TO GRACE the front cover of Time magazine is regarded as a real accolade, a sign that you have made it. The likes of Nelson Mandela, Mikhail Gorbachev and The Beatles have taken pride of place in the journal's hall of fame, epitomising all that is great and innovative in society. The cover stars' names read like a Who's Who of the world stage, providing a social commentary of our time.
But this week, as Time publishes a special issue to celebrate six decades of the magazine's European edition, entitled 60 Years of Heroes, it has thrown up some unlikely candidates for the title of hero.
Several Britons as diverse as fashion designer Mary Quant to acting dames Helen Mirren and Judi Dench made the final list, which also included Italian actress Sophia Loren and global figures like Yitzhak Rabin, the former Israeli leader. Other hallowed names include Francis Bacon, the iconoclastic British painter, the sculptor Henry Moore and artist Pablo Picasso.
But the inclusion of Princess Diana, Baroness Thatcher, the entrepreneur Sir Freddie Laker and fashion designer Coco Chanel has puzzled a number of social commentators.
Dr Mairead Tagg, a social psychologist based in Glasgow, said she was disappointed by many on the list and believes it trivialised the word "hero".
"I can't see what Coco Chanel actually did for women," Dr Tagg said.
"Let's face it, we have generations of models who are so thin that they're dying of anorexia or using illegal drugs to keep their weight down.
"In my view, the fashion industry doesn't create heroes and there are so many others who would be worthy of inclusion.
"It's obviously very subjective, but to describe someone like Margaret Thatcher as a hero does trivialise the whole issue.
"
As part of the compilation, Time asked writers, business leaders and politicians to recommend their heroes for yesterday's special edition. Although the final list has 60 entries, some are for groups of people - such as The Beatles, or Bono and Bob Geldof, nominated together because of their joint work on famine relief.
It means there are a total of 70 names including 22 from Britain and Ireland, as part of three separate categories - leaders and rebels, business and culture and inspirations and explorers.
Margaret Thatcher is the only UK name in the first of those categories, which also includes Charles de Gaulle, Gorbachev and Mandela. The UK's biggest influence is in the business and culture section, from airline entrepreneur Sir Freddie Laker to the acting quartet of Dench, Mirren, Glenda Jackson and Vanessa Redgrave. Laker's name was nominated by Sir Richard Branson while The Beatles were suggested by Peter Brown, boss of their record label, Apple.
Princess Diana was the suggestion of Michael Ellit, international editor of Time for her ability to "speak out" instead of following the rules to "keep quiet and fit in".
John Lydon, better known to many as Sex Pistols lead singer Johnny Rotten, joins fellow Brits J K Rowling and the playwright Samuel Beckett on the list. The British designer, Mary Quant, was said to have married fun and fashion, lighting '"a fuse of the insurrection".
Fellow 1960s designer Barbara Hulanicki, founder of the store Biba, CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour and Amnesty International founder Peter Benenson are the other Britons on the list.
Jumana Farouky, from Time magazine, said he had no hesitation in nominating J K Rowling, the Scottish-based author of the best-selling Harry Potter novels, for her imaginative style of writing and the way she had attracted millions of children to the written word. He said: "In a time when everything comes to us in bits and bytes, Rowling has made storytelling cool again.
And that is something truly magical."
Speaking of John Lydon, the magazine's Hugh Porter said the Sex Pistols had changed the face of British culture: "As the Sex Pistols' lead singer, John Lydon-aka Johnny Rotten wore the very heart of punk on his torn sleeve. He meant it then.
He still does."
But Mark Cousins, a film-maker and critic, questioned the inclusion of the likes of Sophia Loren and Judi Dench, arguing that they were not worthy of the title hero.
"It's absolutely absurd to include actors like Sophia Loren.
She was ultra-beautiful, but really she is a minor figure, an also-ran. She was very right-wing and was criticised for tax evasion, not exactly the kind of person you would hold up as a hero. As for Judi Dench and Glenda Jackson, I'm sure they'd be embarrassed to be included in such a list.
"There's no doubt that they're talented actors, but to describe them as heroes is a step too far."
However, he said it was appropriate that the work of Bono and Bob Geldof should be singled out for praise.
He said: "No-one could say they are the best musicians of all time.
However, for their philanthropy and the way they reached out and brought people together on the world stage, that has to be applauded."
Speaking of Geldof and Bono, Paul Wolfowitz, president of the World Bank Group, said: "They share a passion that has led them to devote their considerable talents to ending the crushing burdens of poverty in Africa."
The first issue of Time magazine appeared in the United States on 3 March, 1923, the creation of Yale classmates Henry R Luce and Briton Hadden.
They introduced a whole new concept in journalism: the weekly news magazine. Luce and Hadden wrote in their 1922 Prospectus: "Time is interested — not in how much it includes between its covers - but in how much it gets off its pages into the minds of its readers."
Today, Time is the world's leading English news magazine, with a global audience of 29 million.
Catherine Mayer, senior editor, said the anniversary would pay tribute to the extraordinary people whose achievements and innovations had helped transform the world in which we live.
She said the last 60 years included the aftermath of world war, the toppling of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the advance of women and the vanquishing of apartheid in South Africa. Many of the figures had battled repression and prejudice, while others had made the world a more exciting place with their ground-breaking music and art.
She said: "Heroism is about taking risks - with ideas, with conventions, sometimes with life itself. Some of our heroes died prematurely; others lived to their full measure. All of them changed our world for the better.
These people are our heroes, and in this special anniversary issue, we celebrate them and their many achievements."
SOME of those on the Time list were surprising choices. Are they truly "heroic"?
• Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel may well have been the most influential and innovative fashion designer to date.
• Sir Freddie Laker was an entrepreneur who sparked an air fares revolution with his Skytrain flights to New York.
• As lead singer of the Sex Pistols, John Lydon (pictured) or "Johnny Rotten" released God Save the Queen during the Queen's Jubilee in 1977.
• Sophia Loren became the first and only woman to win a Best Actress for a foreign film at the Oscars.
• Jean-Claude Killy, a French skiing champion, won three gold medals at the 1968 Olympics in Grenoble, France.
• Martina Navratilova, regarded as one of the greatest ever female tennis players, won 18 Grand Slam singles titles.
• King Juan Carlos oversaw the transition of Spain to a democratic constitutional monarchy following the death of General Franco.
• Margaret Thatcher was Britain's longest serving prime minister for more than 150 years and the first female PM.
• Oscar-winning actress Glenda Jackson turned her back on acting and in 1992 successfully stood as Labour MP for Hampstead.
THE definition of what constitutes a hero is a moot point - and it's also a very subjective thing.
Do we say that Princess Diana is a hero because she stood up to the Establishment and the Royal Family or because of her work for people with AIDS and the victims of landmines? Are we really saying Diana was a wonderful role model to the people of this country?
The reality is that she had many serious flaws in her character and was an extremely vulnerable person.
This is a clear example where the word "hero" is overused and taken too lightly, so that it becomes almost meaningless.
In fact, the word "hero" probably applies only to a very small number of people throughout history.
It's very rare to achieve momentous things in life and to be a truly heroic human being. Many of the people who have contributed to changing the world are often very capricious and egotistical individuals. What we tend to do is airbrush out a great deal of the negative aspects of our heroes, concentrating on the good things that they did.
I was quite surprised at the magazine's choices and the inclusion of names such as General de Gaulle and JK Rowling. The French leader was extremely racist and well-known for his xenophobic attitude, so he is certainly an unusual choice.
JK Rowling is a fine author and, as a single parent, she achieved something incredible to get those books published - but I don't know that it really makes her a hero.
Crucially, what constitutes a hero can change dramatically over the course of only a few years. A man or woman who is a hero today is vilified tomorrow. Nelson Mandela is a case in point.
He was public enemy number one in South Africa and yet now he is celebrated as the most important person on the planet. He has advocated reconciliation and peace in very trying circumstances and, as such, he is a true hero.
I would take issue with the shortlist on the basis that they are perhaps confusing heroism with celebrity.
I'm sure Sophia Loren is a very nice woman, but she is a celebrity and that simply doesn't make you a hero. To be a hero means doing something extraordinary for mankind, and I don't think these actors or musicians fit the bill at all.
• Dr Mairead Tagg is a social psychologist.
Time and Newsweek, the other leading US newsmagazine , degenerated into superficial, celebrity-bedazzeled parodies of themselves several years ago. The only English-language newsmagazine that is worth reading is The Economist. The Scotsman should not have given Time any credibility at all.
Will the Eeconomist noo have Bush as the British National Hero?
Nice to read an intelligent critique of this. There are very few heroes around, and even fewer in the ranks of the celebrity and politician.
It must be very embarrassing for those on the list with real talent and quality, who deserve recognition for that, but are simply not heroic in any sense whatsoever.
No-one is perfect and the nonsense of hero should be thrown away. None of the above were heroic in anyway other than perhaps Yuri Gargarin.
I don't know enough about his personal life and how he lead it to say he is a hero but he was very brave.
Princess Di? Trumped up clothes horse.
The only purpose she served was to provide the Daily Express with at least two headlines a week about a cover-up now she's dead.
Amazes me how she's held up as a paragon of virtue while Charles gets lambasted all the time. I'm sure she was sh#gging around while married.
At least Charles only did it with one woman. Wouldn't surprise me if she ran out of fingers to count the blokes with!
In this day and age my heros' tend to be the young people I work with, and the people who work with them, they get such a bad press when most folk who have to deal with what they do every day of their lives would just give up.
It's the medical personel doctors and nurses who struggle to do their best despite lack of recources, constantly changing policy directives from bored managers and publicity seeking politicians
It's our armed services who go out and face death and injury with the wrong equipment or too little equipment because 'best value' doesn't mean best for the job, subject to the political whim of idiots who know nothing about their struggles and then get abused for it from the press and people who should be supporting them, when all they are doing is their job.
I wonder in a hundred years time who will grace the history books like Bruce, Douglas, Wallace, Alexander, Churchill, Hannibal, Drake, Boudicea?
heros for me are people who put up with incredible hardships overcome these and continue to smile.
People such as those within the scottish border communities that are deprived and socially excluded from the improved economy of the UK.
It is our national disgrace.
OK, give me your top ten list of the lists that everyone has agreed with.
My initial asumption at the name 'coco' was coco the clown. That would be a fair expectation from the author of this list.
I agree with Dr Mairead Tagg, (social psychologist) that the word hero is trivialised by the inclusion of celebrities but she also displays a slanted outlook by suggesting that being a racist and xenophobe (General de Gaulle) or a right winger (Sophia Loren) has anything to do with being allowed to be classified as a hero. I wouldn't include them either because they are definitely not heroes, by theiir political correctness should not enter into the argument. Incidentally Nelson Mandela was just pushing for his own side - the real hero was de Clerk who grasped the nettle in the face of opposition from his own people.
I thoroughly disagree with the so-called social comentators who think that Baroness Thatcher should not have been on Time's Heroes list. She, the late President Ronald Reagan, and Pope John Paul II should have been the top three in the Leaders subcategory. It was this great triumvirate that brought about the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of communism in central and eastern Europe, and the downfall of the Soviet Union, and they did it without a shot being fired.
Unfortunately Time magazine is extremely left-wing and would never condescend to hail President Reagan and Pope John Paul II as heroes. At least Baroness Thatcher made the list. My heartfelt congratulations goes out to you, Baroness.
The first mistake would be to assume Time is a serious news magazine. The second would be to assume they have any competance as a historical journal. They are news-whores whose entire point of view is based on publishing pictures of people who will make shoppers buy their wretched rag.
They wouldn't know a hero from a headline grabbing sex offender.
Well said Robert from Fife.
I know it's not good to speak ill of the dead but it's not really right that newspapers should be trying to boost circulation figures with their, normally, twice-weekly Di 'story'.
Isn't it interesting how far-left celebrities like Bono and Bob Geldorf are praised by the interviewees in this articles, but far-right celebrities like Sophia Loren somehow don't belong. And notice how Gorbechev isn't questioned at all, while the woman who, with Ronald Reagan, forced the end of the Soviet system is nearly laughed off the page.
Once again this article is far more about political leanings than anything else.
Media or propaganda; you decide...
It had been mentioned on American radio about Time magazine; That they should call it 'No Time.' Since it doesn't take any time to read it. The articles and writings that I receive here from folks writing commentary, and the stories of the 'Scotsman' have much more in depth analysis and information that anything that has been in Time Magazine for years.
Time Magazine has reached the end of it's time. I will state that I have not seen if it has a web site. But I ask should I have?
Time Magazine has become an over priced political pamphlet in America. It can't be taken seriously anymore. One can only wonder that this list was nothing but a designer catch and deserves to be sold on the street by the homeless in Edinburgh and Glasagow like that other rag, that also holds no social or political importance.
Time Magazine has become void of news and tall on American Idol type veiws. Otherwise, whats it's purpose? The subtitle to this story; 'Has Time Lost it's touch' holds more accuracy than this special edition of Time.
This article serves no purpose nor accurate interest, but to be a runway model ploy and looks like it was composed by college interns all high. At this stage in the game, I would say Time Magazine is out of time, with no leadership and nothing that supports the public interest, it's best to publish the 'Final Time'
Patrick Stevens
U.S.
Network/ News and Information
U.S. Network-uk
Eric (12).
What a change it is for Time that you should accuse it of being far-left in orientation. When I was a teen in the 1950s no self-respecting progressive would touch the far-right leaning Time.
Of course, then it was still under the control of the Luce family, not exactly fans of the New Deal, etc.
My understanding is that Newsweek was founded as an attempt to provide a more liberal news interpretation than the right-slanted Time.
Of course we have no idea of your own political slant, so calling a magazine leftist which has traditionally been rightist may well reflect your own position on the extreme right.
Just as my own bias toward the Christian left may well slant my opinion of both publications.
Response to Paul (17):
You are somewhat correct in your assessment of me. I am an orthodox Roman Catholic, conservative Republican, and lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. I am therefore, pro-life, pro-gun, and I support the war in Iraq, the war on terror, and the building of a fence (or ideally a wall) on our borders to stop illegal immigration.
I would not call myself someone on the extreme right because to me that sounds like someone who condones bombing abortion clinics, which I most certainly do not.
I truly pray to day that the Republicans hold on to their majorities in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate, if not possibly gain some more seats. If the Democrats get control of either or both houses of Congress, the Western World, not just the USA, is going to be in grave danger of more terrorist attacks because the Democrats want to do away with all of the current methods of preventing further attacks.
You may be correct that Time was once a right-leaing magazine, but it is quite evident that they have completely gone in the opposite direction.
Time should be called Entertainment Weekly.
Newsweek should be called Lifestyle Weekly.
Neither of them is journalism.
But including pop stars and cinema personalities as heroes is just plain wrong. Oh well, what do you expect of either of those publications?
They are both apparently run by morons for idiots, in my book.
World's best newspaper: Britain's Financial Times. If you read that, you don't need to read anything else.
Eric: the pendulum is swinging back to the left, as is invariably the case after eight years on the right. Too bad, but that's America. Led by states like California ( California is like a bowl of Granola: take away the fruits and nuts, and all that is left is the flakes ) who love to demonize everyone who doesn't believe in homosexual marriages, the Dems will come in, spend madly on ridiculous programs for every wack-job cause you can imagine, and exit again in eight or ten years, leaving the usual mess for Republicans to clean up.
It's obviously very subjective, but to describe someone like Margaret Thatcher as a hero does trivialise the whole issue. This Dr. Tagg is obviously a self-righteous lefty - the Scottish/British Establishment abounds with this nauseating, sanctimonious breed.
Margaret Thatcher was one of the very few post-war British politicians who had the guts to identify and take on deep-rooted problems largely caused by the leftist establishment.
I agree that it is ridiculous to portray Princess Diana as a heroine. OK, she did some good work for charity (from a position of glamour and comfort), but her only other significant achievement seems to have been to evoke widespread vulgar mawkish sentimentality on the part of an incredibly naive general public.
Ronald Mack something or other has to be top of the list for personally, single handedly being responsible for deforesting areas as large as wales every year, significantly destroying the planet's ecosystem and climate and contributing more to global warming than any other source and still find time to scare little kids and ruin their health with junk and indirectly causing local councils the world over to spend millions on clearing up polystyrene containers that take centuries to degenerate and cause people from all over to decend on my area and cut across me while I am driving just to get to be in the queue sooner. Heros ..
. I love them. number two coming up
To Eric (#18) and Martha (#21): Have you not NOTICED that terrorism has INCREASED under Bush's so-called leadership and in direct response?
While Bush traipses around in a flight suit and makes like a military leader with his adventures in Iraq and next Iran, have you not at least once asked yourselves WHERE THE HELL IS BIN LADEN ? But Bush's own answer to that question is: To tell you the truth, I don't think about him much anymore. No, indeed.
He has bigger fish to fry -- in Iran -- and at your very own expense.
Were you paying any attention at all when our military was sent into Iraq for a pack of lies (IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 -- THAT WAS ANOTHER **BUSH LIE**), which is **TREASON** and a **WAR CRIME**? Do you not remember that we tried the Nazis for these very same crimes, and hung them?
Did you fail to NOTICE that our troops were given insufficient body armor and only lightly armored vehicles, resulting in needless deaths and horribly debilitating injuries? Have you NOTICED that military leaders are now becoming outspoken in calling for Rumsfeld's resignation?
Do you care that Cheney can steer no-bid contracts to Halliburton, who still has him on its payroll?
That Halliburton's subsidiary KBR gave our troops bad water and spoiled food, and shorted them on water rations? Does it matter to you that Bush and Cheney are able to start wars from which they will personally profit while our young people die?
Have you not NOTICED that Bush has driven the federal debt to historic and unimaginable highs, making the dollar essentially worthless, and which now threatens to bring our economy crashing down on our heads (of course, it won't be crashing on any of the Bushes's heads -- they have always been well insulated from the consequences of their reckless and treasonous behavior, starting with Prescott Bush and his financial support of Hitler).
And that the Bush administration has simply stopped reporting most of its federal spending, so that the debt appears to be lower than it is? We don't even know how much the US owes, but we can be sure that it is a lot higher than these professional liars will ever admit it to be.
And I would suppose that neither of you has noticed that the majority of the Bush administration is made up of draft dodging chickenhawks and/or military war criminals.
Of course, Bush himself has the extraordinary distinction of having been both a draft dodger and a military deserter -- and now he is also a war criminal.
Are you people crazy, or just plain stupid? You need to get your heads out of Karl Rove's rearend and take a good look at what is really going on.
And another thing, Eric and Martha. It was Donald Rumsfeld who sold the WMD to Saddam Hussein, under the direction of Pres. Reagan.
That's how we were so sure that he used to have it -- we had the sales receipts!! But he used them up on the Kurds after GHW Bush encouraged them to rise up against Hussein, promising them support, and then turned his back on them and let them be murdered.
So much for your Republican heroes.
Oi! This is the Scotsman newspaper not some American political forum!
Go and play somewhere else so that we can get back on topic
seems to me that Margaret Thatcher, being the person who created the basis for economic revival in UK,would be a hero(shouldn't that be heroine) in the judgement of anyone who had the wellbeing of Britain at heart.
Dodi died, Di died..
...
...
..Dido is worried!
Along with heros go villains. The next list will be The Villains. --Or maybe the same names will just appear, depending on the opinions, whims and fantasies of the commentator .
..
#27 She created the basis for economic revival by destroying the lives and industries of the working class.
3 million unemployed. Whole swathes of country, from the Welsh valleys to the Yorkshire dales, left without jobs, health or dignity. A crushing end to manufacturing, mining, steelworks and shipbuilding, with crushing poverty and despair for those affected.
She made the poor much poorer, and the rich much richer. If she is your idea of a hero I can't even begin to feel anger for you, I just despair.
Saturday is Remembrance.
I shall think of my father killed in Libya in 1941.The Time listing is,to me,offensive.
Saturday is Remembrance Day.
I shall think of my father - killed,fighting in Libya in 1941.The Time listing is,to me,offensive.
The whole idea of this list is a piece of nonsense to start with and the fact that it has become such a talking point is disappointing in itself.
Having said that its amazing to read about all of the yanks that seem to worship Margaret Thatcher. In the UK, and Scotland in particular, the number of people who loath Maggie is far greater than the number who admire her. As for #47 by Gav to say that she laid the basis for economic revival in this country is, to quote from america's most significant export to the rest of the world, Pants !
Agree with a many of the above concerning the overuse of the term Hero, but if we take it as a person who overcomes in the face adversity then I go for someone like Simon Weston. He deserves the title Hero more than most consdering his harrowing experience and his work today.
Oh and two other listees who deserve comment are surely messrs Lydon and Geldof.
The former has proved himself an ignorant t*** time after time who has contributed nothing of note to his chosen field of music while the latter has continually demonstrated the kind of understanding of Africa and poverty that is only rivalled by Dubya Bush's knowledge of the middle east and islam. They are plonkers not heroes.
Agreed Gavin#34 Simon Weston is a real hero.
Why do you think that UK is the most prosperous economy in Western Europe.It's surely not due to new labour or to any of those working class heroes that Maggie stepped on,Scargill and McGahy!
Of course old style british trade unionism had to be broken but you fail to see how the wrecking ball that Maggie embarked upon created deep social divisions in this country and how her adherence to monetarism destroyed many industries and brought the country to its knees for a long time before it began to improve.
If you are going to attribute Britain's economic well being today to anyone it should be Tony Blair and I don't even vote for the man!
I find it interesting that the author takes time to criticise Margaret Thatcher, but lauds the convicted terrorist Nelson Mandela instead!
So true Mike.
South Africa was a safer, more economically prosperous country under white rule than it was under either him or his successors. Look at it now riddled with crime and second only to Nigeria in terms of corruption. Why did the west withdraw its support for the minority white south african government yet still continue to prop up the minority jewish government in Israel?
answer the jewish lobby in the good old US of A.
I believe that the late Alexander Dubcek belongs on the list of rebels and leaders. His omission, is disgraceful.
Does The Scotsman have proof reader (s)? This article clearly states Margaret Thatcher was Britain's longest serving
prime minister for more than 150 years and the first female PM WOW!!
!!!
!!
******************
Maybe someone should explain to these folks what a real hero is!
Our soldiers who put their lives on the line everyday. World leaders who have brought peace to this troubled world and of course policemen, firemen and paramedics. My thoughts are with them all and certainly on remembrance day those soldiers will be in my thoughts and prayers, as will be a prayer for peace!
God bless them and keep them safe!
Messers Blair and Bush are missing, I wonder why?
#42 of course you're right- one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
To be more prcise though put it liks this Nelson Mandela is no Mahatma Gandhi. He was a true hero who brought down the british empire without firing a single shot.
The thing that amazes me most about 'Time' is that anyone in Europe buys it.
I have picked it up a few times in waiting rooms and newstands but wouldnt waste my money on it as it comes across to me as a propaganda tool for right wing folks in the US.
Eric, #17, pro-life and pro-gun, can you not see the funny side of that statement, contradiction? :)
#39.
Are you serious Nelson Mandela a convicted terrorist ???
Hasnt the word terrorist become such a convenient term for anyone that western goverments dont agree with! Here's some terrorists from history - William Wallace, Michael Collins, George Washington, the French Resistance - or are they freedom fighters? Depends on your point of view does it not.
Oops sorry, managed to repeat my same post - dont know how i did that !
#45, i agree, i would put Gandhi above Mandela because he managed to do it without violence, but I still think Mandela was justified under the circumstances.
Will Dr Tagg call Tony Blair or Gordon Brwon heroes?
??
Or even better - Jack McConnell?
Social Psychologist - are those not the types of jobs made up by councils to employ people on high wages paid by the tax payer who are so full of themselves that they can not see that they are a waste of time and space?
Dr Tagg - stop pontificating to the rest of us and go back to specialising in things like one-arm lesbian group dynamic interactions with weight-advantaged catwalk models..
..
#46 do you really?
I don't think he comes within a hundred miles as being as important or significant a person as Gandhi. Mandela did murder and he was also responsible for the ridiculous and blatantly racist positive action employment policy which means that a black woman come first in the employment pecking order and a white male last. I lost count of the number of young white south african guys who I have come across in Scotland who can't get a job in South Africa because of their colour.
Many of those were descendants of the dutch farmers who migrated there in the 1600's and are as African as any black people. Yet the great and the good from Tony Blair to Bill Clinton line up to tell Mandela what a great guy he is.
Martha #20 wrote
World's best newspaper: Britain's Financial Times.
If you read that, you don't need to read anything else.
I agree Martha, but you left out also the world's most boring newspaper
Cheers..
..Liam O'Brien (GalacticCannibal)
I feel a little unchariatble repeating this old slander, but I can remember in the 50s, being told,'Time' for those who cannot think and 'Life' for those who cannot read'
#49, As i said already for the most part i agree with you.
I have a huge amount of respect for Gandhi because he did something that I dont think i would have been capable of, whereas Mandela is more like the majority of people who fight back against injustice. I too have met a lot of WHITE South Africans who have told me about how their country has gone to the dogs since aparthied ended, but dont you think that listening to them only gives you one side of the story? South Africa has a lot of problems and i dont agree with some of the so called positive discrimination that goes on there, but appears to me to be a damn sight better than a system that doesnt allow people into the same schools/buses/beaches because of their colour, no?
How can anyone argue that Margaret Thatcher is not a hero.
She did more to promote and re - kindle Scottish nationalism than anyone - she brought all Scots , of all class, all religions, all political backgrounds, even those that until she came along couldnt even be bothered with religion together , in despising a single woman.
The only other contender for that title could be Jimmy Hill H.
A. P - H. A.
P
Hero: noun (pl. heroes) a person, typically a man, admired for their courage or achievements: (in mythology) a person of superhuman qualities. Origin: Greek heros.
Watch the spelling, Sunshine. Unless heros is an ancient Greek variation.
#52 that's the problem, reconciling that (in their own words) many black people felt safer and had more opportunities economically when there was white rule than they do now.
Of course it was a nonsense for apartheid to make these people sit at the back of buses and have their own beaches etc but from what I have been able to learn the ordinary black south african is worse off now than they were. Their former white masters have been replaced by black masters who seem intent on lining their own pockets at every available opportunity and I can't help saying that I don't think Mandela did enough to stop this. What do most people actually want out of life?
surely they want to live in safe crime free environments where their children can grow up without fear and where there are opportunities to better themselves and be responsible for their own lives. I don't feel that i have this in Scotland living in a so called democracy but I'm sure that as bad as I sometimes think things are here they pale into insignificance compared to what the ordinary south african experiences on a daily basis. Their government, and Mandela in particular, have let them down.
#21--Martha--repeat after me :the dems don't have a chance!!!
the dems don't have a chance!!
Bruces Spider, again it would seem that you have formed a lot of your opinions based on the evidence presented by WHITE south africans, they have told me the same and i am sure that some if it is true - most of the guys i spoke to were pretty nice guys.
However, i would love to hear the opinions of Black south africans, i'm sure they wouldnt say it was better back then when they were living in a two tier society. I wouldnt be too hard on Mandella, he was never born to be a politician and any new state is in danger of falling into the hands of the corrupt. I still think that a man who spent most of his life in prison for a just cause deserves some respect.
Look at it this way, as the president of SA he could have went down the Zimbabwe road and went for revenge, instead they set up the truth and reconciliation commision, a truly enlightened concept which may be used in Northern Ireland.
Ramona #24 / #25,
If you want tee-off on Americans who are Republicans, then why not use a credible source. Instead, you site Gerald Plessner.
The same Gerald Plessner who flunked 6 hours of College English. That fact is available on his website..
. of course you didn't mention that did you??
My apologies to our Scottish friends for hoarding espace over a very European article.
A hero is to me someone who has put their life, safety, or welfare on the line (usually against their will and better judgment) in war or other really dangerous circumstances and often to save or protect fellow humans from real threatening dangerous situations.
Nowadays we have people such as braindeaders like Wayne Rooney, the beckham pair etc etc referred to as heroes because they have scored a goal in that most cretinous of so-called sports (and probably been given (note - not earned ) £100,000 during the 90 minutes of a stupid football match) or they have bought, at great cost, the latest in fashion accessories.
Lots of people might be well-known or well-off but the real heroes are those, usually ordinary people, who have saved people or who have risked their own necks to make things better.
no space for perhaps the most influential person of the 20th century sir winston churchill, without him we would all be talking german anf the third reich would rule europe
I fail to see why Mrs thatcher should not be considered a 'hero'. Whether you like her or not (and I don't), you have to recognise the fact that she was THE first woman to become PM and she provided strong (if flawed) leadership and was instrumental in many very important political events of the period.
She wasn't afraid to make unpopular decisions (and didn't care if they were unpopular) and served 10 years in power (ok, 2 less than Hitler...
but it's the number Tony wants to reach).
Surely a hero is someone who is inspirational. The divine Maggie was surely that, showing the benefits of hard work and self-belief and the possibility for women to progress to such a position.
A single-minded hard-case who arrogantly walked over anyone in her way and took Britain to war...
seems to be a hero and inspiration for all the PMs who followed her. A shame the current one doesn't have her guts!
Drew #58: Please enlighten us about why failing college English disqualifies one from political commentary -- especially considering that the Republicans' front-man, GW Bush, couldn't pass a college English exam RIGHT NOW, and yet we tolerate him being in charge of the US.
Also, Plessner apparently overcame his college English problems, and went on to become a successful businessman and write for newspapers. Let GW Bush try that, after he loses his present job in a well-deserved impeachment.
number 2 on the list - GWB.
He has united his people like never before
Commenting on this article has closed.
News RSS