PeterCanessa Oh Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Of course. I do find 1066 and all that style history (elementary-school type simplifications and mis-readings) funny so thought i'd chuck that in. On the other hand the theory that sports are spread by wars, specifically colonisation and conquest, is pretty solid. Who in their right minds (thereby excluding England itself) would play cricket if they hadn't been conquered by Britain? That's why I said don't mention cricket :-) The Scots will have to make their own excuses for golf (a game I've never played for fear of its legendary adictive powers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 PeterCanessa Oh wrote: The Scots will have to make their own excuses for golf (a game I've never played for fear of its legendary adictive powers) I rarely play golf. A friend claims a sport isn't "true" unless it has both offense and defense. That striking him with a golf ball signaled my acceptance of his theory went unappreciated. Since then I've defoliated a fair number of trees and driven a toad into the hereafter. The potential for addiction is obvious to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinnamon Mistwood Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I am a true American mutt. When I tried to go back and do a little family history investigation, I could not find one culture that was represented more than another. Apparently the line I come from loved who they loved regardless of what nation that other person came from. I have nearly every European country, native American (I know they wandered over a land bridge long ago), African, Middle Eastern, Russian represented in my past. I have not found Asian or Indian yet, but it is probably there. A celebration of just one of those doesn't make any sense. I am a child of the world and will celebrate the similarities and differences of being 1 of 6 billion humans. Besides, I am sure history is written by whoever won the war whether they were right or wrong. Of course, none of this mixed heritage means I would deprive myself of having a German in October, an Irish beer in March or enjoying a Margarita in May. The good thing about being a mutt is I can celebrate with anyone. As far as your original question... You have no reason except political correctness to deny yourself your history. If you are interested in European cultures and history, there are many history books to choose from. Celebrate who you are and don't worry about how others see it, you can invite anyone you want to celebrate with you including those who are not of European heritage. It is harder and harder to find "pure blood" anyone these days. Most of us are mixed breeds. ETA - okay, it is pretty obvious I work in an animal hospital. I laugh when people come in with designer dogs - cockapoos, labradoodles, puggles. All they are is a pure bred dog and a sneaky neighbor dog. So, sorry about all the mutt and mixed breed analogies, but people pay top dollar for these mixes - lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Cinnamon Mistwood wrote: I am a true American mutt. When I tried to go back and do a little family history investigation, I could not find one culture that was represented more than another. Apparently the line I come from loved who they loved regardless of what nation that other person came from. I have nearly every European country, native American (I know they wandered over a land bridge long ago), African, Middle Eastern, Russian represented in my past. I have not found Asian or Indian yet, but it is probably there. A celebration of just one of those doesn't make any sense. I am a child of the world and will celebrate the similarities and differences of being 1 of 6 billion humans. Besides, I am sure history is written by whoever won the war whether they were right or wrong. Of course, none of this mixed heritage means I would deprive myself of having a German in October, an Irish beer in March or enjoying a Margarita in May. The good thing about being a mutt is I can celebrate with anyone. As far as your original question... You have no reason except political correctness to deny yourself your history. If you are interested in European cultures and history, there are many history books to choose from. Celebrate who you are and don't worry about how others see it, you can invite anyone you want to celebrate with you including those who are not of European heritage. It is harder and harder to find "pure blood" anyone these days. Most of us are mixed breeds. ETA - okay, it is pretty obvious I work in an animal hospital. I laugh when people come in with designer dogs - cockapoos, labradoodles, puggles. All they are is a pure bred dog and a sneaky neighbor dog. So, sorry about all the mutt and mixed breed analogies, but people pay top dollar for these mixes - lol. Cinn, during the time it took you to type that lovely post, you became one of 7 billion. Which month is for root-beer? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinnamon Mistwood Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Yes, you are correct. 7 billion - I feel even smaller now. Root beer is rather tasty, isn't it. It should have a celebration month. Should we come up with one or just celebrate it on days that end in -y? *In 1960, the US. Food and Drug Administration banned sassafras as a potential carcinogen, however, a method was found to remove the oil from sassafras. Only the oil is considered dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celestiall Nightfire Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Cinnamon Mistwood wrote: I am a true American mutt. ETA - okay, it is pretty obvious I work in an animal hospital. I laugh when people come in with designer dogs - cockapoos, labradoodles, puggles. All they are is a pure bred dog and a sneaky neighbor dog. So, sorry about all the mutt and mixed breed analogies, but people pay top dollar for these mixes - lol. My mother calls us Heinz 57 Varieties, and I think people also call dogs that! *laughing* @ Peter, I loved your version of history! So funny! : ) (and true, of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterCanessa Oh Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 There are a number of reasons why I've never got a round (pun) to playing golf but from watching it I can quite see why people become addicted. Why one of the signs of addiction is a complete loss of dress-sense remains a mystery. Anyway, I can easily imagine I would become obsessed with it and there isn't room in my schedule for anything else ^^ @ Void, Celestial, et al. I'm glad you are enjoying an alternative perspective on trans-Atlantic history. I am afraid though that now Void's brought-up the subject of cricket despite the warning I have conducted further research and unearthed a possibly disturbing new reason for the American Revolution. "The first reference to cricket being played as an adult sport was in 1611, when two men in Sussex were prosecuted for playing cricket on Sunday instead of going to church" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cricket) This is Puritan time, remember, just 9 years before some of them left for the New World. It takes a while to save up to buy a ship so they probably started to pack as soon as they saw this! Later, "In 1744, the Laws of Cricket were codified for the first time...", by which time Anglo-American relations were starting to break down. Clearly "... and then amended in 1774, when innovations such as lbw, middle stump and maximum bat width were added." was the last straw, with the colonies establishing the First Continental Congress in the same year and armed conflct starting in 1775. As if to reinforce this rejection of cricket as the cause of the revolution (alright, alright, A cause if you must) is the coincidental fact that "The first explicit references to baseball appear to come from England. The earliest known mention of the sport is in a 1744 publication, A Little Pretty Pocket-Book by John Newbery." (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_baseball_invented) So there you are - the rebels were a bunch of baseball-players who refused to have anything to do with cricket! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Void Singer Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 see I told you it was relevant! =D PS I was thinking more "A brief history of the world" or perhaps a few lines from hitchhikers guide, but yeah =) it really is a shame we did away with british humor, but expected I suppose when we were the butt of it so often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Cricket? Did you say Cricket? The following is (one assumes) a description of a cricket match. I enjoy reading it now and then. It's not often I find something that is formed entirely of words whose meanings I know but is put together in a manner that leaves me completely in the dark about what is actually being said. Other than the first paragraph, it's a mystery. By 9.30am, 90 minutes before the start of play, hopefuls arriving at St John's Wood Underground station were being turned away, while the ground was beginning to fill with those lucky enough to get a seat. It took half an hour for the first wicket to arrive but when it did, it was the crucial one of first innings centurion Rahul Dravid. Dropped on 35 by Ian Bell at short leg, Dravid added only one more run to his score before he flung the bat at a wide away-swinger from Anderson and was pouched by Matt Prior behind the stumps. VVS Laxman eased his way to a 53rd Test fifty and was looking comfortable at the crease before he was tempted into a cross-batted pull at an Anderson loosener and pulled straight to Bell at mid-wicket and departed for 56. In the next over, three wickets became four as Gautam Gambhir was deceived in the flight by Graeme Swann and trapped leg before wicket for 22. The left-hander asked for the decision to be reviewed by the TV umpire but replays showed there was no edge onto the pads to save him. Enter Tendulkar, for perhaps his final Test appearance at Lord's, but after getting off the mark with a four off his toes, he looked out of sorts having missed much of Sunday's fourth day because of a viral infection. Tendulkar walks off after what may be his last Test innings at Lord's He was lucky to survive an lbw appeal from Broad - one of a number of poor decisions by umpire Billy Bowden - and was dropped in the slips by England captain Strauss, but then missed a straight ball from Anderson and was trapped in front for 12 off 68 balls. Raina and Dhoni added 60 either side of tea, raising the prospect of India saving the game, but the new ball did the trick for England, with Chris Tremlett finding the edge as Dhoni limply dangled his bat away from his body and Prior doing the rest. The last four wickets fell in quick succession as Harbhajan Singh skied an attempted pull and Broad clean bowled Praveen Kumar. An Anderson away-swinger drew an edge from the excellent Raina, before Broad (3-57) completed an excellent personal performance by snaring Ishant Sharma leg-before. Enjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Undercroft Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 You're confused, Dillon? And the match report makes no mention of the "short backward square leg" or "silly point"! I thought when I read the opening words of your post that you were going to refer to this: "You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that’s in the side that’s in goes out, and when he’s out he comes in and the next man goes in until he’s out. When they are all out, the side that’s out comes in and the side that’s been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Umm, thank you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RudolphUkka Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 And you think this makes less * sense than * "After Upton walked and Andrus reached on an infield chopper, Reddick flied out to a short stop behind the foul line and Napoli was caught stealing second"? * girls game. *** Rudi *** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 There is such a thing? You should be proud of your heritage. It is only an -ism if you believe and act out that your own heritage is superior to everyone else's. I'm proud of my ancestors. There is no reason I should not be. History is full of cruelty. But, I still believe, if most people knew better, they'd do better. In other words, guilt over something that your ancestor did is misplaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 RudolphUkka wrote: And you think this makes less * sense than * "After Upton walked and Andrus reached on an infield chopper, Reddick flied out to a short stop behind the foul line and Napoli was caught stealing second"? * girls game. *** Rudi *** My quote was from BBC Sport, this year's England/India Test Match (if I have that right) unless the person who sent it to me is lying and I don't think that's likely. Yours seems to be a creation. Upton might walk and Andrus might reach on an infield chopper. That would put Upton at second and Andrus at first and cast a great deal of doubt upon the defensive talent of the infielders. The rest makes no sense whatsoever. If Reddick DID fly out to someone behind the foul line it would almost certainly not be the shortstop and even if it were, the phrase 'a short stop' is completely bogus. Also, Napoli could hardly be 'caught stealing second' since for one thing, he was not on first (Andrus was) and for another he couldn't 'steal' while a ball was in play. Stealing takes place when there is no ball in play. I know. My description makes no sense to anyone who is not familiar with the game of baseball. The BBC's description I quoted makes no sense to anyone who is not familiar with the game/sport of cricket. That was my point. The person who sent me that passage pointed out that the typical sports page description of a baseball game would probably be just as incomprehensible to an English speaker not familiar with baseball. RudolphUkka wrote: girls game. Be a good idea not to dig in at the plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maryanne Solo Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 I H8 cricket with a passion, but I do understand the terminology. I didn't see anyone "out for a duck" or any "silly mid on"s or "offs" in that game report It isn't really the sort of game to "bowl a maiden over" ^^ you know. I went to see Australia v England at the MCG for a "one dayer" once expecting to be "hit for six" due to the sensational entertainment value. I had one wine, fell asleep in the sun, had a nice little snooze, then left after about 2 hours. Australian rules football makes much more sense. :matte-motes-bashful-cute: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterCanessa Oh Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Maryanne Solo wrote: I had one wine, fell asleep in the sun, had a nice little snooze, then left after about 2 hours. Ahhhh, not that seems like the only way to enjoy cricket. Possibly with more wine though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now