What is the U.K. thinking?

Remove all ads!

Okay, so others get to poke fun at the U.S. all of the time and now it's our turn to take a shot at the U.K.

The BBC recently conducted a poll of Britons to determine the "greatest Britons in history." What a screwy list it was.

For example, Princess Di is #3 on the list. What's with the worship of Di over there? She was hardly a Saint (as recent interviews with the butler make more and more clear) and she beats out Darwin, Shakespeare, Newton etc.

There are three Beatles on the list and Johnny Rotten but no Keats, Yeats, Wordsworth or Byron.

One of my favorites is King Arthur made the list. Now, I know there were some King Arthurs but really, if the U.S. makes a similar poll can we vote for Paul Bunyan? Where can we rate Babe the Blue Ox?

edited to add link:

http://theinternetforum.co.uk/bbc/britons1.html

[ November 28, 2002, 18:28: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Yes, I saw that list a few days ago. It's twisted, but not altogether surprising. I never understood what the deal was with Diana. IMO she did nothing worthy of including here among the top-100 britons.

Her work for banning anti-personnel mines was misdirected and has turned out more bad than good.

There's no doubt that some of the most important persons in history were britons and putting Diana on the top-10 is insulting.

These kind of polls show how ignorant the general population is more than actually providing a "correct" result.

[ November 28, 2002, 19:00: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]

 

Heh, Churchill made number 1, sorry brittons but he ain´t really a saint:

Got it from the site of the Guardian

*poke* *poke*

[ November 28, 2002, 19:59: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

the reason why diana was so high up the list is because she was so charitable
nelson mandela said " i vividly recall our meeting when she visited south africa a year ago and her burning desire to assist the h.i.v positive children in africa.she was undoubtably one of the greatest ambassadors of great britain."
imran khan said "there was hardly a non muslim who worked in a non muslim country with as much dedication as diana demonstrated for the sick and poor in pakistan.

 

Well in my opinion the whole world's gone mad. It should have been people like the man who invented the spitfire (saved Britain during the war) who should have been on that list. Shows like Big Brother get huge ratings, when all it is, is some people SLEEPING!!!

 

I think it just goes to show how short an attention span the average person has these days, and how little they know of our history in Politics, Sciences (in particular!) and the arts.

I have no objection to Churchill, in fact he would probably have been my vote. He was not a nice man, but he was an unyielding leader when the UK was in it's greatest hour of need. He did it "his way" and it worked. Nuff said.

Princess Di did indeed work hard for charities etc, but she is not fit to be considered for lasting greatness in the same league as Churchill, Newton, Darwin, Nelson, Shakespeare etc. She will not be remembered for what she achieved, and that is the true mark of greatness. Your achievements stand out long after you're gone.

Was that the Telly Tubbies at number 42?

 

Just read the list....

William Wallace
Robert the Bruce

WTF?????? Aint it a disgrace for them to be put in a list of a nation they fought against....

 

the main problem is that some english people DONT think!

Padeen!(This post is really gonna get me some trouble)

 

Not really as they were also britons, perhaps not englishmen but they were britons and it was britons that were listed.
I have to chime in on the common view here that peoples attentionspan is horrible short and their knowledge is sorely lacking. I wouldnt even say that Churchill is something really special, the UK had been in war before and just as threathened then as it was in WW2. But he was a great leader nonetheless but I wouldnt say that he should be the greatest briton. I dont know who the leader was during the Napoleon wars but Britain was as threathened then as it was by Hitler, if not more. But I have no idea who the leader was at the time, only some of the generals and admirals.

 

Britts are very queer folk.

But then, to the Britts, Americans are very queer folk.

All I know is I saw two Britts with litesabers in Reign of Fire. What the heck were they thinking?

And what was the deal with Di and the butler? Was she mean to him, or something?

 

Oh, the butler comment was probably off base. I really haven't bothered to read any of it, just heard a bit on television when I have been unable to avoid it. I don't THINK she was implicated in the alleged cover up of the rape by the royal family. I think the stuff about her was limited to walking about naked under fur coats and the like. Neither here nor there.

The fact that Di came in at #3 though is the silliest form of hero worship. Kinda like if the U.S. voted Jordan #3. Or if mere donations to charity are enough I suppose Bill Gates is there with the largest charity in the world. I dunno.

I would hesitate to put any political leader high on a list though. That's because their "greatness" is a function of the circumstances they find themselves in. That goes for Churchill in the U.K, Lincoln in the U.S. etc. I'm not sure any decent P.M. at the time couldn't have steered England through the war, and not have the overt racist stigma attached to him. It was the time that made him great. Same can be said for Lincoln who is often thought to be among the greatest U.S. presidents. Any competent U.S. president should have lead the North and its vastly superior resources to victory in the Civil War. Same for F.D.R.....

In short, I'm leery of ranking politicians too high on any such list.

 

I haven't actually heard the list but the reason it's probably so twisted is that people think of the people that made an impact.

Sure the people who are in the list may not have been good at all ( ) but they still had titles and most people will remember them by the good that was publicised when they were alive or just gone. That is how most peopel remember things. Remember - this is the british voting and America and everywhere else might not have heard the same, or view them in the same way.

As it goes - the news to one country can make an impact while in the nect it won't make a dent. In the end - they all did something for the country. That itself is what the people remember

 

If there's a US one, Samuel L Jackson and Yoda had better come in the top 3, or there is gonna be all hell to pay.

 

Just for the record, I myself would rather be a communist than a nazi. At least being a communist doesn't guarentee you a spot in hell.

Anyway,

I point out that the reason people are obsessed with Di is because
1. She was (considered by some people) hot
2. She married the prince
3. She died.

I agree with Morgoth, in that anyone who has taken history - oh let's not kid ourselves. Anyone who has seen Braveheart knows that William Wallace was Scottish, and took great pride in not being British.

And I myself personally believe that all of humanity is out of it's ****ing mind, so one weird country doesn't make a difference.
It's just a drop of odd in an ocean of insane.

[ November 30, 2002, 00:45: Message edited by: The Soul Forever Seeking ]

 

Hmm. Over here nobody really cared about the list, and hardly anyone voted anyway. I can see your points about Di, though: She didn't deserve to be with those others. I guess Churchill got my vote, except that I didn't actually phone in. Ah well!

@Padeen: Don't worry, it's true!

[ November 30, 2002, 00:57: Message edited by: Veralius ]

 

being british, i would have voted general wellington, but he wasnt an option,

with regards to the article, mogroth, could you have found a more bias article, there have been many bias articles in the guardian, which is why is it no longer the favoured broadsheet it once was;

churchill, from the list given, yes, he would have got my vote, he was a great man who can be traced back to activities in cuba long before the war in europe, which explains his cuban cigar fad, he certainly had the same views as me with regards to the germans, except he showed too much remorse for his actions, after the bombing of dresden, he called off british bomber commands action of the complete destruction of berlin (which with the air superiority we had we could have easily done) to the bombing of german positions in normandy for the pre american invasion because he didnt want to see another 200000 lives lost, the 50000 lost in dresden was enough for him.
from churchills point of vies, we were fighting a war caused by america, which history records s actually true, churchill called for america to join 'its war' many times, which america didnt until they were actually hit by force, in teh build up to the war though america were one of the major deciding factors when it came to going to war, on the other hand america didnt see it that way and didnt hold up to its obligations to fight if war broke out

churchill wasnt a mad man, he wasnt a killer, he was a thinker, he was a great leader and he helped a country though a time of need, something a country of people cant understand until they are bombed to dust, when they know they may not make a trip to the store to find food because the store isnt there anymore;
to anyone who wants an idea of what ww2 was like to the british being bombed into the ground i suggest that if you ever visit london, you visit the international war museum, there is a good display there about ww2, the conditions people had to live in, moral was nonexistent in the UK, churchill gave them hope, and in the end, he gave them vicrory

[ December 01, 2002, 03:58: Message edited by: Shoshino ]

 

actually The soul forever seeking it says in the bible that it is harder to take an elephant thrue a needle-eye than a rich man to come to heaven... so you are exactly right... NO i am not a communist i am an extreme-socialist...

 

@Ivanji it's camel not elephant.

And on topic i'm british and i didnt watch any of the arguments for each person, nor did i vote. It was just a quick rating buster. I don't even know, or care about the result.

 

The "eye of the needle" was the name for a type of archway back then. You *could* get a camel through it, but you needed to work at it. Modern translations miss the point of that analogy.

Shoshino, I have to ask you if you really believe the things you are saying or if you are just trying to start a fight. How on earth could the United States have been blamed for the second world war? Tension between communist and fascist ideals, aggravated by WWI surrender terms that left Germany impoverished and angry, caused the second world war.

And for everyone else bashing Churchill: there wasn't a leader in the western world in the 30's that didn't think Hitler's model was a hell of a lot more attractive than Stalin's. Yes, Churchill was a man with an amazing number of bad ideas. But this particular one was so widespread it's silly to criticize him for it.

 

Jumping into threads and making wild unsubstantiated claims seems to be Shoshino's modus operadi.

Sprite, it is an interesting debate actually. Let me draw an analogy. In the U.S. there has been criticism in recent years for our founding fathers ownership of slaves. If owning slaves is wrong, then it is wrong and it needs to be stated regardless of who the person is and whatever great accomplishments they may have accomplished. Others argue that given their time, it is unfair to criticize them for that. I for one think the criticism is fair, they had to have come face to face with their slaves, looked them in the eye, and decided there was nothing wrong with owning another person. That deserves recognition.

Likewise, while Churchill had many accomplishments, the article above (it's called support Shoshino) shows that he was rather racist. It didn't end with him stating he'd prefer fascism to communism. He states support for using gas on "uncivilised tribes." He admits to racism etc. It isn't unfair in my opinion to point these failing out since racism then was as wrong as it is now.