I live in Canada, ZEN, and I was born here -- though, I have both UK and Kenyan citizenship along side my Canadian.

However, you're right. Pearl Harbor is a proper noun and should no be spelled any other way no matter where one lives. "Harbor" just doesn't look like a real word to me.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

proper noun denotes ones capitalization, or at least the toronto district school board taught me. the our or or comes from the norman invasion of england back well before any of us were born. whether it comes from french or latin decent. i would also like t point out i failed that english class due to lack of attendance. irony?

it would be considered pearl harbor because it is distinctly american, which avoids the our as opposed to or whenever possible (troubadour, for example, in america, is still troubadour)

but again, as i mentioned, i failed that english class (so forgive me if i'm wrong, i just understand it it to be so)

(far less of a clue than fooglmog who clearly has one)

its harbour, not harbor...

i don't care what you say!:p

Sort of Braden.

"proper noun denotes ones capitalization" is reversed. We use capitalization to denote that something is a proper noun.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think the "-our" ending dates back to the Norman invasion. In Middle English (the English developed immediately following the Norman invasion), the word was most frequently spelled "harber".

My assumption is that the spelling "harbour" developed directly from a reduction of the word "harborough", which then became obsolete.

As for the word "harbor", I'm sure we have Noah Webster to thank for that desecration of the English language.

Back to the earlier point though... the fact that it's a proper noun does indeed dictate the "Pearl Harbor" is the only correct spelling. When dealing with proper nouns, regionalistic spellings don't apply. The assigned spelling is what matters.

For example, my first name is "Jonathan". In other regions, the same name is spelled "Jonathon"... however if I were to visit such a reason, it would not be correct to spell my name "Jonathon".

The same applies to all proper nouns. You have to use the assigned spelling. If the name of "Pearl Harbor" was, in fact, "Perl Herber" but pronounced the same way... that would then be the correct spelling, even though neither word is spelled that way in general usage language.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Foog.

I really have nothing against Canadians. Other than you are Canadian. I am just relieved that I properly guessed your origin. Regardless of citizenship or ethnic background.

That being said. Can you foreigners please just start anti-American threads so I don't have to read between the lines? We Americans ain't to smrt, I reckon. It's like me talking about "Air India Flight 182" and asking you why I can find 102,000 sources on a Google search when this clearly happened 26 years ago. (Ok maybe that is a stretch, but I couldn't think of anything to recently compare. Not quite as bad as the Berlin wall reference though.)

I understand you can't stand us. Heck, I can't stand a good majority of us either. The bottom line is this, you aren't American. You telling us it doesn't effect your heart strings isn't surprising. You telling us that you are sick of hearing it isn't surprising.

How about this. I will personally mourn the 24 Canadians who died in the 9/11 attacks, starting now, for a week each. I know that a week might not be long enough to really dedicate to someone for being murdered in a terrorist attack, but I guess you can call me callous and cold-hearted. I will do this on one condition of course. You give each of the 2,740 Americans 48 hours of grief. Heck, you can claim to have mourned since the very day it happened. I won't even dispute it. So you have another four years to suck it up, stfu, and mourn.

Do I think it is a greater tragedy than the multiple wars in our history? Absolutely not. Do I even consider it a greater tragedy than any of the terrorist attacks in other countries? Sure don't.

But heck, maybe that is the difference between us. You know us ignorant Americans. My value of human life isn't going to decrease as denoted by 24/7 news coverage. I guess I am just lame like that.

Not let's go completely hypocritical because I can't help myself. I sure do hope we get a 9/11 free day! Right after we have an ignorant piece of fluff Canadian free day!

And yes. I am smiling. So don't take it too personal. Canadian scum.

Love,

ZEN
The Bleeding Heart
*tear*

Sorry.....

Let me finish with a.....

YEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAW!

*shoots guns in the air*

Gonna go hit my wife, after I get off my McDonalds shift!

umm....and i'm fat.

I don't think it's a nationalistic thing Zen. I suspect that I felt the same way on 9/11 as most Americans did. I think what this comes down to is my view on a healthy grieving process.

Let me shrink the scale a little bit here for the sake of comparison.

I'm dating a girl right now who's sister died about 2 years ago. I know that she still thinks about her sister, misses her sister, and grieves for her sister and, in my opinion, this is only right. The loss of her sister is probably the most significant personal event in her life up until now. But, her sister's death isn't at the centre of her life. She doesn't dwell on it, and it's not the determining factor in how she chooses to live her life... or a conscious part of her decision making process.

In other words, she's made it a part of her past instead of her present.

To me, that defines a healthy grieving process. You're changed by the tragic event, but it's not the only thing that matters in your life like it was while the event itself was taking place.

This is the step that the US media has refused to take. It dwells on 9/11 like you do when a family member is dying in hospital... when it should move on like you would years after that family member is gone.

That's not to say it's a taboo subject. I don't hate discussion about other tragic events. As long as it's allowed to become part of the past and isn't clung to as to defining part of the present.

To me, it seems like the US has been stuck in the same part of the grieving process as it was on October 11th, 2001. Maybe I'm wrong to blame the media, and they're stuck there because the nation is. But the sense that I get is the opposite -- that it's the media's obsession with 9/11 that's holding the country from moving on with a healthy process of grief.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Hmmm we need to start some 24/7 Canadian news channels that mention the war of 1812 and the burning of the American Capitol every day... that was one of the more eventful things in canadian history! :)

Also mentioned daily will be Vimmy Ridge and the Oilers cup streak. And Dieppe.

As I previously said, 9/11 is current events. It started two wars (so far), wars that are still ongoing.

I'm sorry, that didn't quite come out as what I wanted to say. The Bomb did indeed shorten the WW2 and most probably stopped WW3 before it even started. The targets however, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were irrelevant from a strategic point of view. Could have been anything else.

Rufus, I already pointed out the error of that suggestion. Every on-going event has an antecedent event which can be directly linked to it.

This does not, however, mean that the antecedent event is still "current". Previously, I gave the example of the declaration of independence not being a "current event" despite the fact that it is a direct antecedent to America's existence (which continues).

Another, more timely, comparison might be this: The assassination of Anwar Sadat is a historical event, not a current event, even though it is a direct antecedent to Hosni Mubarak's presidency (which continues).

History is the study of the events that have led us to where we are. Despite the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, 9/11 fits into this definition. If we ignore this definition, and accept yours, then every event in history becomes part of "current events" and the term becomes meaningless.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Fooglmog, the examples you suggested do not really fit. Declaration of Independence directly lead to a war with the British Empire, war that came to a conclusion with the decisive win for US of A. It is a major event indeed, but not "current" anymore. It's done. The Queen doesn't send redcoats over the Atlantic and doesn't try to regain the colonies back.

9/11 does not fit into your definition yet. As long as these kind of attacks are still possible (London 2005 for example) this is not part of history, but, sadly, part of current events.

London 2005 is not given the same treatment as 9/11... it's become part of history.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Oh btw. I liked this clarification.

Even though I had already gathered your intention from the first post, I just like it put in to better terms. Where it doesn't seem like a deliberate downplay of a pretty major event for Americans (Yes I do understand it was a major event to multiple countries as well) in the past 50 years.

Last thought really. Where I don't disagree with the point you are trying to make, (trying not to be too cliche here)I also don't think that Americans should ever forget this event happened. Especially in a country that is fascinated with things like Jersey Shore, American Idol, and Survivor. Perhaps we DO need a reminder every 24 hours or we end up living in a fantasy world where nothing bad happens to us.

wow, really?

9/11 - 2,751 dead ~6,000 injured

London 2005 - 56 dead ~700 injured

you really wondering why the London attacks haven't received as much attention? they are in completely different leagues. Both were horrible and despicable acts of terrorism yes, but no where CLOSE to the same league.

In addition, i believe the term "Post 9/11" is what you might be hearing about and what not. This term is used CONSTANTLY as a all encompassing description of the events that were triggered from the attack, from the Afgan and Iraq wars, to the security changes and patriot acts.

my understanding was that the french in english was due to the normans, i guess i was wrong.

both pearl and harbour are common nouns, but Pearl Harbor is a proper noun. i would still type harbour any time not referencing the american naval base.

":he our or or comes from the norman invasion of england back well before any of us were born. whether it comes from french or latin decent."

so that would then be an untrue statement, -or or -our has nothing to do with where the word will have originated?

(this references earlier in the thread)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-or

that really didn't help explain it any further, i think i'm just more confused than before :P

No. You have my quote right there mrford, you can see for yourself that I didn't ask why that event has not received the same treatment.

Rufus brought up the London 2005 attacks. All I did was mention that my original point (that no event in history has received similar treatment) applied in that case too.

This is true for any comparison you care to make. Personally, I can't think of an event that's been as obsessively discussed and references even 2 years after it took place as 9/11 is today.


You're making my point for me. The fact that so many things fall under the umbrella of "post 9/11" demonstrate how we've let it become the focus of the world. We dwell on it. We try to tie everything we view as important back to 9/11.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Oy. Foog, enough already. You made yer point, move on.

ZEN: </3 :( I am Canadian, you dirtbag. Now yer off my Xmas list. And I had such plans for us, too.

And now my two cents:

9/11 was the first terrorist attack on American soil, and it was devastating. It killed thousands, injured thousands more, and the first responders are still dropping dead from disease caused by the contaminants they encountered that day. It changed the entire fabric of the US - it made them suspicious, security conscious, it took away their safe haven, and I'm betting there aren't even 3 degrees of separation between every U.S. citizen and someone who died that day (or since). To question how often it appears in the news is just, well, rude. Stop picking at scabs, dude... it's unbecoming.

Patience, I created this thread to discuss a specific view that I hold. I recognize that it may be somewhat controversial, but I don't think I've been particularly insensitive in the way that I've broached the subject.

If no one else has any desire to discuss this, fine. I'll move on. However, as long as people continue to ask questions about; misunderstand; or attack my view point: I will continue to inform, correct and defend.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

was far from the first terrorist attack on American soil. it wasnt even the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center

Kinda wondering something...if your view is that 24/7 news agencies won't stop reminding everyone about 9/11, then why not just turn off the news, and either watch something else on TV or do anything else?

Because I firmly believe ignorance ought to be eschewed, and such news agencies are a good source for specific kinds of information.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

mrford: Forgive me. Perhaps I should have said first MAJOR terrorist attack on American soil.

forgiven

You missed my point. And you're also wrong. There were many events that marked the human history. LEt's just pick one random event, you probably hear terms like BC or CE or AD all the time.

Indeed, you probably don't hear "Berlin wall fall" every second day but that's because you live in Canada(?) and Europe especially Eastern Europe is on the other side of the globe. I don't get 9/11 references as often as you do, because I do live on the other side of the earth; I do however encounter "post-communism" and I don't complain. Actually, as one who experienced both eras I'm quite happy that we/they don't let it sink. Too many memories and debts haven't been repaid in full yet.

I'm not sure that pointing out BC and AD really helps you, since the designation was not universally accepted due to Jesus being born in 1 AD, but rather because the Church insisted on its use several hundred years later. Yet, even when we discuss BC or AD in the context you describe, the influence of the Church at that time is rarely touched on--nor should it be, as it's old news no matter how important it was and is to our modern world.

That one had me laughing, I agree. Try a book called "Political Ponerology".



Mainland Japan was very well defended. Religiously, every member of Japanese society was responsible to die for the emperor. With the Russian peace talks, the United States would have been left alone to invade mainland Japan alone. Projection on total American losses ranged from 1 to 2 million people. It would have cost the United States more lives that the rest of WWII.

You seem to think that Japan would have began peace talks with the United States but the demands from Russia were much different than those of the United States. The U.S. was an ally of then dictatorial China and wanted Japan to disarm, a clear divergence of the Russians who wanted peace with Japan so they could extend their control over Eastern Europe.

The nuclear bombs dropped on Japan killed approximately 300,000 people, far less than the population losses would have been given an invasion (for both Japan and the United States). You should try reading up on this topic before you comment. Otherwise you are only pushing an agenda of proliferating propaganda.

fooglemog: Germany/Russia hostilities go back considerably more than 100 years although it's harder to trace that because "germany" as such did not exist prior to the 1880s and the various german speaking entities were not on the same side.


Regarding the atomic bomb debate: the US army was bluffing anyway. They didn't have another atomic bomb after the second one and at that point they didn't think they would be able to make another one for at least 2 years. In any case what exactly is the point of controversy here:

1) the US used a new weapon in WW2? Most powers used new and scary weapons throughout the course of the war including V1 rockets, fighter bombers, flame throwers, and a bunch of other stuff.

2) the destruction caused by those weapons? many other actions in WW2 resulted in more civilan casualties and more general indescrimate destruction (both sides: tokyo, dresden amongst others)

3) the targetting of civilian population? WW2 was a total war, everything was a legitamite target. The americans were not the first to target a civilian center during WW2 nor was this the first action were the americans did. In fact all sides did it continuously from 1939 onward. In fact that Japanese were doing it in china prior to the outbreak of WW2 (see shanghai for example).

4) The lasting damage caused by the radiation? Possibly. Although i believe that unexploded WW2 ordinance injures people every day throughout the word or was doing so until at least the mid 80s. They are still digging that crap up and will be doing so for many years to come.

The sheer amount of death and destruction for ww2 eclipses anything else in human history before or since. Even Mongols didn't come anywhere close.
60-80 million people killed about 3% of the world population killed (global population as at 1939 was roughly 2.3 billion) . Keep in mind that this is with the invention of antibiotics which cut the mortality rate from wounds by at least 2/3rds.