I was just reminded over the weekend about Pavel Chekov, a character from the original TV show Star Trek. One of this character's endearing qualities was his wont to attribute any and all innovations, inventions, or just plain old good ideas to Russia and Russians. (My favorite being that Scotch Whisky was "inwented by a little old lady from Leningrad [sic]".) I was wondering if there was a term (eponymous or not) for this tendency? Chekovisms from a dedicated chekovista?

Or perhaps there is a broader term for "overly attributing progress to the contributions of one's native country," be it Russia, the UK, the US.

(Chauvinism doesn't do the job, for it implies patriotism.)

quote:

One of this character's endearing qualities was his wont to attribute any and all innovations, inventions, or just plain old good ideas to Russia and Russians.

I only know one that refers to the British...Richardism.

Kalleh.. what serendipity! I had the same thought process this afternoon, but did not express it. RE is Wordcrafter's Chekov.

I am reminded of the recent Dilbert cartoons with the new character, Topper.

Perhaps Munchausenism?

quote:

Originally posted by KHC:
Kalleh.. what serendipity! I had the same thought process this afternoon, but did not express it. RE is Wordcrafter's Chekov.

I also thought of Richard, but I wouldn't call it "serendipity." Coincidence, maybe, but not serendipity.

Tinman

quote:

I only know one that refers to the British...Richardism. Wink

Except that when I do it, it is usually true...

quote:

Except that when I do it, it is usually true...

It is often a matter of perception, as we have discussed before.

At any rate, I don't think it is bad to be proud of one's country.

For some reason I am reminded of a quote:
"Great men never think they are great; small men never think they are small."

Tinman

And, alas, most men never think!

quote:

"Great men never think they are great; small men never think they are small."

We've read about a few great men, who, indeed, knew they were great. I get the point, though.

Another movie character who was guilty of this tendency was the father in My Big, Fat, Greek Wedding who tried to convince anyone who would listen that all words come from Greek. I really got a kick out of his etymological analysis of the word 'kimono'. To my recollection it went something like this: 'kimono' is a kind of robe. We wear robes in the winter and the Greek word for winter is 'chimonas'(!). Another reason I got such a kick out of this was because he sounded just like my own father!

Does he carry a bottle of Windex with him as a panacea?

Love the example, muse!

Another example would be the fairly recent and popular book my Arthur Herman, titled How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World and Everything in It.

Never read it, myself, but alway giggled at the title.

quote:

Another example would be the fairly recent and popular book my Arthur Herman, titled How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World and Everything in It.

In fact, the number of Scots inventions is surprisingly large considering how small a nation it is.

But as for poorest, I would take that with a large pinch of salt. Scotland is not poor and I doubt that it has even been the poorest nation in Europe - I doubt it's even been the poorest in the British Isles for much of the time.

To museamuse's point -- I assert the Mexican dish "fajitas" is actually derived from the Greek "phagein," to eat.

Following that logic, a phagocyte is a location for a restaurant.

Probably a phast phood restaurant since they're riddle with bacteria!

quote:

me: ... the fairly recent and popular book ... titled How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World and Everything in It.
R.E.: Scotland is not poor and I doubt that it has even been the poorest nation in Europe - I doubt it's even been the poorest in the British Isles for much of the time.

Leaving aside the quibble of whether Scotland constitutes a "nation', I'd have to disagree with you, Richard. Below is the ranking of GDP per capita for the European countries and for Scotland, with "West Europe" (as defined by the old communist block) in blue.

It looks to me that the book title is essentially accurate, even if not 100% so. However, I would add that the Wales and Ireland regions of the UK do appear to be poorer than Scotland.

63,609 Luxembourg
40,005 Norway
37,663 Republic of Ireland
34,600 San Marino
33,269 Iceland
33,089 Denmark
31,690 Switzerland
31,406 Austria
30,062 Belgium
29,305 Finland
29,253 Netherlands
28,968 United Kingdom
28,889 Germany
28,205 Sweden
28,172 Italy
27,913 France
27,000 Monaco
26,800 Andorra
25,000 Liechtenstein
23,627 Spain
23,622 Scotland
20,362 Greece
20,306 Slovenia
19,633 Cyprus
19,302 Malta
19,038 Portugal
18,357 Czech Republic
15,546 Hungary
15,217 Estonia
15,066 Slovakia
Lithuania; Poland; Latvia; Croatia; Russia; Bulgaria; Romania; Belarus; Turkey; Macedonia; Ukraine; Bosnia/Herzegovina; Albania; Serbia/Montenegro; Moldova: all <13,000, and all eastern. Listed in decreasing order.

(Sources: Europe is extracted from Wikipedia's compilation of figure from from IMF and the US CIA. Separate break-down for Scotland, found here, is imperfectly comparable [it pertains to a different year] but close enough to give the gist.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wordnerd,

Scotland is a nation; it is a part of the United Kingdom but a separate country nevertherless. It has its own language, laws and parliament. Wales is also a separate country within the UK and Ireland is a totally separate country with no more connection with the UK than has Germany with France. It just happens to be part of the British Islands as the USA is part of The Americas. Northern Ireland is part of the UK although not part of Great Britain.

And your financial summary surely supports what I have said Scotland is not Europe's poorest nation by a long way - it is 21st out of the 45 you have quoted. How it compares with the other countries of the UK your list does not say but, being nearly as wealthy as Spain and more wealthy than Greece does not make it a poor country - which bears out what I said.

The author is accurate about the inventiveness of the Scots but not (in recent times at least) their poverty.

quote:

And your financial summary surely supports what I have said Scotland is not Europe's poorest nation by a long way - it is 21st out of the 45 you have quoted.

Richard, perhaps you did not understand the original comment, which referred to Scotland being the poorest nation in Western Europe, not in all of Europe, which is what you compare it to. As Wordnerd said, the title of the book is nearly true, though not "100% so." Scotland is #21 out of 25 Western nations.

I know that you like to be accurate with your facts, as do all Wordcrafters.

Folks talk about Northern, Southern, Western, Central, and Eastern Europe all the time, but it would be interesting to see the stats of what country is considered to be in which sub-division. I'm assuming that everybody would agree that Moldava is in Eastern Europe and Italy in Southern, but what about Germany? Western or Central? For that matter isn't Europe just Western Asia?

And what's the difference between a nation and a country? Used to be that nations were ethnic-cultural-linguistic entities and countries were political ones. As some of the US southern states found when they decided to hand in their membership in the USA, the reality of sovereign statehood is somewhat of a political illusion.

Also, back to the thread, wasn't there a book about how the Irish saved civilization in Europe during the Middle ages?

Putting it differently: Richard, you had disagreed with a book-title that refered to Scotland as "Western Europe's Poorest Nation". No doubt Scotland is not 'Europe's' poorest nation, but nothing of the sort had been claimed.

The exact definition of "western" Europe is somewhat debatable. Although Greece and Cyprus were included as being part of the old political western block, but they are geographically not west -- nor, to a lesser egree, is Malta. If they are treated as non-western, then Scotland ranks very near the bottom of the western countries, surpassing only Portugal (though in a virtual tie with Spain).

(Of course, one can argue whether per-capita GDP is a proper measure. For example, it does not reflect the free sun-warmth in (say) Spain or Portugal, whose residents thus persumably have far lower heating bills than do those of Scotland. )

PS to Richard: the statistics give do indeed separate the Ireland which is a fully independent country from the Ireland which is part of the UK.

Ah yes, I see I did indeed miss out the "Western" bit. But, as does zmjezhd, I query the definition of "Western Europe". Incidentally, for travel purposes (insurance groupings) the North African countries are classified as being in Europe - which adds further to the confusion.

My point about Ireland was made simply to clarify your comment. Ireland is not, as your comment "...However, I would add that the Wales and Ireland regions of the UK do appear to be poorer than Scotland...." would seem to imply, part of the United Kingdom. That is Northern Ireland. That might seem a pedantic point but the inhabitants of the island of Ireland have been fighting between themselves and with the British for centuries over the distinction.

Indeed, right now there is fighting over the Orangmen's parade - which is just one manifestation of this ancient squabble. Although I can't trace its origin, there's a saying, recently expressed as a graffito on a wall in Derry, that says, "...The British never remember Irish history and The Irish never forget it...." Although I find it hard to understand, being a great believer in letting bygones be bygones, I know that there are those to whom the injustices done to the Irish over the years are as important now as they ever were. So I try always to be accurate when discussing matters that relate to the complex, infuriating, baffling and loveable country of Ireland.

GDP, as you say, is a fallible indicator but by that measure, Scotland is far from being a poor country and is certainly not the poorest in Europe, Western Europe of even the UK. The Scots, in addition to theer being inventive, seem also prone to complaining about their lot.

It's possible to see the full GDP measures for 2002 here http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP...1-07042005-EN-AP.PDF but it is clear even from cursory analysis that the author's claim is not just slightly, but substantially, wrong.

Regional GDP in Europe ranges from the highest which is Inner London (315% of the average) and Lubelskie, in Poland (32% of the average).

Scotland as a whole is 110.6% of the European average and this figure is reduced significantly by the very poor performance of the Highlands and Islands region (where there are relatively few people, many of them subsistence farmers and fishermen)and that region's average is 77.1% of the EU average (and still not the lowest even in the UK which distinction goes to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly). All the other Scottish regions are above the EU average. The UK as a whole, incidentally, has a GDP of 115.63% of the EU average.

So, sorry, a clever title but not an accurate one.