Originally posted by chancremechanicperhaps you could give just a short paragraph explaining each of your choices ...
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Gen. Stonewall Jackson (CSA)
Gen. Robert E. Lee (CSA)
Gen George Patton (USA)
Pat Tillman (USA)
Martin Luther King Jr.
Capt. Audy Murphy (USA)
Gen Ulysses S. Grant (USA)
Bill O'Reilly-News analyst
they seem kind of like meaningless people to me ...
p.s. i think your list points to an ambiguity in the focus of this thread ...
is a great american:
1/ an american who helped the human cause, and will be thought about positively by future generations of humanity,
or
2/an american who had a great affect on local american events?
Great man theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Great man theory is a theory held by some that aims to explain history by the impact of "Great men", ie: highly influential individuals, either from personal charisma, genius intellects, or great political impact.
For example, a scholarly follower of the Great Man theory would be likely to study the Second World War by focusing on the big personalities of the conflict — Sir Winston Churchill, Hirohito, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Stalin, etc. — and view all of the historical events as being tied directly to their own individual decisions and orders.
It is often linked to 19th century philosopher and historian Thomas Carlyle, who commented that "The history of the world is but the biography of great men." This theory is usually contrasted with a theory that talks about events occurring in the fullness of time, or when an overwhelming wave of smaller events cause certain developments to occur.
A staunch opponent of the great man theory in its own time was Leo Tolstoy, who devoted the entire last (non-fictional) part of War and Peace to debunking it, using Napoleonic wars as an example.
Today the great man theory is out of favour. Most historians today believe that economic, societal, environmental, and technological factors are far more important to history than the decisions made by any individual. In general there is a belief that history which only follows around "great men", especially when "greatness" is determined primarily by political status, is a shallow view of the past, and additionally one which excludes entire groups of people from being part of "history", including labor forces, ethnic minorities, cultural minorities, and, as the name "Great men" would suggest, women. As such, "Great man history" is, within the historical profession today, usually used as a pejorative term, like the phrase "dead white males".
This has spread to other fields such a literary criticism where the New Historicism of Stephen Greenblatt argues that societies create works of art, not just authors.
When this theory is applied to film theory, this theory tends to explain film history and the evolution of film almost exclusively in terms of "Great Men", with some notable directors. It however, neglects the efforts of crews, assistants and outside constraints. It could be described as the film history equivalent to the star system or the auteur theory.
Originally posted by widgetNo, I won't, because I don't care for Dubya, but I also would never make fun of anyone with Alzheimer's disease, even someone I disliked. Just think, digit, you may even come down with Alzheimers...who's gonna wipe your ass for you?
That may be true, Cancer, but at least I'm flesh and blood. 🙄 Next you'll be telling me that Dubya is actually a card-carrying member of the human race and not a lobotomy-reconstructed animatron... 😀
Originally posted by shavixmirI guess so....if that's the way you want to see George Washington as....at least he fought like a gentleman, that is with an army, without slaughtering innocent women, children and other innocents indiscriminately by telling 'minutemen' to tie TNT to their waists and blow up British civilians, or even colonists, come to think of it. He never beheaded British civilians, declared Muslims as infidels....I could go on, but I think you get the picture.....
Wait a minute Chancre!
Are you suggesting that the greatest American ever was a known terrorist???
Well...that is ironic.
Originally posted by chancremechanicNatural born infidels and bada$$es are everywhere..
I guess so....if that's the way you want to see George Washington as....at least he fought like a gentleman, that is with an army, without slaughtering innocent women, children and other innocents indiscriminately by telling 'minutemen' to tie TNT to their waists and blow up British civilians, or even colonists, come to think of it. He never beheade ...[text shortened]... ivilians, declared Muslims as infidels....I could go on, but I think you get the picture.....
...but nowhere that they're not wanted.
Originally posted by Remora91Becauase Grant was a drunk yankee mongrel general and a worse president.....Lee and Jackson were great soldiers of a new nation fighting for its freedom against northern hegemony....and I have a proud background of ancestors who wore the grey uniform of the Confederacy. I've lived in all sections of the US, and the South is the only section left that is truly patriotic and sympathetic to our military. Washington kicked the British out of the US...aren't you glad you Drink Mountain Dew at 1600 instead of tea? 😉
It was George Washington who got us into the French and Indian War when he signed a document in French he couldn't read; I honestly don't think he was a great man, just someone who was average and put in a extraordinary situation. And why are the CSA Commanders ranked above Grant (well, I guess since Lee was like the General for the war almost the whole time, and Grant came in near the end - but still)? 😕
Originally posted by chancremechanicYou're right; if the criterion is skill as a military commander, Lee goes well above Grant. The US won the Civil War through numerical, economic and technological superiority, not by having better generals.
Becauase Grant was a drunk yankee mongrel general and a worse president.....Lee and Jackson were great soldiers of a new nation fighting for its freedom against northern hegemony....and I have a proud background of ancestors who wore the grey uniform of the Confederacy. I've lived in all sections of the US, and the South is the only section left that ...[text shortened]... the British out of the US...aren't you glad you Drink Mountain Dew at 1600 instead of tea? 😉
Who'd rather drink Mountain Dew than tea though? It's far too sweet and looks radioactive 😉.
Originally posted by flexmoreAll the people on my list had, or are having, an impact on the U.S. as of today. If they seem meaninglesss to you, may I kindly suggest you picking up an American History book at your local library and reading up on them? Then YOU can write a brief synopsis on each. You'll get 5 credits at Chancre University, good at all participating STD clinics in OZ.
perhaps you could give just a short paragraph explaining each of your choices ...
they seem kind of like meaningless people to me ...
p.s. i think your list points to an ambiguity in the focus of this thread ...
is a great american:
1/ an american who helped the human cause, and will be thought about positively by future generations of humanity,
or
2/an american who had a great affect on local american events?
Originally posted by royalchickenLOL...right about tea vs, mountain dew....yuck....give me green tea any day. Are you a PhD yet?
You're right; if the criterion is skill as a military commander, Lee goes well above Grant. The US won the Civil War through numerical, economic and technological superiority, not by having better generals.
Who'd rather drink Mountain Dew than tea though? It's far too sweet and looks radioactive 😉.