Well they died by the thousands to protect your homeland, I guess they deserve at least a line in your History book, don't they ?

I'm more interested in the whole of Britain though. Not just a tiny section. Even then World War I wouldn't be that interesting because I've already studied it numerous times and I am learning nothing new.

I would of probably of said the same thing when I was in school, but try to remember the whole point of the thread is keeping it respectful. Saying "nobody cares apart from them" about the deaths of over a 140,000 soldiers from any country is not really a fair statement.

They fought for the whole of Britain alongside our other nations and allies. We did not cover WW1 much when I was in school but for WW2 we learned about everything from the Ghurkas to the French Resistance to the Tuskegee Airmen. So I always thought it was great to learn about more than just my own individual countrys actions.

To be fair though if they are covering it numerous times then thats the fault of your teachers/curriculum and perhaps they should be a bit more inventive as there s a fair bit of history to learn about especially in relation to the UK. I would get bored too.

I have a question for people from other commonwealth countries.

How is the royal family & the concept of the commonwealth viewed in your various countries? Do most people even care?

Here in Canada we have some people that are pretty anti-monarchy(Quebec, Newfoundland, Many Natives & Acadians) and everyone else doesn't really care at all.

Most people don't really care at all, but there are some who are proper Royalists - they are very much in the minority though. There's a small minority that are very anti Royal Family too.

I don't mean about World War I in particular, I mean that nobody cares about any history relating to Scotland. Even the history teachers were annoyed that we were forced to do something Scottish for such a silly reason ("people are forgetting our heritage"). I do appreciate the sacrifices that were made here but when the majority of the sources and information are "actually English but applied to Scotland as well" it seems pretty pointless just focussing on Scotland.

Okay, new question, especially for people from the Czech Republic.

I friend of mine wants to do his PhD there and was offered EUR 200 a month. Now he was wondering whether that would be enough to survive out there. I myself was in CR a few years ago and although the beers were quite cheap, I'm not sure if with the joining of the EU, prices are still as reasonable. Do you guys have any comments and references to price-indexes?

Are we talking about Prague here? There's a significant difference between prices in Prague and outside. Assuming it's Prague, if he gets the cheapest accommodation, which is the student's dormitory (kolej), it could barely work. Otherwise, this sort of money will cover his rent and leave him with just a pittance. It's survivable, I suppose, but frankly, it's not very good.

By the by, my GF (Czech) is currently studying for her PhD in Prague and she gets about EUR 360, which in my understanding is roughly the average; so the 200 really does seem low.

That's what I asked him. :) He's from Mexico, so he's used to doing much with a little money. But to me it seemed a bit low as well, unless they also pay separately for your room.. Thanks for the helpful response!

Yeah, that could make a world of difference. I would probably decline this offer myself, but in my experience, Mexicans are both very friendly and very crafty people; chances are he'll manage.

As a Southern girl, I was raised that the Confederacy was simply outmatched and outmaneuvered in the conflict. My impression was there were times when it could have been called either way, if there had been one or two key things that had gone differently-- namely, if the South had had some kind of international backing in the way of a supply train, or if there North had fewer folks immigrating in. The South had miserable supplies and the truth was there was a superiority in numbers concentrated in the North. The whole problem with the war to start with was the difference in the supply system of the south and that in the north, as the north was much more commercially viable. That said, If the Southern generals had chosen targets for a stand and hold position, they could have perhaps made the cause too costly in lives and resources for the North to feel like continuing. It would not have been a decisive military victory, but it could have been a popular consensus - emotional one. Since the whole conflict was about economics and traditional values, I think eventually, if the South had won, they would have succumbed to international pressure and the whole slavery issue would have only lasted perhaps another 20-40- years. Perhaps ,I like to think anyway, had things gone this way, and the South had not be vilified, then maybe the whole of the race-riots and 1960's movement could have been avoided. Maybe even things like discrimination and racially biased lending practices would never have had the chance to occur. It still boggles my mind that we have so many slums in cities in the North, and that poverty for Southerners and for people of color seems to be an issue that was never resolved by the way it all turned out. I have no idea if I am typical or not though.

I can tell you it makes a difference who you ask about this. I had a teacher who was supposed to teach the civil war , but in that class I learned how to field dress a deer and where the best turkey shoot nearby was. I still after 30 years have yet to use that information. Some Southerners still hold to the idea that the South could have been its own independent country, but I always felt that was a narrow view that could never be true with the world economy the way it was then (1860's) and the way it is now. The stereotypes about trucks with a gun rack and the Confederate flag in the window are not stereotypes, in some places they really are real. I grew up in one of those places and dated several of those guys.

A question to our friends from the US: Just out of curiosity, where do the names of your big political parties come from?
As far as I'm aware, and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic]Republic are forms or government that are not opposite but can happily coexist (e.g. in a representative democracy or constitutional republic, if you like)...

I have learned english playing mmos, and later on, reading forums.

I'm not American, but Wikipedia is a good resource for that type of history. According to it, they're both roundabout offshoots of the so-called Democratic-Republican party, that label being mostly a historical convenience. There's a bit of information about the name here, which is the likely source of the names of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

Most of all, it seems the Democratic-Republicans were recognized by either label (democrats or republicans) because they advocated an open republic or democracy, in contrast to the contemporary Federalist party, who wanted a strong centralized government.