Or even better, what if someine had said “My perception of Native Americans had always been that they were bloodthirsty savages, but then I saw that one commercial where the guy cried over the litter, and bang, just like that, I realiized that Native Americans were pioneers of ecological counciousness! They aren’t just all about raping and killling white settlers! So I think that guy in the commercial is definitly one of the greatest Native Americans of all time.”
Owls take onOPrincess Diana:
In the early 90’s I used to work with the homless in Kings Cross (an area infamous for drugs and prostitution). This was at the height of theHIV/Aids disaster. As such I used to have a lot of clients in common with organisations such as Terrance Higgins Trust, Lighthouse etc.
Princess Diana is often given credit for takin the stigma out of AIDS by being seen with its victims. Now here’s a thing about Diana and stigmas…
Lighthouse THT etc were largely staffed by gay men. THere was no need to hide their sexuality in these organisations, so almost all were completely “out” some more extrovertly than others.
Whenever Diana would pay one of her “secret” visits to these places (always carefully cordinated, but that’s just good PR) they would have to be “sanitised” of any too obvioulsy gay staff (ie those in leather jackets, mustaches etc) as she didn’t want to be photographed with them.
Queen of hearts? MAybe. Queen of Queens? Definately not.
PS she had a CSE in childcare.
i agree with the original thread, in the whole history of the whole of Great Britain, Diana has been voted in the TOP TEN!!!< top 100, ok understandable, what about Fleming or Faraday, or any of the inventors of the Victorian age, and the worst fact is that Diana is top of the poll at the moment, come on everyone, its between Newton or Shakespeare, with Churchill and Darwin going for 3rd, IMHO anyway
In my opinion Breaker Morant is the English person I most admire followed by Benny Hill.
The reason that Diana is doing so well apparently is that women are voting for her.
It is always a mistake to give women the vote (or driving licences).
This is going to be interesting!!! 
If it takes someone of Diana’s stature to open Lib’s eyes, what chance do you people have?
You’re only commoners, after all.
No, we’re peasants, and we’re revolting.
(ahem)
Who’s she then, I never voted for 'er
Oi! Philovance!
Breaker Morant is an Australian! Not a bloody Pom!
I still say Basil Faulty is the greatest Briton.
I’m glad you asked.
If someone told me that, due to prevalent stereotypes, they had thought that Indians were people who reclaimed gifts and couldn’t hold their liquor, but that they recently had seen Biography’s special on Chief Ross, and learned that Indians are noble people with kind and generous hearts, I would be delighted.
Granted, I might wonder how the person could have fallen for such an obviously false stereotype, but then I would realize that what is obvious to me might not be obvious to him. Everything from movies to threads on this board have depicted Indians as hapless savages who were saved from destruction by do-gooder white men like Indian Hater Jackson.
I would be grateful that a person had come to see the light.
Certainly, the last thing that would occur to me would be to launch an assault, belittle his learning experience, push him back into his prior frame of mind, and generally behave like the savage he had heard about.
This whole discussion reminds me of the debate about a year ago over whether the homebound brother should have welcomed back the Prodigal Son.
I would have welcomed him.
If you think I am not worthy of your respect because of what I have told you, then I don’t believe that I ever had it. Diana is not like the “Indian” on the commercial. He wasn’t even an Indian. She is like Chief Ross. And I like her. So there.
Hmpf.
So, we are acting like “unfeeling snobs”, are we, for suggesting that we would prefer to be judged on our own merits as people, rather than by reference to a blatantly inaccurate media fantasy?
Frankly, Libertarian, you’ve earned my respect on many previous occasions, and that respect is not withdrawn. But I have to say that, on this issue, I think you’re being a plonker.
As I said before, I don’t think you should be berated for your honesty. However, I think the reason everyone’s piling on you is that, according to you, a negative stereotype has been replaced by a positive media manufactured image. One is “bad”, the other “good”, but neither is the least bit accurate. Diana certainly isn’t representative of me (or the vast, vast majority of Britons), and nor is the “toodle-pip” umbrella-wielding snob.
Just because we object to your take, there’s no need to insult us.
I thank gobear for his particularly thoughful analysis.
This:
if the someone were a fool or someone with no education or someone yet to escape from a very cloistered upbringing, might be impressive. Perhaps with a little more thought and a little more knowledge, the person might come to realise that Indians are not “noble people with kind and generous hearts” but just people.
But you are not a fool Libertarian. The idea that your notion of how worthwhile some 50 million people might be can be altered by any one person’s qualities is shocking. So you like(d) her. Okay. Like many things, I’d be prepared to respectfully disagree on your judgement. But the idea you would draw conclusions about Britons generally from your perceptions of Diana? Egads.
Fair enough. But for the record, I do not think what you’ve accused me of thinking.
I’ve had the morning news on while surfing the Dope, as is my habit. I’ve seen two stories on Great Britain this morning. The first was about the attempted kidnapping of Victoria Beckham, aka Posh Spice. The second was yet more analysis of the Queen’s intervention in the trial of Diana’s former butler. With news like that, is it any wonder Americans have misconceptions about England?
I grew up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and I’m still amazed at the number of people who think our skies are black at noon from pollution by the steel industry. The pollution was cleared up in the 1960’s, and the steel industry packed up in the 1980’s.
At some point in his life, Libertarian believed something about the English which is not universally true. He’s changed his belief. Jeez, people, give him credit for doing so. We all know people on this board who can be presented with mountains, if not planets of counterevidence who still refuse to change their views.
Or, did none of you believe in Father Christmas when you were children?
CJ
If we relied on such a superficial view of news headlines we’d probably assume that you were all political fanatics or spent your time shooting people trying to buy petrol.
Personally yes, but not since I stopped being a child.
Presently, there is an eleven hour miniseries on the History Channel called A History of Britain that began at 9:00 this morning. Does it merit the approval of English Dopers? I should have asked before beginning to watch, but I was ignorant and myopic.
I’m confused as to why you’re facetiously asking for our permission. The point is not that we’re telling you what to think, it’s that we’re rejecting a stereotype, even if it’s a good one. I’ve not been mean or nasty to you, and you’re the one calling us “a bunch of savages” in addition to earlier insults like “shitheads”. What I’m essentially asking is that you understand that we’re not some homogenous people to be judged according to the media portrayal of one person.
I understand that you’re hurt that we disagree with you when your understanding is that we ought to be pleased that you’ve seen the light, but a good media-reliant stereotype is just as inaccurate as a bad one, simply because it’s a narrow view. We’re diverse - not “good” or “bad” - just people. Can you understand what I’m getting at, at least?
For what it’s worth A History of Britain is an excellent programme that I’ve enjoyed and learned a lot from.