Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
4,575
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + + + + +
no edit summary
: [[Roger Bannister]] was overhyped by Britain and even the U.S. Why? Perhaps Britain needed a hero at the time, and he became one out of necessity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
: [[Roger Bannister]] was overhyped by Britain and even the U.S. Why? Perhaps Britain needed a hero at the time, and he became one out of necessity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Agreed. He was overhyped. But the 4-minute mile was something special - a once believed impossibility - and sports people have always been treated this way when they rise above the pack. And yes, Britain needed a hero, as all nations do in times of trouble. In America, and here in Australia, it is easy to forget just what Britain went through during the war -especially in the Blitz - and how drained and devastated it was in those post-war years. It DESERVED a hero or two.
My complaint is that that particular comment seemed unnecessary in the context. It was an opinion where one was not called for.
And I reacted because there is a rich vein of "Anti-English" running through the site. Be pro-American by all means, but not anti other nations for the sake of it. I saw the Bannister comment seconds after reading the "Allies" page, where there is a comment on the British and French colonial past, and I was wondering why American Samoa is not considered to be the result of colonialism, but Western Samoa is.
So I reacted - and will continue to react when I consider an unfairness is there.
OK?