The Supreme Tradition of Spelling Bees

I mean, anyone can become Canadian, American, or Australian, I suppose -- these are all countries based on immigration from so many different places. But other countries, like many in Europe do have a stereotypical image, whether or not it is accurate. Hence the difficulty of assimilating immigrants who look different, or have different customs that they want to retain.

this is the archetypal modern conundrum: how to create national identities broad enough for everyone to express different parts of their identity (according to religion or origin etc.) as part of the overarching national one?

i don't agree with what you are saying about stereotypes: i can think up archetypal US or australian characters just as well as different types of european ones, and it is only when bringing those countries' histories to mind that the absurdity of claiming such stereotypes as fixed becomes clear.

it really is about time that the same should start to count for european countries too, at least for countries such as britain and france with the heavy weights of colonial histories that they have (let's remind ourselves that only in the 60's de gaulle still wanted to proclaim a france from the hoggar to dunkerque).

The day after Princess Diana's funeral, I had a 24 hour layover in London. I visited some relatives who are American expats and we were joined by some of their UK friends for dinner. Naturally, the conversation was largely about Diana and the monarchy in general. The funny thing was, the Americans were pro-monarchy and the Brits argued for abolition.

The main reason we Americans approved of royalty was symbolism. There'll always be an England and all that. Tradition, history, a sense of continuity, and a kind of symbolic pageantry we will never have in the US and sometimes miss. The Brits thought that was pretty much nonsense: having a monarch was just plain anachronistic. They also brought up the other anti-monarchy arguments such as cost, about which we Americans had no opinion. But it was the unexpected positions on tradition that struck me; I would have expected opposite views.

Captain, I am not a willing subject of these people, and would be first in line to vote for a republic, but unfortunately that is the status quo at this time.

It's clear that if one were assigned to design a structure for the governance of a newly formed country today, one would never suggest to make it a monarchy. But as a subject of another royal house, I think there are worse systems. I can live with our present Queen, there are some advantages to having her as the head of state, and I don't think overturning the system is currently worth it. (But if a Parliamentarian majority were to take steps to abolish the monarchy, I wouldn't be opposed very strongly either.) Having said that, I do think the royal family will only stay in place for as long as they produce decent monarchs. As soon as one of them turns out to be doing terrible things with what little powers he or she has, the monarchy and all its support will be out the window.

That's right, shilgia. The future of the British monarchy is in the hands of William and Harry. If they can't somehow make it more relevant to modern life, I don't think it will survive to the end of this century.

Captain, you said "we don't want them", but a majority of Australians voted only recently to keep them. (Not me, I assure you).

Libbyh #719, you stated "but a majority of Australians voted only recently to keep them." We DID? When? I don't recall a referendum recently. :-)

Hmmm, time flies - 1999, I did think it was more recent than that :-)

Mathilda, I don't disagree that there are stereotypical Americans, Canadians or Australians. I just say that it's easier to become American, Canadian or Australian, than it is to become French, German or Italian. I'm leaving England out because, despite the outer signs of multi-culturalism in a place like London, I don't know how deep it is. Do the Bangladeshis of Brick Lane see themselves as Bangladeshis or as English?

And just because de Gaulle wanted France to go from the Hoggar to Dunkerque (did he really say that?), doesn't mean it would have happened. Only now is the whole idea of "Franceafrique" being questioned seriously. Too many vested interests before. But that doesn't mean that France has welcomed people from there with open arms.

IF
~~`
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowances for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired of waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
'Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

Edited by: Captain_Courageous cos the phone rang

This must be one of the best headlines ever.