FAO Glory hunters.

There are plenty, and I mean plenty, of towns and cities with german, dutch, french, indian, etc etc names as well. There are almost certainly as many Native names for towns, cities and states as there are from any other source.

No one is denying the importance of England in the formation of what is now the United States. However what many frequently do is deny the importance of countries like France and Spain in our history. But it's the old ssaying...the English won the wars in the new world (at least in what is now the eastern US), so they got to write the history.

And I'll repeat...it is absolutely NOT true that a majority if Americans can trace their hertiage to England.

 

Ye I agree with that, you explained it pretty well. I wasn't at any point trying to say "Most Americans are actually English so take that!!" or anything, as I explained above I was just trying to explain how America wasn't just founded by Continental Europeans and there was quite alot if not a majority of English settlers, which seemed to be being ignored.
You are right though.

 

So now you're saying History is wrong, is this really your argument?

 

Anyway I've had enough of this, I know that everything I have said is correct and that the English influence was alot stronger than any other nation, but it wasn't the only.

 

History is biased, got a time machine?

 

I presume you mean to say that the traditional model of American history is wrong, is that what I'm saying.

Much of that model is at the very least exaggerated, at worst fabricated, though I wouldn't say it's utterly wrong. It's our national patriotic fairy tale, designed to make us believe utterly that we're the greatest. most countries have something like that frankly.

 

WUM.

 

Jesus. We still bleating about this

Look, no-one's saying America is the child of mother England FFS. Stop thinking that we believe we have a claim to your heritage, we don't. We know the early influence we had and know about everyone elses influence too. The only point was that to claim there's not a large, early, influence is somewhat flawed. Granted, the more recent immigrants are bound to have an affinity with their parent culture and still claim it. Granted the early settlers now consider themseves American, just like we consider ourselves English not Norse/French/Saxon/Angle/Roman/Celt, but their influence is still here. just like there's still a large English influence there, simple fact, maybe not the largest influence but it's a substantial one. What language are we discussing this in FFS

Facts are just facts. I get the sentiment of the original arguement but we seem to have gone in circles to prove a point, which is completely off thread.

So can we stop going round in circles and get back on thread, or move this to the politics and history.

Glory hunters, you should try to support a team from somewhere you have a connection with. If you're anything like me you could claim English, Scottish, Irish, Italian, French, German, Dutch so you should be safe to choose who you want

 

Well my ancestors came from Okinawa, Taiwan, and a few small Jewish-settled villages across Eastern Europe, so I think that I get a pass on this one? I'm probably most closely related to Roman and Ben Sahar than anyone who's posted on this thread so I guess that's my excuse for supporting Chelsea.

 

Because part of your family lived in a Jewish village?

 

In Poland, where Avram Grant *shudder* and Ben Sahar are from. And Russia too somewhere along the line. You're probably more closely related to some Bolton players though than I am Chelsea players.

 

I always thought they were Israelis not Poles.. I think the only players that I'm slightly related to are Bart Goor and Cristian Poulsen.

 

They are Israelis but much like the US Israel is an immigrants country. Ben Sahar and Avram Grant both are descended from Jews that lived in Poland, not Poles, thought they might be part Polish.
I just assumed you were English sorry about the confusion.

 

Oh I am English, don't worry about it, I just named them because they are the only 2 I actually know I have links to, I'm unaware of any English players.

 

Ok, I just skipped from the front page to here...where did this debate about "f*cking yank glory hunters" go wrong?

 

Kind of when people started making things up, and I escalated it by making a mistake and typing something that also wasn't true, but at least I admitted it.

 

I honestly think the foreign fans are some of the most devoted. (Not exactly all of them are, but a good majority...especially the ones who support teams outside the "big four".)

As foreign fans, we don't even get the pleasure of going to the games on saturdays and if your like me...that drives you absolutely crazy. We are most devoted because we will go to the utmost lengths to try and find out every detail of every game(I spend a lot of time on the internet trying to find highlight clips and news on my team all the time, just because I live in a dorm room where I can't order special types of cable to watch the games live.)

And truthfully, English football would be nowhere without the foreigners. A good majority of the players in English football aren't even english (they are a combination of some of the best players in the world and without the foreigners there would be no Cristiano Ronaldo at Man U, no Carlos Tevez, no Dimitar Berbatov, no Didier Drogba, no Anderson, no Henry, no Eric Cantona, no Adebayor. There would only be English players without international influence.)

England has become the capital for the international support of football and the whole idea that "if you aren't a local than you aren't a real fan" is something that is incredibly bigoted and stupid.

Supporting a team should mean more than just being near it's stadium.

 

That may be the international view but most people in England won't agree. But you are right about the league being what it is because of foreign players yes.

But football is about supporting the team that represents you - your local team, it's not meant to be about picking a team to support yourself, because of course if I was going to pick a team I would pick one that would actually give me some happiness, but that's not right.

And I disagree 100% with your idea that foreign fans are more devoted, they are almost always there for one thing; a certain player or manager, or success, and when they don't come they jump ship. And this is kind of proven by the fact I have not seen a supporter of a team outside of the Premiership on this forum.

 

I agree with most of the things you say, but I disagree with this. Foreign fans are no different than local fans, they love their team. I jumped the Chelsea bandwagon after the WC because of the players. Now that we may lose a lot of them because of Grant, I'm still going to support Chelsea.
Also, I have met plenty of fans of foreign teams and lower division sides on here (Leeds) just look around.

 

In fact, I'm so dedicated to Chelsea that I'm skipping school just to watch us in the CL semifinals! Actually, I'm sick but this sounds better.

 

I agree with the team that "represents" but I didn't say you should choose a team because they make you happy. I am saying that most international fans choose their teams based on different things, not just how happy they make them. City has pissed me off more times than I can count and I didn't choose them "just because" like I chose them off a list from all the other teams in the premier league. Different things allow for liking and disliking clubs, and what I was saying is that living near the stadium shouldn't be the ONLY requirement to be a "real fan".

Plus, what about all of the teams that are located in the same city? National fans even have to make that decision that international fans have to make, and that is to choose which team to support, regardless of location. (and don't say that they choose based on a more detailed location such as living on the north side of a town and living on the south side. I guarantee you you will find Man City fans in Trafford even though a lot are Man U supporters.)

 

That's usually decided through family links, your grandparents and stuff would go to watch the team that their friends played for or to the one whose stadium was closer, or to the one that represented them further, such as a team for the local factory.

Really I should be a Wigan or Man City fan going off this, since my Grandad was good mates with all the Wigan team and was part of the board at a time, and then alot of his friends played for Man City such as Francis Lee and some others that I've forgotten. But really he just wanted me to be a Rugby League fan.

 

Here's a question. Say whichever big foreign team you follow play in a preseason friendly against your local team (if you have one), however small they are. Who will you want to win?

I only ask because when I was a kid I used to follow Liverpool as my big team, only on TV though, nothing major but I always made sure I watched them on TV, listened on the radio, went to a couple of games etc. But, I actually supported and went to watch Blackburn all the time, my dad's and grandad's team, went with them since I was knee high, snuck under the turnstiles and all that. But a kid needs a bit of glamour and Blackburn were crap, old 3rd division, gates of 7000, really bad.

But, when we played Liverpool in the cup there wasn't any doubt at all who I wanted to win, Blackburn. Leading up to the game I knew I wanted us to win but I was looking forward to seeing Liverpool, until I got into the ground. I hated Liverpool then, Blackburn was my family's club, it was where I was from, that's where my pride and passion was. Blackburn took over completely then, no matter how bad we were, and now Liverpool are just another big club, although I still prefer them to the others.

Not that I'm saying "you'll grow out of it", just that I was surprised by how much I really wanted Liverpool to lose that day, that's when I realised I was just a Blackburn fan when it came to it. I went mental when we went a goal up ... then Liverpool got 2 ...

 

You need John McGinlay.