In Australia we get one that cannot fly or walk backwards. Also Wales missing from the list - always thought it had the Red Kite as the national bird.
Ben Franklin thought that the Bald Eagle was a poor choice for a national bird. Read this excerpt from a letter he wrote to his daughter. The Cincinnati of America was a society formed by American and French officers that fought together in the Revolution. Typical of Franklin to think that much about a national bird and turn it into something political to boot. France , January 26, 1784 “For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen the Representative of our Country. He is a Bird of bad moral Character. He does not get his Living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labour of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him. With all this injustice, he is never in good case but like those among men who live by sharping & robbing he is generally poor and often very lousy. Besides he is a rank coward: The little King Bird not bigger than a Sparrow attacks him boldly and drives him out of the district. He is therefore by no means a proper emblem for the brave and honest Cincinnati of America who have driven all the King birds from our country… I am on this account not displeased that the Figure is not known as a Bald Eagle, but looks more like a Turkey. For the Truth the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America… He is besides, though a little vain & silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on.”
Lichfield in Staffs has a plaque claiming it's 84 miles from the sea, but it seems it depends on what you define as the sea.
Although Australia is a massive country (continent) most people live much closer than 70 miles from the sea. If you add up all the people who live in the coastal cities it must be 90+% of the population.
I don't know what that has to do with my statement but in reply I would quote "A faint heart never kissed a Guinea Pig"!
Think he was a bit off the mark on this one, giving a bird a human moral code but I guess that's what people used to do before TV and radio, write long-winded letters about nothing!
I did. When someone living in Australia makes a comment about 70 miles being the furthest point in England away from the sea, it suggests that this is a remarkably short distance given they come from a large country where you could probably (totally guessing) get 1,000 miles from the sea. Thats how I read it anyway. When you read it like that, his answer makes sense. Now you've queried his answer, we can assume you didn't mean it in that context, which brings the whole relevance of your own initial comment into question. Just saying like ...
Actually about 570 miles, near a place called Papunya in the Northern Territories. Went there from Alice Springs many years ago on a bush trip.
Letters like that really make one think that the art of conversation has deteriorated. Its not like he had a word processor or went through multiple drafts. It says something about the man and a skill that seems to be lacking nowadays.
What did people talk about back then when there was no association football though? Even the men probably had to talk about bonnets and things like that with the women.
I took it from a comment that Micheal Caine made! His mate, Sean Connery, said that Michael was the keeper of "the most useless bits of information" that ever lived! Good guess - 1245.5 miles to be exact. England would fit into Victoria alone by the way.
I wonder if that is actually true (the art of conversation deteriorating) if anything I think all the media now (TV/Radio/Internet) has probably helped people to communicate better. I think the art of letter-writing has declined since the advent of email though, that's for sure, simply because people don't need to write letters to people and can talk as we are doing now from thousands of miles away.
Right on! And they'd probably know how to grow their food, make beer and and play cricket before that American version of rounders became popular.
Perhaps we could differentiate between increasing the ability to communicate and the type of communication that existed then. One would need to think about the fact that only the most educated people of the times communicated in that form at all. That form of communication is almost poetry in nature and not simply attempting to get a point across. Then there are actual poets from England who during the 1700's are writing actual poetry to friends in the form of a letter. Certainly one would assume that the average Joe in the 1700's probably neither had the skills to write nor the command of the language to write in such a manner. I think that communication has perhaps not kept up with the ease of communication now. Think about this form, sure we have the ability to communicate thousands of miles away but the form of the communication leads to misunderstanding and arguments that would probably never occur if we were in the same room. It seems to harden opinions and leave little room to be swayed where as a discussion in person would allow opinions to be altered. Twitter is another interesting example what is it 140 characters or something? For that to be an effect method of communication everyone would have to be experts in Haiku. They say that 90% of human communication is non verbal which leads one to wonder how much of what we are saying to each other is simply not being said at all. I am not a linguist nor an anthropologist but something seems to be changing and one wonders if it is in fact for the better.
