It's mostly an east/west thing here, but I guess it depends what animal your country is shaped like.Palademon said:I think I remember something about geography saying there's usually a divide on rich and poor with North and South in most countries.
Not our "fault"... our "plan".lunncal said:Margaret Thatcher was your fault.
I'm not even British and I know that salt and malt vinegar is how you are supposed to enjoy your chips.Malty Milk Whistle said:gravy and....chips?! what madness is this?!
That line can't be right. The Midlands is NOT Northern! We're in the MIDDLE! Hence the name. We get the worst of both worlds, plus shitty accents. I'd say the line starts just south of Stoke-on-Trent.Melon Hunter said:Basically, people in the South are richer, live longer, and speak proper English, in comparison to the North. *smug face*
Seriously, though, there is a large cultural and economic divide between North and South in England. The dividing line is generally agreed to go from the mouth of the River Severn in the West, to The Wash in the East. The South East of England is the most populous and affluent region of the UK, whereas the North East and North West are amongst the most deprived.
There are numerous cultural differences as well, such as the simplistic divide between accents in the North and South (for instance, 'bath' is pronounced with a short 'a' sound by Northerners, but with a long 'a' sound by Southerners, so it sounds like 'barth'). Really, the insult probably comes from the stereotypes we have of each other; Northerners think of Southerners as posh and soft, while they are hard-working and proud of it, whereas Southerners think of Northerners as uncultured and backward (if we're talking about insults, anyway).
My view of the divide is that I was born in the right part of Britain, and no-one's going to put me down because of it. However, being born on the South Coast probably skewed that opinion a bit, as I tend to think of anywhere north of Oxford as 'Northern', including the Midlands. It's a great way to annoy someone from Birmingham, at least, if you call them Northern.
This lad knows what he's talking about!DeanoTheGod said:Woah there northern monkey... It is we who speak properly, and act civil! Down in the south west, where the real ales are found, the scrumpy tastes as good as the cream teas, and the cyder flows like the River Plym.GiglameshSoulEater said:We northerners speak proper english, not your 'baaarrrth' as you lot say.
I moved south though and the constant immersion of bad english is corrupting my accent.
In response to the topic though, I am surprised you hadn't heard all the banter being passed between the N and S! Its common place all over the country! I am in the military, and where you are from is the first thing people will banter you about! It sets the tone, and works as an easy ice breaker! Its even seen in British films (see lock stock and 2 smoking barrels for the Northern Monkeys/Southern Fairies quote.) But as I said, it is all banter, done in jest, and is just part of the British way of particularly cruel humour. You'd just better get used to it, because it won't, and shouldn't stop! It part of who we are!
Try it yourself, make fun of the northerners for anything you can! The fish and chips banter is always good for a laugh. Traditional chips in the south have salt and vinegar, where as up north they go for gravy (Or mushy peas in Yorkshire!) Try and be creative and hint at this! The amount of joke arguments about this I have had is astonishing, but always good for a giggle...!
Happy bantering... And don't let the side down!
Tears of Patriotism are spring to my eyes! I want to leap to my feet chanting Rule Britannia and waving the Union Jack!DeanoTheGod said:Woah there northern monkey... It is we who speak properly, and act civil! Down in the south west, where the real ales are found, the scrumpy tastes as good as the cream teas, and the cyder flows like the River Plym.GiglameshSoulEater said:We northerners speak proper english, not your 'baaarrrth' as you lot say.
I moved south though and the constant immersion of bad english is corrupting my accent.![]()
Face it, you just don't want to get lumped in with the rest of the salad dodgers!BlackStar42 said:That line can't be right. The Midlands is NOT Northern! We're in the MIDDLE! Hence the name. We get the worst of both worlds, plus shitty accents. I'd say the line starts just south of Stoke-on-Trent.Melon Hunter said:Basically, people in the South are richer, live longer, and speak proper English, in comparison to the North. *smug face*
Seriously, though, there is a large cultural and economic divide between North and South in England. The dividing line is generally agreed to go from the mouth of the River Severn in the West, to The Wash in the East. The South East of England is the most populous and affluent region of the UK, whereas the North East and North West are amongst the most deprived.
There are numerous cultural differences as well, such as the simplistic divide between accents in the North and South (for instance, 'bath' is pronounced with a short 'a' sound by Northerners, but with a long 'a' sound by Southerners, so it sounds like 'barth'). Really, the insult probably comes from the stereotypes we have of each other; Northerners think of Southerners as posh and soft, while they are hard-working and proud of it, whereas Southerners think of Northerners as uncultured and backward (if we're talking about insults, anyway).
My view of the divide is that I was born in the right part of Britain, and no-one's going to put me down because of it. However, being born on the South Coast probably skewed that opinion a bit, as I tend to think of anywhere north of Oxford as 'Northern', including the Midlands. It's a great way to annoy someone from Birmingham, at least, if you call them Northern.
You dang dutch! always spying on us poking fun!Combustion Kevin said:the dutch watch from overseas.
we are amused.
we cry a little on the inside too, knowing we still have so many more ethnic groups to gripe at before we turn on ourselves.![]()
Heh! Can I buy you a cream tea?Melon Hunter said:I'm from the South Coast, so to me, the Midlands are most definitely Northern. Sheffield is Northern, Manchester is very Northern, and Newcastle is so far away it may as well be in a magical kingdom of Northernness where everyone owns a whippet and the word 'the' doesn't exist.
Seconded. And then off to t'pub.kromify said:Heh! Can I buy you a cream tea?Melon Hunter said:I'm from the South Coast, so to me, the Midlands are most definitely Northern. Sheffield is Northern, Manchester is very Northern, and Newcastle is so far away it may as well be in a magical kingdom of Northernness where everyone owns a whippet and the word 'the' doesn't exist.
Yeah. I used the battle of Antietam as my main paper for college history, and the civil war for two advanced history classes in high school, so I read and found out about Britain and their policies. One could actually say that the wars turning point and end was sealed at Antietam, but that would be a stretch when you look at gettysburg. Though Antietam gave lincoln his chance to make the war about slavery, and gettysburg finalized it.Aidinthel said:You mean "intents and purposes". Sorry, but that really bothers me.emeraldrafael said:intensive purposes
Oh, thanks. I've always heard it as intensive purposes. If intents and purposes is the way to say it, then thats how I will from now on.
While I have your attention I'd like to point out that most Northern states had already outlawed slavery before the Federal government did. This was not so much due to altruism on their part as it was the idea that power corrupts and an economic system that gives people total power over the lives of other humans (even "inferior" ones) would inevitably lead to a corrupt society. In fact, before the rise of cotton plantations this was a view shared by most American intellectuals, even the slave-owning ones, who recognized slavery as a problem but argued that it should be allowed to die on it's own.
Alright. Im only saying,t he north didnt have much of a high ground in thsi saying they were staunchly against slavery and thats what this war was about. Though while looking into it for numbers to use, I did see that some of states of the north did officially have slaves up until within 20 years of the Civil war's start (including the bleeding Kansas and john brown raids of the 1850s, cause I like to think of those as part of the civil war, though war was officially declared till 1861).
Also, I believe the exact words of the Emancipation Proclamation were something along the lines that slavery was outlawed in all territories currently in rebellion. So it didn't try to apply to the rest of the world because that would be silly, but yeah it really was more a symbolic resolution than a law. Still, it served the very important function of keeping Europeans out of the conflict.
Like I said, I thought it might have said that, wasnt too sure. I just knew about the territories thing for certain. And yeah, it was more symbolic. Though it didnt totally keep them out. I know france sent some troops to both sides of the field, and although foggy, I think maybe russia sent a ship (though I could be completely wrong on that, so i wouldnt quote me). And Britain especially with the Trent affairs.
Britain passively supported the Confederacy throughout the war because they liked to buy Southern cotton to feed the large British textile industry (remember the Industrial Revolution is in full swing by this time) but it was politically impossible for them to take direct action once Lincoln made the war about slavery.
1863 was when the war became mostly about slavery. Lincoln was waiting for a big victory, and after Antietam, he knew that would be the time to issue the EP. Believe me, I'm well aware that the war was started over the debate of state's rights vs federal government control, and slavery was on the back burner. However, since there are still a lot of people who think the Civil War was only about slavery (shocking, I know), I figure it's easier to talk about it if I don't have to go into the political history right off the bat. Because, honestly, I just like talking about the battles.emeraldrafael said:Flac00 said:snipThat still doesnt excuse the north. The "border" states that allied themselves with the north were for all intensive purposes northern states, and if slavery was practiced heavily there, it still counted to the north.Macgyvercas said:snip
There's no difference in it at all, the north just wanted to ride a moral high horse so the rest of the world would look favorably on them since slavery was becoming something you didnt want to do in "developed" nations of the time, like Britain (who had outlawed slavery before the US did, yet strangely still supported the South and just waited for a chance to jump in that wouldnt look like they were backing slavery).
And no, slavery itself was not the issue, at least not totally. It came down to commerce at most, and it came down to seeds that had been sewn WAY back when the colonies were still being founded. While slavery was an issue that lincoln had heavy issues against slavery and equal rights personally, but those sentiments by and large were not shared by his fellow countrymen of the North, and especially not the south. to the North, this was a war to bring back the union to what it once was and to show solidarity as a young nation. to the south, it was a war to finally be seen just as good as the union and finally maybe be an equal.
in fact, some of the higher confederate figures, like General lee, were more "northern" in their thinking then the north themselves but they instead wanted to conitnue to believe in a confederate rather than a union that was stepping on them and hurting their economy (and not through trying to be rid of slavery) or rights as states.
Im not saying its right by any means, and Im not saying the south should have been let go and divided from, just the north wasnt totally innocent and moral like it likes to paint itself to be during the civil war and that the civil war wasnt even about slavery at heart until much later int he war (and even then, it was only against the south until the 13th amendment).
Oh, cool. Yeah, not to get on a pedestal or anything, i just kinda like to set it straight when someone talks about the civil war and the north is painted like this angelic savior of everyone (despite being someone who was born and raised in PA and makes frequent trips to Gettysburg :/)Macgyvercas said:1863 was when the war became mostly about slavery. Lincoln was waiting for a big victory, and after Antietam, he knew that would be the time to issue the EP. Believe me, I'm well aware that the war was started over the debate of state's rights vs federal government control, and slavery was on the back burner. However, since there are still a lot of people who think the Civil War was only about slavery (shocking, I know), I figure it's easier to talk about it if I don't have to go into the political history right off the bat. Because, honestly, I just like talking about the battles.emeraldrafael said:snip
Ahh, no worries. And it's cool that you were raised in PA. That's where I'm from (Erie, actually), and I have been to Gettysburg twice. And I do agree, the majority of Union generals were idiots. The North may have had a better ability to make war, but the South had people with brains.emeraldrafael said:Oh, cool. Yeah, not to get on a pedestal or anything, i just kinda like to set it straight when someone talks about the civil war and the north is painted like this angelic savior of everyone (despite being someone who was born and raised in PA and makes frequent trips to Gettysburg :/)Macgyvercas said:1863 was when the war became mostly about slavery. Lincoln was waiting for a big victory, and after Antietam, he knew that would be the time to issue the EP. Believe me, I'm well aware that the war was started over the debate of state's rights vs federal government control, and slavery was on the back burner. However, since there are still a lot of people who think the Civil War was only about slavery (shocking, I know), I figure it's easier to talk about it if I don't have to go into the political history right off the bat. Because, honestly, I just like talking about the battles.emeraldrafael said:snip
And yeah, me too. I mean, its my favorite war, right after WW2 (not in a creepy way, just a historical way). Actually, it always strikes me as funny that a battle that pretty much ended in a draw at best, and proof that the Union had some really... less than stellar generals can be considered a "big" victory, but then again, after seeing what it did, it makes sense. XD
anyway, yeah. didnt mean to come off as a dick or anything, just saw your post and that irked me for some reason I have no idea of and felt a need for clarification. sorry.