Transcript of the Annual Meeting of the English Language War Naming Commission
A humorous vignette
Author’s note: The following is either a work of satire or an actual transcript I received when I was accidentally included in a Signal chat group. You decide.
UK: Welcome, gentlemen, to the annual meeting of the English Language War Naming Commission.
Canada: Where’s the representative from Australia?
UK: We haven’t forgiven them for the last Ashes … or the one before that, or the one before that, or the one before that.
US: Do you get to make that call? Given that we have the most people, it seems like we hold the cards and should get to chair this meeting.
UK: We hold this chair upon precedent as the originators of our common tongue. Now, gentlemen, let us proceed to business. There have been many great conflicts in history, and they are not going to name themselves. Take this one, for instance: a war involving most of the major European powers and lasting from 1618-1648.
Canada: What were they fighting over?
UK: Religion, except when they weren’t. Then sometimes they fought over succession. If that failed they fought over economics or that most traditional of war aims: greed.
US: This war doesn’t seem to involve us, so we don’t care what it’s called.
UK: It didn’t involve us either. We were too busy fighting amongst ourselves.
Canada: Well, it lasted from 1618 to 1648, so why don’t we just call it the Thirty Years’ War?
UK: Very well, Thirty Years’ War. Now, what about this one? It might be more to the Yank’s liking. A war between the major European powers, but which also involved action on the North American continent, lasting from 1756 to 1763.
Canada: Logically, we should call that one the Seven Years’ War.
US: No, we actually care about this one. It had George Washington in it. Any chance we can call it something else? Maybe something non-DEI? How about the French and Indian War?
Canada: I’m sorry. Do you think this war was fought between France and India? Or are you referring to First Nations peoples in an outdated and somewhat offensive manner?
US: First Nation is a bank, not a war. First National. Look it up, Canuck. We’re sticking with French and Indian War.
Canada: And we aren’t budging from the Seven Years’ War.
UK: Very well. I shall write down Seven Years’ War, but the Yanks are welcome to call it whatever they like. Now, this one’s a bit trickier: a dynastic conflict involving the rival houses of Valois and Plantagenet for the throne of France, with multiple active phases between 1337 and 1453.
Canada: Hundred Years’ War. Easy.
US: Oh, what is it with you guys and numbers? And it isn’t even a hundred year difference! It’s … (thinks very hard) … Sorry, we’ve fallen down a bit in the international tables for math knowledge.
UK: Maths.
US: Yes, that’s what I said: math. You should see to that lisp though.
Canada: Surely, we can just round it off to a hundred years!
UK: But gentlemen, should we not assign a different name to each of the individual periods of conflict rather than counting them all as a single war? For example, there was no fighting between 1389 and 1415.
US: Yeah, this kind of seems like your thing, England. We weren’t part of it.
UK: Must I remind you that I represent the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? England is but one part of that.
US: It’s the same thing as Britain, though. I’m sure you don’t go to the Irish bit.
UK: They are not the same—oh, what’s the use? Let’s move on.
Canada: Any chance we can do a Thousand Years’ War?
UK: Only if we counted the efforts to remove sewage from the Thames. But why must you have a conflict by that name?
Canada: Because when we pronounce “ou,” people realize we aren’t American.
US: You will be soon enough!
UK: Gentlemen, we are here to name conflicts, not start them. What about the two massive global wars of the twentieth century, the first lasting 1914-1918 and the second 1939-1945?
Canada: World War One and World War Two, obviously.
US: Wait a minute. Weren’t they really just one big war with an intermission period?
Canada: No, they were clearly two different wars. Boo!
US: It seems like we should get to name them, since we actually fought in them.
Canada: We fought in them too! BOO!
US: Really? We don’t remember you being there.
UK: I can assure the representative from the United States that the Canadians were indeed there.
Canada: Thank you!
US: Ah, whatever. World War One and World War Two, and we can abbreviate them using Roman numerals.
Canada: You know how to use Roman numerals?
US: We pull them out occasionally, for Super Bowls and such.
Canada: Alright. Fine by us.
UK: Actually, I’m not sure we can go along with this one. It seems much more sensible to call it the Second World War rather than World War Two. It’s a conflict of historic proportions, not a straight-to-video sequel.
US: No, that doesn’t make any sense at all. How could you make that into a Roman numeral?
UK: While I must admit my delight that you are taking an interest in Classics, the Arabic numeral system will do us just fine.
US: Arabs?! Where?! Send in ICE!
Canada: That’s it. We’re unleashing the geese on you. That’s right: the Canada Geese!
UK: Not the Canada Geese! Even we can’t get rid of them!
US: Their poop is probably full of fentanyl. Typical Canadians!
Canada: We won’t stand for this!
US: You don’t stand for anything but socialism!
Canada: You can’t stand for anything at all, you’re so fat!
US: Well, boo yourself! We’re smacking you with a 25% tariff!
Canada: We see your 25% and raise you to 50%!
UK: Gentlemen, I am afraid I cannot allow you to start a trade war until we name it.
Canada: The War of National Liberation!
US: The War to Make Canada America!
UK: Very well. I shall write down “The War Between Two Countries That Really Ought to Still Be Britain.”
PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE:
“The Triumph of the Kingdom of God” at 1517
Oh love it!!! 😂👍
Too funny! 😂