US, but funny nonetheless!!!
The irony is truly there but fact is, the Native Americans "allowed" us to overwhelm and conquer them. The fact that they were unable to prevent it is not relevant one way or the other. We as Americans in the here and now can either allow or disallow ourselves to be subjugated and conquered. The choice is ours. I hope we can stop the flow before it strangles us.

Just imagine Hitler writing this in his sequal to Mein Kampf after winning the war in Europe.

We are the Master race, the rest was weak, that's why it was our destiny to take over and that's why we won. Gott loves the strong.

But I guess it only works if it is a weak native peoples, not in the old world.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Video is funny as hell though, thanks for posting.

GBrutus
08-14-2007, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
The Normans actually became Anglicised - a bit like multiple Col. Kurtz's in 'Appolalypse Now' going native, albeit over a few centuries (Henry V was the first English king to speak English as a first language) whilst retaining hegemony via an established aristocracy. There are no Saxon reservations in England, the natives having adapted to, and (over a long, often unpleasant time) having linguistically and culturally assimilated their erstwhile conquerors. Although we should take into account that the Norman ambition was centred around the establishment of a powerful and independant English state - kingdom if you will - and to this end they certainly succeeded. As a small aside, for instance, my surname is derived from Norman - my mother's maiden name pure Norman - do I think of myself as Norman or English? Of course, the answer is obvious, but how many centuries ago did my direct ancestors stop thinking of themselves as members of a ruling elite and embrace their new nationality? Or did it just creep up on them?

To say English history is the victim of Norman propaganda would be an over simplification, but 'Englishness' was a primary objective of the Norman invasion, and the many conflicts and turbulent times ahead of the newly installed Norman ruling class had this in mind at all times. It just depends on your point of view. Was Henry II any less English than his lowliest peasant subject? As he saw it, he was probably more so. Maybe we should be asking 'am I (English) any less European than say, Cawimmer (German) or Foxyboy (Scottish)?' There is a bigger picture that would not have worried the Anglo Saxons evicted from their homes to clear land for Norman hunting estates.

Such is the success of the Anglo Saxon absorbtion of the Normans (note: different from French - we'll come to their eventual victory in their medieval wars with England later, perhaps - note: victory), virtually all traces of the Norman language has disappeared from these shores. There are scolars who will have you believe that there are a few English kings who have disappeared from history because their peers thought them literally unworthy of note. Who are we to disagree? It's all about relative perception, I suppose. Did you know Butch Cassidy never lost his Lancashire accent? "Ay oop lad! Go for thee gun an' 'appen as like as not I'll put thee in't Boot 'ill". But I digress. Time marches on. The history of most nations can draw parralells.

Oddly enough, our (the English) nearest cultural and linguistic relatives are the Germans, ironic when you read some of the less informed, isolationist, knee-jerk, jingoistic claptrap on these boards - still, nothing as vicious as a family row, eh? Maybe that's worthy of another thread (not, I fear, that it would last long on these boards).

It was a funny clip, though wasn't it?

Good post. I've often wondered how different our history would have been if the Normans failed their conquest. If King Harold hadn't had to stuff Hardrada into the weeds then march 200 miles or so to face a second army - well it would have been a close run thing. Anyway, without the territorial claims on France and the ensuing wars, English and indeed European history may well have been very different.

bhunter2112
08-14-2007, 12:25 PM
Hey did they catch that illegal immigrant wanted for the shooting death of the 3 black kids in Newark NJ? I know they have one illegal immigrant in custody. There is "thinky funny stuff" and then there is real life. Neither have anything to do with this game.

nickdanger3
08-14-2007, 03:21 PM
@LowFlyer


.... virtually all traces of the Norman language has disappeared from these shores.

Huh? Isn't that how basically all words that English words derived from Latin were introduced to the language?

I thought that while English grammar may be Germanic, the vocabulary is replete (to use a Latinate word http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) with words that the Normans introduced...is this not the case? Please explain - I always thought that that was English's connection to Romance languages....

Wikipedia puts the number of French/Latinate vocabulary in English at around 40%, most traceable to the Norman Conquest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_French_origin

Low_Flyer_MkVb
08-14-2007, 03:54 PM
Good point, don't forget the Romans were here (well, all over western Europe) for a while.

The point is the English don't speak French (or Latin, for that matter). I conceed freely that the language is constantly evolving - influenced from all corners of the globe - and that, yes, 'virtually disappeared' may have been too broad a brush for the canvas.

With hindsight I would have typed something like: 'The Norman language, like the Normans themselves, has been absorbed into English'. How's that? Have you ever seen anyone insulted in a pub with the term 'Norman git'? English, Scots Welsh, Irish, Brummie, Cockney, Geordie, Cornish, whatever - but never Norman. Well, actually just once, but that was in a tent full of drunk and costumed re-enactors of all era's.

Another interesting thing about the native English language is the Scandinavian derived northern accent compared to the Anglo-Saxon derived south western. Both noticeably different, yet both absorbed into English. This is of course under threat from the rampant spread of 'inner city' English, perhaps best illustrated by the following witiscism doing the rounds:-

Q: What do chavs call Eskimo's?
A: Inuinnits.

nickdanger3
08-14-2007, 06:24 PM
Well, don't think that the Roman occupation contributed much.

The Anglo-Saxons weren't in Britain when the Romans were, and the AS's were the ones who introduced Germanic languages to the British Isles.

The AS's migrated into Britain a couple hundred years after Roman influence began to wane.

The classic example for me of the intermingling of the two language families in in legal terms. Even today, lots of times there are two names given that mean the same thing, that are derivatives of both families:

Breaking and entering
Assault and battery

etc...

x6BL_Brando
08-14-2007, 06:55 PM
that mean the same thing, that are derivatives of both families:

Breaking and entering
Assault and battery

That is incorrect. The parts of both phrases are NOT the same in meaning

Breaking is the act of forcing a lock, breaking a window in order to gain entry i.e. entering.

Assault is the act of raising a fist or a stick to attack a person; battery is the application of the weapon I.e. the landed punch

They are different acts and draw different punishments in criminal law.

B

huggy87
08-14-2007, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by nickdanger3:
Well, don't think that the Roman occupation contributed much.

The Anglo-Saxons weren't in Britain when the Romans were, and the AS's were the ones who introduced Germanic languages to the British Isles.

The AS's migrated into Britain a couple hundred years after Roman influence began to wane.

The classic example for me of the intermingling of the two language families in in legal terms. Even today, lots of times there are two names given that mean the same thing, that are derivatives of both families:

Breaking and entering
Assault and battery

etc...

The anglo-saxons were initially imported in small numbers by the Romans. It took another century for them to gain critical mass.

On a side note, I have to laugh when anybody in Europe criticizes the cultural domination that took place in North America and Australia/ New Zealand. What happened here is no different than what happened all over Europe. If you are English you are a mix of Celt, Roman, German, Dane, Norse and French.

nickdanger3
08-15-2007, 12:05 AM
That is incorrect. The parts of both phrases are NOT the same in meaning


Well not being a lawyer, I don't really know about the legal MEANINGS, but I believe that the derivation of the phrase comes from the intermingling of Norman and Anglo-Saxon:

Snip from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_English

Use of doublets and triplets. There is a curious historical tendency in legal English to string together two or three words to convey what is usually a single legal concept. Examples of this include null and void, fit and proper, perform and discharge, dispute, controversy or claim, and promise, agree and covenant. Such constructions must be treated with caution, since sometimes the words used mean, for practical purposes, exactly the same thing (null and void); and sometimes they do not quite do so (dispute, controversy or claim).

I was just quoting from there....

Wow are we OT or what?

Low_Flyer_MkVb
08-15-2007, 12:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4EygLtChOg

MEGILE
08-15-2007, 12:42 PM
There is a considerable amount of French words in the English language, particularly words of a legal nature.
But also note, the Norman's did not speak French as we know it today, their particular dialect was different to the rest of France.

English is a fantastic language.. If I can recall some examples correctly, we can see words of nordic and saxon heritage in use.

eg. Sick/Ill street/road

They have the general same meaning, but can have very specific meanings themselves.

nickdanger3
08-15-2007, 01:55 PM
What I think is really interesting, is how very few Celtic words have made it into English.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Celtic_origin

When you compare the number of Celtic root words to Germanic and Romance, you get the idea that the peoples were not mixing quite as much as other groups.

I suppose it's the same thing as American Indian/Native American words getting adopted into English....pretty low number.

AFSG_Bulldog
08-15-2007, 07:52 PM
Well actually the American Indian (AKA "Native American") is not native to America. They migrated from Asia across the ice bridge in the Bering Sea. The Eskimo is related to the Apache. So the truth is that the American Indian is really the First Immigrant.

TC_Stele
08-16-2007, 02:41 AM
Ramos and Compean...

3 dead students...

Yup, the issue is hilarious.

Get this **** off the forum.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2007, 03:47 AM
Very funny

The political angle...come on, now. You folks are otherwise intelligent

Friendly_flyer
08-16-2007, 06:54 AM
Great clip!

AKA_TAGERT
08-16-2007, 07:15 AM
typical lib spin to make light of a real problem