Who can call English their own?

I do not consider arguments regarding 'ownership' of the English language sustainable other than in the country of origin. Strictly speaking, only the British have 'ownership'.

America and Australia, for example, speak English; but if you consider some spelling, grammar and pronounciation, you will note that they have only used the English language as a base product and have 'adjusted' it as their nations developed, with the implied co-operation of their peoples who speak it. Being nations that developed with the rapid influx of many and diverse nationalities, this would have been unavoidable.

This in itself is not a criticism as the English language as we know it now did not always exist within the United Kingdom where indeed there still exists in parallel, Scots and Welsh Gaelic. If, however, the argument is about 'ownership' of the English language as we know it now then it has to be British.

No one until you advanced any arguments regarding the "ownership" of the English language. Language cannot be owned or planned--all prominent planned languages (most notably Esperanto) have failed miserably. There is no "implied consent" of the people in America and Australia, or in the UK or any other country, for that matter, in the changes that occur in language. Languages continually develop, and it is true that they develop faster the greater their interactions with other cultures/languages, but to claim that UK ENglish has remained static and is therefore "true English" is simply laughable, from a scholarly point of view.

As a matter of fact, British scholars--including the late John Barton of the Royal Shakespeare Company--have determined that American pronunciation, especially in the Appalachian region, more closely matches likely pronunciations during the Elizabethan and Jacobean ages, meaning that Americans are speaking the language of the Bard more accurately than the English.

Furthermore, there was no standardization of spelling and little standardization of grammar in English until the Elizabethan period, and the early period of Modern English. as this was also the time period in which colonization of Australia and the Americas was taking place, it is not surprising that different standards developed over the centuries.

Each of these countries--and many others--speaks their own dialect of English, it is true, but they are all branches of the same tree. If you wanted to find true "ownership" of the language (which goes against all linguistic and anthropological theory), the modern speakers of High German would actually have the strongest claim; Beowulf (the most famous Old English text) is far more understandable to someone who can read High German than even the most expert speaker/reader of Modern English.

Next time you want to sound smart, do a little research.

I would absolutely love to agree with Golden researcher. Unfortunately, impossible to. As Pheelyks pointed out, facts are facts and your information, Goldenresearcher, is based on wishful speculation, not the historical truth.

Pheelyks, FYI, in school they taught us that Americans absolutely do not speak English and the Australians, an indecipherable and incomprehensible language, not related to English in any way :) I was inclined to believe them until they launched into the `French are frogs' tirade.

You are talking to one of the biggest Anglophiles on this side of the pond, and (as I have shown from my posts, I hope) an adamant purist for the English language. The fact that "good" is already pretty much accepted as an adverb (instead of "well") drives me crazy--but this is what happens to language. I hope to live in England (or Ireland, actually) some day in the relatively near future, and am no great fan of my own native country, but goldneresearcher and your teachers are working from an obvious prejudice.

One of my favorite Shaw quotes regarding English (from "Pygmalion" and later "My Fair Lady") is, "In america, they haven;t spoken it for years." Much funnier in context...

Also, just to punch some more holes in goldenresearcher's claims, the variety and disparity in English dialects in the UK begs the question, which one is "true" English? Liverpudlian? Manchesterian? Yorkshirian? Cockney? Received Pronunciation? The Scottish brogue or Irish lilt? All have rules as different as American from British English, and pronunciations vary even wider (as they do in America, of course).

Very obvious! :)


True :)


Ireland is one of the most beautiful countries in the world but any would die of boredom there! London is outstanding. There still is a cultural life there, an exciting and ever-evolving one.

I stay home for days at a time, and couldn't be happier. My girlfriend spent quite a bit of time in Ireland, and I have always been enamored of the history and culture (a great deal of my ancestral heritage comes from the Isle of Erin). London is definitely on the list of places to visit, but unless I become a site owner, I don't think I could afford it.

Hey Eugene, any openings?

Just a sec ... the Scots, categorically, do not speak English. I defy any to understand a group of Scots deep in conversation amongst themselves. And, you forgot to add Cockney to the list (East End); they have their unique turn of phrases, slang, etc ... Basically, if we go down this path, the only ones who still speak British English are the elder members of the Royal Family (there are some objections to Princes William and Harry's speech :) ). Does this mean that only a handful own the language?

Conclusion: while none own the language, good English is always recognisable and poor ESL writing, effortlessly identifiable.


Very, very rich and fascinating. Their folklore, music, history ... I'm currently studying Celtic, driven by an obsession with their music; hauntingly beautiful. Cannot imsgine living there, thogh. Too much of a city person.

Now who's being prejudiced? Not that I don't appreciate the humor.... And of course, i know that the Scottish have mixed their brand of Gaelic more freely with English than most other dialect groups (Burns is still one of my favorite poets, possibly because of his "wee, sleekit, cow'rin, timrous beasties"), but again--that's langauge (especially English).


It's the fourth one I mentioned.


By George, he's got it!


Always been a pipe dream of mine.

Yes:(


I love and appreciate him now but imagine having to memorise `Red, Red Rose' and `To A Mouse,' for your exams ... nightmare!


Yes, sorry. I missed it :(

I memorized "To a Mouse" jsut for fun (I am a proud and confirmed nerd). I've lost most of it, but I still have the first line right (I think).

Just to correct you Americans:

1) "This in itself is not a criticism as the English language as we know it now did not always exist within the United Kingdom where indeed there still exists in parallel, Scots and Welsh Gaelic."

Actually, Welsh is spoken by over 20% of the population of Wales (or 'England' as you call Britain in America), whereas Scottish Gaelic (a Celtic language but very different and much more siliar to Irish Gaelic) is spoken only be 1% of the Scottish population. There is NO such thing as 'Welsh Gaelic'

2) WRT is apparently studying 'Celtic'; this is not a language but an alleged racial/tribal group or a football team.

"Just a sec ... the Scots, categorically, do not speak English."

You are talking absolute and utter twaddle: the Scots speak various forms of English - the rough hard-to-understand Scots is spoken by what are usually very lower class and poor people in Glasgow; Edinburgh Scots and that spoken in the highlands and islands, as well as the borders is very much like English. For your information, there are very many dialects in the UK, and many accents too (MANy more than is the rest of the English speaking world), although many fewer people now speak like this: it is VERY hard to understand someone speaking with a strong accent and dialect from ANY part of the UK. Try listening to a farmworker or miner from Newcastle!

3) "And of course, i know that the Scottish have mixed their brand of Gaelic more freely with English than most other dialect groups".

No they have not. In general, Celtic languages (Welsh, Scots Gaelic, Cornish) bear NO relation to English spoken in Wales, Scotland etc. These Celtic languages were the original language of Britain - before Romans, then Anglo-saxons, then Vikings, Then Viking (Norman) French took over - and therefore there is more Viking influence on Scots English than Celtic. There are VERY few Celtic-language words in any type of English.

4) "Next time you want to sound smart, do a little research."

I have Phleeks, which is why I know that defining a concept of 'ownership' is an absurdity (perhaps influenced by the African American obsession with claiming historical events and figures as their own?), just as it absurd for you to say the Germans 'own' English because English is a Germanic language and was derived from Anglo-saxon (in fact, England was named after the language and not the other way round).

English is a Germanic language which has had latinate additions over the years. There are three main periods: Old English 450-1150AD (Beowolf); Middle English 1150-1450AD (Chaucer); Modern English 1450-now (Shakespeare onwards actually). The language spoken now is not really very different from 16th century English, but we would struggle to understand a speaker of middle or old English

The Great Vowel shift in the 17th century profoundly affected pronunciation, which is why many spellings are not phonetic; also Protestant England had a much higher rate of literacy than backwards Catholic countries - a large number of people could read even in the 1600s - so speeling got fixed (it didn't in Italy, say, where writing is simple and phonetic but where 50% of POWs could not sign their names when taken prisoner in WWII).

But no-one 'owns' a language, though there are definitely spelling and usage rules which must be generally followed. Language is always evolving too. For example, the word 'chav' is common now but is only about 5 years old.

And by the way, in British English 'smart' does not mean clever or bright or brainy - it means physically smart in the clothes one is wearing. IMHO The biggest influence of American English in the UK is in terms of politically correct English, therapy self-help English and business management English - none of which I welcome; the Brits have their own words for most things (mobile for cell, for example) so the US affects British English less than it thinks perhaps.

American English is mostly derived from 17th century English; Australian English mostly from 19th century English. The world has many Englishes but they are ALL English, make no mistake. And no-one 'owns' a language - that is essentially racialised thinking.

A little learning is indeed a dangerous thing my American friends, but at least you can all learn one thing today: America itself is named after John Ap Merrick (Ap means Son of in Welsh; Ap Owen became Powell for example; Ap Rhyss became Pryce etc) who was chancellor in 1497 when Henry Tudwr (a Welsh nobleman) later Tudor (Henry VII) sent the first British expedition to the New World (America is not named after some minor explorer because places are never ever named after the first name of explorers). His tomb is in Bristol in England.

Here the lesson endeth. Or as some Amercains may say 'Hey dude we're done...'

Hey, we have a Google fan!

But not of the English language:


I believe Pheelyks is going to enjoy this.

Yes, I know. I held back. ;)

Oh no WritersBeware my American retarded waffler. I am no Google fan - I leave shoddy research to people like you.

I, instead, have a degree in Engliosh from a top UK university, and postgraduate qualifications and years of research experience; so, you see, I really do not need some lie-based internet research engine to know what I know. And I certainly need to advice at all from dumb Americans, unless I want to learn how to speak badly and spell even worse of course...

You really are SUCH American DUNCES on here (That's you WRT): 'people' is a plural noun so we who can speak English properly always refer to FEWER people and NOT less you Dumbo Dunce! Learn English you fool before attempting to find fault in those who are your intellectual and linguistic superiors.

Americans eh... Only 31% of graduate there have prose literacy and can read a 1000 word piece in a newspaper and understand it!!! And we wonder why Iraq happened... Tsss.

Did not add `language' as meaning is clear.

OxbridgeExpert responded:


OxbridgeExpert went on to write:

Retards and Dunces (that's us), America was not named after Amerigo Vespucci


The Welsh claim that America was named after Americk (as they refer to him) and was first settled by Welshmen. The majority prefer to stick to the official version of the naming of America, as cited and confirmed by the Library of Congress.

WRT - you rather prove my point about the dumbed down standards of many Americans.

No, your meaning that you were studying 'Celtic' was not clear; what is clear is that you thought 'Celtic' was a language. It is not. Several languages are Celtic, however - so many languages can be called Celtic. But one cannot speak or study 'Celtic' because it is NOT a language.

If you do not understand what I say, please ask a grown-up to translate into WRT dialect. Perhaps you mean 'Celtic studies' or 'Celtic culture'. Perhaps not. Who knows? Who cares, frankly.

America is now thought to have been names after Richard Ap Merrick and not the insignificant Amerigo Vespuccio - that is a wrong-headed out-of-date theory. The theory that some believe America was first settled by a Welshman is QUITE different and based on a Welsh Prince setting sail and joining an Indian tribe who were later found to use Welsh words and some had blue eyes.

All intelligent consensus now is pretty sure that America is named after Ap Merrick. The Library of Congress is not God my little American friend - I am talking about research by academics who know what they are doing, not the official behind-the-times version. Countries were NEVER named after the first name of explorers, particularly those who were non-entities like Amerigo Vespucci. Name one other. Always they took the last name of explorers and the first name of royals. Learn that you have a lot to learn boy.

Whether you accept that or not I really REALLY do not care. You just prove my point about the USA's mediocre dumbed down education system actually. QED.

I see you are not longer arguing about my use of the phrase 'fewer people'. Admit you are wrong now eh? Good boy.

You wrote:


I won't deprive Pheelyks of the pleasure of tackling this one.


You do.


Anyone care to address this? Frankly, I don't. It is such a tired statement.

WRT

For your information and education: 'many fewer people' or 'many more people' are perfectly correct usages in English. You are making a fool of yourself by criticising the correct usage of a writer far more sophisticated and linguistically correct than you could ever hope to be.

No doubt you would say 'a whole bunch of guys' or some other mangled American usage. Fair enough. You speak your ill-educated Ameri-English and I shall stick to speaking and writing English in the proper manner.

The dumbed down standards of Americans are well-known in the academic community. A university graduate in the USA will have reached about the same standard as a 17/18 year old in the UK (rerember only 31% have prose literacy); an 18 year old high school graduate in the US reaches the level of a UK 15/16 year old. And that is on average - very many schools, colleges and universities in the UK are dumbed down too, but we have to do that if people in the US and elsewhere are awarded degrees despite being functionally illterate and ignorant and un-intellectual (not to mention the millions who cheat...) Very many teachers in the US are also products of the same dumbed down school system, which is why you are probably so ill-educated my friend.

Give it up WRT - you know you are being completely and utterly outclassed.

I think this is pent up British nerd-rage due to those little skirmishes they lost against the Americans back in 1781 and 1812. Owing to the fact that a) they have horrible dental issues, b) the worst food in Europe, and quite possibly the world, and c) women that look like they fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down, I can see how the Brits look for any possible means of degrading an American to try and make their pathetic, spotted-dick eating lives seem more meaningful.

Nice bit of racism there nathraq - it must come naturally to you Americans, who still had slavery decades after the British abolished it and stopped others slave-trading, and had segregation until the 1960s - which we never ever had. If the USA had not become independent, perhaps the negros would have been happier in the always-racist US of A.

You answer none of my points, surprise surprise. Can't do that, can you - so you just throw insults. And you wonder why Americans are hated all over the world?

British dental issues? Not at all - most Brits have very much better teeth than the 50 million Americans without free healthcare (all free here sucker!!!) who have the worst teeth I have ever seen (these people live in third world conditions and die younger than people in Africa!!!; Bad British food? Not at all either - that is just your ignorance; in my experience, the food in the USA sucks bigtime and consists of fries and fat and carbs and huge portions for pigs; Ugly women? I really do not think we can compete with the false-breasted pooono plastics in the USA like paris Hilton or really ugly women like Michelle Obama or the obese sisters waddling around over the pond.

Now answer the points I make if you can, sucker. Oh and by the way, most essay scam companies are American too.

Moderators! Who is this racist person?! We all have a right to know this person's identity and contact information and take action!

After all that's been said in this thread... does any of it really matter?

English is English! We use it! It's a free communication tool, like any language is.

Hey genius....How does racism play into a culture clash, especially if a) I am a white American, and b) you are a true-blue Brit?

You started with the attacks. I have yet to see your proof about this statement:


1. Your claims about Richard Ap Merrick (Richard Amerike) are totally unfounded, and speculative at best. It is theory, and theory only.

2. The Welsh Prince (Madoc) that supposedly set sail to the Americas and "mixed" with a Native American tribe is Welsh folklore, not fact.

3. British healthcare does NOT cover complex dental procedures, ie a person in need of a root canal could pay through the NHS roughly 46 pounds to have the tooth pulled (as recommended and provided by the Brit's healthcare system), or go private and pay 650 pounds for a root canal to save the tooth. Hmm....free healthcare, huh?

AsianWriter - exactly. Nobody 'owns' a language.

nathraq the ignorant one. Unlike you and most Americans, I am not racist or race-obsessed. You took my remarks out of context like the little lying slimey ignoramus you obviously are. Your problem.

Negro is the correct word as used in the 19th century when YOU still had slavery but we Brits has abolished it all over the world; sisters means any race you idiot; and yes, African American 'leaders' do have an agenda to claim certain things as 'their own' which is how this debate probably started. We are far more mature and unracist in the UK to put up with any of that nonsense.

Sadly, you continued slavery until the 1860s and segregation until the 1960s; we banned slavery in 1807, fought and stopped others slaving, and never ever had segregation or lynchings. Mmm - if I were black I know whcih country I'd rather live in.

My claims about Richard Ap Merrick are based on the latest research and consensus amongst the high-level academic community. Not you then.

I never ever stated the myth about the Welsh Prince was anything but - I just insisted the issue was different from that mentioned in my previous sentence.

I know where I would rather live: in a country with free (YES FREE) healthcare, where all medicines are free, where the dentist costs a small amount (or you can choose extra private insurance if you want) and I am not lumbered with huge debts as in the THIRD WORLD USA where you live.

More blacks are in prison than at university in the USA and you murder them ever week in your concentration camp gulag racist jails. A baby born in many parts of the states has worse health and a lower life expectancy than those black babies born in the worst parts of Africa. The USA is one sick and stupid country.

America is seriously sick in mind and body and REALLY run down compared to Europe. Just look at your awful cities and awful shabby train stations and airports. You really are THIRD WORLD USA baby. Thank god I do not live in your sick dumb hellhole.

I am not wasting my time justifying to you that which I and other education professionals know full well - that the US education system SUCKS and is so dumbed down it couldn't go any lower. A system for retards like you, then.

But then, I am extremely well-educated thanks to the superior British education system, so you can never hope to even try and compete with my intellectual superiority. I pity you, actually. Really, I do.

I am still waiting for you acknowledgement that my comments on the use of the word 'people' are correct, and yours are completely and totally wrong YOU LOSER!

1. The claims about Richard Amerike are NOT accepted by high level academia. It is a theory. With all of your degrees, I am sure you understand the definition of THEORY. Show me one respectable acedemic that accepts this theory, outside of Welsh nationals.

2. I asked for proof of your claims about the American education system at the collegiate level being subpar to British institutions of the same level. Please provide the stats to back up your claims.

3. American cities haven't had the luxury of being bombed into oblivion by our enemies, and then rebuilt using the same American dollars under the Marshall Plan that could have been spent elsewhere.

4. The Brits, among other supposed European allies, seem to forget who saved their asses a few times during the past century. Nothing like sending American boys to do a job that British boys should have been doing for themselves (you can thank Mr. Chamberlain for that).

5. There is a reason America became the richest, most powerful nation ever created by humankind. It is our ingenuity, our diversity, and our compassion and moral fortitude that have built this nation after our total romping of the British in 1781. That rag-tag Colonial Army defeated the most powerful professional army of the time: The British Redcoats. Nothing has changed today. Same heart, same will for victory.

6. Nice rant about the American prison system, and nice leftist view on blacks being in prison because of racism. No rant about personal responsibility, huh?

7. People of all cultures are welcome here, and most enjoy the freedoms and security they could not have enjoyed anywhere else in the world, Britain included.

8. And I'll let Harvard take the Pepsi Challenge against any Brit university. If, as you stated, we are below par, then it should be no problem, right?

9. Negro was an accepted term up until the early 60s, when "Afro" became the standard. That has since been changed to "African" (ie African American). Welcome to the 21st century.

10. Still waiting for a world renowned British plate. If I go to a restaurant in France, and ask for something British, what would they send to my table? (besides an ugly waitress with bad teeth)

Try reading my post a little more carefully. My precise point was that no one can "own" a language; I was using golden's logic (which I fully acknowledged was completely flawed) to make another point. He claimed that the British "owned" English because they were the original speakers. I pointed out that they weren't, and High German (I have been told by a linguistics professor several years ago) is the closest modern language (though a slowly disappearing one) to Old English.


1450, yes. Shakespeare onwards, no. The two are mutually exclusive...unless Shakespeare started writing more than a century before he was born.


Again, this was my point. You sound very smart; read things completely before leaping to conclusions next time.


Can you please supply a reference?


The problem was not "fewer people," it was "many fewer" (your full phrase was "many fewer people"). The fact that you picked the wrong part of the phrase is rather funny, especially in the midst of your prejudicial grammatical rant.


Another grammatical error....unless it's just my feeble American (Amerikan?) grasp of English.

Also, "America" isn't a country and never was.


Not to mention the bailout in WWII.


Yes, we had slavery. And you had India, South Africa, huge swaths of Africa, the Falkland Islands (why the Falklands?)....the situations may not be exactly equitable, but stop trying to make it sound as though the British have historically been some great force of liberation and social altruism.

OxbridgeExpert, you are not British. I don't know what you are but you are not British.


Ever been to the Eastend lately? Cornwall? How about anywhere in England (us Londoners refer to our part of the country as England)


But they still saved our hides, didn't they?


With the NHS falling apart at the seams; Sky coverage of the failure of one trust after the other; ITV exposing the mediocrity which has become the NHS, etc., few of us would ever express pride in that archaic, falling-apart, institution. If you really are British, if you even live in the UK at all, you would not make that statement; especially not after the `loss,' `leakage' and sale of our records.

Narthraq, an American, knows much more about our healthcare system than you do. Is it possibly because a) you are not British and never have had any experience with the NHS and b) Nathraq is a much better researcher than you? Have you even picked up a British newspaper in your life and read about the NHS' so-called dentists? What about over the past couple of days?


Clue 1: BNP?
Clue 2: Last national poll?


You are right. We, ourselves, can't stand the horrid, traditional English fare.


Ever been to Liverpool? Manchester? Or, how about Queensway? Ever been to our tube stations?


You have never been to Heathrow! How about Luton or Birmingham? Are you completely unaware?


We are arguing for their expulsion, at the moment. At least 20% of the country wants the racial purification of the UK.


What about our very recent imperial past? Our support for apartheid?

OxbridgeExpert, you are not British and you have not, in recent years, been to the UK (as in England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland).

The ability to make large sweeping claims without providing any references or evidence other than you own assertions is not proof of intellectual superiority so much as it is evidence of you arrogance and inability to engage in a true academic debate. I agree that the US education system is horribly flawed and fails the people of this country, but if the UK system can only produce your kind of thinking (an assertion that I believe is equally as specious as claiming that products of the US system are all retards, as you have implied), I know which country I would rather live in.

I leave you in Pheelyks' extremely capable hands.

Please, everybody, OxbridgeExpert is not British and on the very off-chance that this character is, does not speak for, or represent, the British people.

and by the way.. I apologize to my British friends for the comments I made to OxfordExpert(Melissa) about Brits in general. My comments were directed more at her, and her rabid comments about America in general.

Still waiting for her reply....

Just for fun...


By definition, no one born in the UK speaking English has an accent. An accent occurs when a foreign speaker learns a new language--I have an English (or American, if you prefer) accent when I speak German or Spanish (neither one of which I speak fluently, by the way). All native variations of a language--Cockney, Received Pronunciation, Ebonics in the US (for better or for worse), etc.--are dialects.


Actually, by the way, this is an archaic usage of the word brought back into UK slang, just as the US use of "smart" to refer to intelligence is also considered slang. The original meaning of the word, from which the other definitions slowly evolved, is a sharp, biting pain (first used in 1023--that would be Old English). I will give credit where credit is due; the Oxford English Dictionary is still the supreme authority on the English language, as far as I'm concerned.

Oh my goodness, we have retard prize of the day for this load of garbage:

"By definition, no one born in the UK speaking English has an accent. An accent occurs when a foreign speaker learns a new language--I have an English (or American, if you prefer) accent when I speak German or Spanish (neither one of which I speak fluently, by the way). All native variations of a language--Cockney, Received Pronunciation, Ebonics in the US (for better or for worse), etc.--are dialects"

By definition you are an ignoramus, just like your retarded boy WRT and all those who think saying 'many fewer people' is a grammatical mistake. Know the limits to your mediocre intelligenc levels you utter idiots - and then you may stop making such fools of yourselves.

No surprise that the USA with their racist army was so cowardly not to enter WWII until over 2 years after the brave British had secured victory in the main. And only then to make a profit and boost their own economy.

No surprise either that the US started the scam of essay writing companies - most American graduates are as dumb as 11 year olds and cannot even READ!!!!

QED: All previous posts here are proving my points about how dumb Americans are - I feel seriously blessed that I was born British, and when I visit the A States of America I am always so glad to be leaving a country sick in mind and body that is almost a Third World country in many ways. The only civilisation you have you got from the British anyway - though sadly you kept slavery and your love of killing innocent ******.

// removed //

And my god are you FAT! Like real hippos! Disgusting people.

Wow. Such a lot of vitriol, so little substance. Instead of merely claiming that I am a retard for defining dialect and accent the way dictionaries do, why not provide some proof that I'm wrong?

Your other claims are equally unfounded--Britain had not secured "victory in the main" (or anywhere else) according to most historians, and while Edison's genius might be inflated by certain scholars, he certainly DID invent things. Also, you didn't force anyone to stop slavery ("you," as in British Parliament, after much heated debate that lasted for decades, stopped engaging in the slave trade, but that was it).


Facts require references. Academia 101.

what a weak, disappointing, post-colonial, bitter, insecure, nationalist temper tantrum. I only wish I could have heard it in its original wuss accent.

Or dialect, perhaps.

You are right but I really believe that this character is not British. Some of the statements and claims made (such as NHS) are a giveaway. What about OxbridgeExpert's claim that only Americans refer to the UK as England? Not true; absolutely not true. Any from England proper refer to it as England, just as the Scottish refer to their territory as Scotland, etc.

Even if OxbridgeExpert were British (which I don't believe), that does not mean that this character represents us.

This whole mindless rant just proved to me that you are NOT in fact British. Hiding between the lines are hints of a former Soviet-bloc style of de-education slanted against anything that is American, eh Melissa?

Thank you!!!

Is this completely false and idiotic statement what you learned in an Eastern Bloc history class?

As i have pointed out the flaws in both this thread and the other, I once again ask you to conjure up information, this time regarding the British forces on the European mainland in 1941, and the way the had "secured victory" in order for the Americans (and the rest of the invasion force of 1944, including the Brits themselves) to have an easy go of it on mainland Europe.

Please tell me you do not write history essays. That, in itself, would be a travesty.