What makes a hero? Courage? Nobility? Some quality we'd like but don't feel we possess or are capable of? These are people who have been exalted by others and I think that's where I feel uncomfortable with the whole notion of a hero. It feels as though they are creations made to satisfy a sense of inadequacy in ourselves. Yet this is done by focusing on single qualities, real or imagined, and doesn't necessarily improve our own way of living, in fact it may make us feel better about leaving the hard work to others. If this makes little sense, I think it's because I'm not exactly sure why I don't really have heroes, just people who do things I admire but remain fallible human beings. Rambling now, but it's been a long day...
I think the equality of opportunity was something I found so incredible. Also, the valuing of all members of society. The road sweeper's job was very important. As was the doctor's. And the teacher's. And the fireman's. And those of the hairdresser, the mechanic, the engineer and the baseball player. All valued by each other. They didn't need to be valued differently by salary - something, if you think about it, that is ridiculous. Do you give your children different pocket money according to how intelligent they are? Or what skills they have? It would be monstrous. But somehow, as an adult, we do expect this - and it is odd. I think the poor realised they were of value in Cuba. They weren't nearly worthless because they were a cleaner. People weren't paid oodles because they played top level baseball. Why would a baseball player need to be paid more than a cleaner? There was a relaxation about this that meant people focussed on their work, rather than how much money they could flaunt, and how much power they presumably had. They are the happiest people I've ever known in my life. Beautiful people in a beautiful country.
Oh dear... somebody hates the UK!!! Holier than thou Germany and intimation that Britain hasn't learnt from historical mistakes which were not of the British people but in fact our aristocracy. We'll never see eye to eye for sure.
I know it wasn't you who said it, aberdeen, but it wasn't the ordinary German people who committed Nazi atrocities, was it? I agree it is the aristocracy and capitalists (in its true sense ) who made the 'mistakes' and the ordinary Joes who paid with their lives. It's the same today with invasions of Iraq. Those who profit from the arms trade and those who thought Hussein stood in their way, waged an illegal war. Any of them lose their lives? No. Did they profit from from the war itself and its aftermath at the expense of many, many lives? Yes. It's rather like that very good post I copy pasted from that Guardian article's comments section. These people have no scruples and see themselves as some sort of Master Race, controlling us minions as pawns in their game of power. As the lady said, it's not money that motivates them, they have that, it's power. Their profit is in maintaining/increasing their power.
This is interesting, theo, and what makes Castro special in my eyes. I think he did improve the lives of the Cubans. I read an article which stated that so many remembered the the revolution precisely because he improved the life expectancy so massively. Perhaps our politicians could learn from that! Improve our Health Service so we live longer and remember them fondly for longer. It'll never happen here, it's "only about getting back in in five years' time." Which opens other questions politically about genuine long-term policy making. The second part of your sentence I've highlighted, is another of his successes. Namely by creating a unity whereby people didn't think selfishly - they were an important part of their nation's struggle. Our divisive society does not engage everyone to feel they are part of a bigger picture. Few here can see the beyond the jigsaw piece they are personally. Of course he was a fallible human being. Most of you are.
I do not want to single out the UK. Aberdeen - I could make a similar list for many other countries, Russia, Germany, France, the USA, even Belgium. The point is that Britain tends to 'whitewash' its history - which other countries (because they lost wars) can't. The British see themselves as a 'free' people, tolerant, non ideological and with a sense of fairness - but British history does not live up to these qualities. There are still many, particularly older people, who still see British colonialism as having been something to be proud of - and that the loss of colonies was a sign of Britain's decline - I am pointing out what it was really like. Can we blame everything on the aristocracy ? Who is at fault - the one who gives the orders or the one who pulls the trigger, or the one who pays for it all ? Whilst there are many Germans who will now say that 'it was the Nazis not Germany' it is clear to anyone that has researched the period that there was a 'collective' insanity at work. There is always someone, somewhere, who profits from war in some way - the way to end war for ever is to find that connection. To create a system where everybody loses. I am sorry if I come over as a critic of the UK. but mostly we are talking about Britain on here, and it is a theme which we can all relate to. If I were to make a similar list about Germany, it would interest nobody.
'Collective insanity'? So that's what they call June 23rd! Rather than the order-giver, the trigger-puller or the one who pays, it's the one who profits who can be blamed - because usually they will have machinated the conflict in the first place in order that they profit. Pub logic: Put the arm dealers' sons on the front line of any war their fathers are to profit from. I agree we have a very filtered and cleansed view of our own history. Decolonisation did not deliver redemption, but it was a small movement in that direction.
Socialism is love + Socialism is almost extinct both in the UK and Europe = Love is extinct in England, so why is the birth rate going up ?
The front page of The Times today is a headline which I never thought I would see in my lifetime. Labour has few safe seats left, MPs warn Party support crushed by UKIP and Lib Dems
Continuing the formulae: UK - EU is not equal to Socialism UK - EU = (UK x majorlyf^cked) hence it will tend towards more babies. UK + EU = socialism = ((UK + babies) to The Power of Love Conclusion: Babies resultant from a square 'root' don't constitute a baby made from Love. Love isn't always part of the equation. When it's not, there's no socialism. Hence, Socialism is love. QED
British born women have a much lower birth rate than migrant women. The average number of children per mother jumps in areas of soaring migrant population.
A twisting of statistics SH. The birth rate is higher amongst low income families, and in, what we could describe as, more working class areas - therefore the birth rate is likely to be higher in areas where immigrants are concentrated. This use of statistics is similar to what they do with those on the school system eg. the schools in Surrey have a higher success rate than those in Liverpool, therefore the teachers must be better.
There are clear national statistical information that migrant women's birth rate is higher than British born women. Polish women's birthrate in the UK is much higher than those in Poland.
Over a quarter of births (27%) in 2014 were to mothers born outside the UK. The total fertility rate to UK women was 1.76. The TFR for non-UK born women was 2.09.
I've just had a look through those statistics SH. In 2014 there were 64,000 births where the parents (or one of them) came from EU. countries and 123,000 births to non EU. immigrant parents - a ratio of about 1 to 2. Of all those in the UK. born outside of the country the EU. makes up about half - this suggests that the EU. is under represented in this department. The high birth rate appears to be amongst non British, non EU. parents ie. amongst a population which is already controlled at the borders.
