Wow

CP with Jade. What is this world coming to?

Msit

Your protest is not ignored. I agree with you. I'm only adding a name *if* a separate category is created. Plus if we expand beyond *the* most influential to the top 100, there may be sports or entertainment figures deserving of mention.

Hmmm. Sports-wise, we've come up with Jackie Robinson and Muhammed Ali as Honorable Mentions. Anyone else from that field? Pele, in soccer, perhaps???

From both his sports and his non-sports activities, does OJ Simpson end up on the list? He caused yet another national debate on race, law, punishment, etc.

SexL

While I hold a personal soft spot in my heart for the Xena's and Buffy's of the fictional world, I don't think that will wash either.

However, anyone comfortable and adept at driving stakes through human's hearts has to be looked upon with some degree of awe.

FTC,

I wouldn't include any sports figures in a top 100 list of anything, except maybe vulgar culture. But that's just my personal bias. I look back on history and note that not a single sports figure has made it down the ages.

Well, actually the mythical Hercules has, but then I wouldn't consider him a sports figure of the times. More a hero with a great bod.

Yes, MsIvoryTower, on my list, I have a bunch of Honorable Mentions, so its basically the Top 100 Most Influential of the Century. On that list, a few sports people, Hollywood people, etc will probably appear.

On my original list, I had Henry Ford as an Honorable Mention. After further consideration, I think he's actually a Runner-Up (that is, he had even more influence).

What about Samuel Gompers? Or is he more of a 19th century influence?

peartree:

I am starting to suspect that you have never once traveled outside of Jackson Hole, Wyoming, where I suspect you have lived all of your life until now -- ie, the past 17 years. If you seriously believe that tennis players, "The American People" and O. J. Simpson are all there is to this century, then I guess you've only forgotten to add Michael Bolton to your list of Most Influential Thinkers.

henry kissinger gets my vote, he brought honor to the profession of diplomate and his efforts brought stability I wished at the time that he had been born a citizen and could have run for president.

Socko,

I begin to suspect several pranksters among us. But then I am a naturally cautious person.

MsIT:

Xena actually hails from Auckland, New Zealand (where the wretched television series is shot). Nuff said.

Well, I think Uncle Walt still deserves consideration, not simply for his movie studio, but also for the way his aesthetic sense and world view have become nearly all pervasive.

Disneyland and Disneyworld are more than just theme parks, they are models for urban planning, for good or ill. The animated cartoons that WD popularized have affected all of the visual arts and media. The corporation that WD founded is (I think) one of the very biggest in the world and continues to mold the world in its own image. It adds up, folks.

Ivory;

I too suspect the hand of a prankster.

Ms Ivory Tower said:

"I wouldn't include any sports figures in a top 100 list of anything, except maybe vulgar culture. But that's just my personal bias. I look back on history and note that not a single sports figure has made it down the ages."

Hmmm. I look back on history and not a single computer pioneer or automobile mogul has made it down through the ages... therefore, no one from that group has had influence this century. :-)

Naw, I don't buy it. I could just be that previous to this century, people were more worried about eating, hunting and surviving. Now that we have a world of plenty (in some areas), we have more people who can play sports and entertain us. I don't see how you could not include influential sports figures if you include artists, writers, and others in like areas.

Picasso should probably be a Runner-Up.

peartree is clearly an ironist of the first order....

Message #386

Gandhi's movement affected the British Empire. Britain is outside the subcontinent. I suppose you'll argue that the Empire was doomed anyway, and that's possible, but the how and when of when it dissolved affected the entire world.

That said, I still think Truman is the leading contender, then Hitler. It's been said Truman's claim to fame is derivative since part of it involved countering Hitler and dealing with the effects of what he wrought, but if derivativeness is a factor then Hitler should give way to Kaiser Wilhelm in importance.

Well, I'd call it something else, but I am practicing civility these days.

Sigh.

Anyway, partridge, your comments don't wash. History is full of inventors and scientific pioneers, just because their ideas don't still hold weight doesn't mean they weren't important.

Unlike modern technological inventors, there's nothing new about sports figures, every era has had their equivalent (if not the same type of individual).

MrSocko,

Please reread my posts. No tennis players got on my Runners-Up list. I just mentioned tennis players when CalGal asked about Andre Agassi. I agree that no one within that group rates in the top 100, even Billie Jean King.

As for OJ Simpson, he hasn't made it to my list yet. I put his name out for discussion.

As for the American People, as a group, I think there is no denying it. Within the confines of this century, American ideals, capitalism, and democracy have lasted longer than any other -ism.

It has been most influential.

peartree:

Where on your Top 100 would you place Dave Barry? Or Tiger Woods? Or Celine Dion? Surely all three have played a large part in the century's turns?

FDR, hands down.

This is the American century and no other historical character can lay claim to the successsful transformation of the US from a sleepy nation mired in a depression to the world's greatest economic and military superpower.

FDR certainly lifted the country in a time of need (as did Hitler), but the jury is out whether the good he did outweighs the havoc he wreaked.

Socko, I don't know what you've put in your coffee today, but how about sharing? Celine Dion?? ;)

Prediction:

Jade will now add to her bag of bleatings that I have equated FDR to Hitler.

wabbit:

I'm merely taking peartree at his word.

If phrases from other posts are to be quoted, then the original poster should be given credit.

I note Peartree has proposed the American people as the people of the century, and then later women. I'd like to up the ante, and propose the human race as the people of the century. Who can argue with that?

Irv

I can and do vociferously. It excludes fictional characters such as Xena and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Hahahaha. FTC re FDR, dogmatic libertarian to the last.

Someone earlier mentioned Mao as one of the most important. True, his coming to power ended China's 100-year long exploitation (though NOT colonisation, as some people think) by foreign powers and finally wakened the country, in the sense Napoleon meant the term. Yet, one wonders whether Mao isn't just a legendary irrelevance, in the same way Castro is. What did Mao really do in the final analysis? Bankrupted and brutalised a country. I mean, Stalin and Hitler did a lot more than just kill people and destroy things. They changed world history. China, as Mao's surrogate, has yet to change much abroad. And when it does, it will do so not as Mao's China, but as Deng's China.

jello9, Message #371

here here!™ (msit)

wabbit:

I was wondering when someone would notice that most perceptive of all comments!

Res:

After thinking it over, I agree with you about Stalin passing Hitler down the stretch. Uncle Joe waited to pick up some of the devastated countries that Hitler left in his wake, forever putting his stamp on Eastern Europe. Anyone who has studied his behavior at the Nuremberg trials can attest to his power to get his own way. His master stroke, however, was the partitioning of Germany; a very cunning fellow indeed.

I'd also say that he was responsible for making the US dance to a Soviet tune until the collapse of the regime, in the sense of forcing us to maintain a presence in Europe, the arms race, the space race, etc.

ATS

But Hitler made the Middle East the powder keg it is today. Hitler by a nose.

109109

I trust then, it excludes God? (oops wrong thread)

FTC

Now you've done it.

ATS

You claimed over in NOD that you've done some reading "on both sides of the debate" and have thus changed your mind on the issue of the atomic bombings. Please list what you have read on this issue. Did you read those books which focus primarily on the U.S. decision-making process? Or did you read any books which examined the Japanese decision to surrender? The latter are less popular, less well-known, and almost never taken into consideration in the debate about the bomb. I think Elliot is bullshitting pure and simple: he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Message #371 I protest your inclusion of the last of those three, his work is still very active even late in the century and his significance and historic importance too early to judge. His major influence will be on the next century as his ideas come to be accepted worldwide.

I saw cellar and Irv had Andy Warhol. There is no sweeping, lasting influence there but I have loved to read or observe anything that was Warhol.

Gahndi still gets my vote. Because of the moral path taken. Peaceful resolution at all cost was astonishing at *that* time was it not. Think of the neighbor to the north east, China. At that time it was creating the groundwork for a cultural revolution which would culminate in death and despair for billions. Leaving a bad taste of T. Square. Damn I hate what went on there.

Gahndi was not a big player by choice, Nehru got that honor and then more Gahndi's later. Just think how influential the Gahndi legacy is with that 700 million or whatever strong nation. That's got to be about how many people populate the entire continent of Europe. I'm just saying it not looking to prove it.

The best argument against is Socko who can't give credit to Gahndi for independence of India. I think it should go down in history that Gahndi IS Indian independence. It is homespun, it is salt, it is love thy neighbor mentality. Damn, that last bit is what I've always aspired to.

Peace.

Yes, Yo. damb, hgandi was great.

Yo:

I didn't nominate Warhol... I just paraphrased him as an illustration.

Gandhi (everyone, please note the spelling, please) will have a lasting impact through his doctrine of non-violence. His thinking influenced King in the 60s, the People Power movement in the Philippines in the 80s, and the current opposition in Indonesia today, to name a few. He showed that non-violence works, and the world is better off for that.

This may sound trite, but I'm living in the middle of a situation which could explode. And I see non-violence as the only answer. I also see references to Gandhi daily here, and hope that his lasting influence will continue to be felt.

OK CR did *I* miss-spell every meaningful word again...

Word magic is not my forte'

Has anybody said Lindburgh yet? I hope there's still a Lindy's in Times Square!

Thank you Irv for the spelling of Gandhi. I'm always looking for that darn dictionary.

I've kept a thought for your situation every day. I hope there is peace for Indonesias' future.

Jeez...

Gahndi

Lindburg

Who's next?

Those who can't remember history are condemned to mispell it.

Irv -- How about "Pride goeth before a fall"?

Yah know somehtni' yhw si ti taht eht gnilleps si eht tsom tnatropmi rehtar naht eht gninaem?

PseudoErasmus:

I read a fairly large selection of the books that were published around the time of the 50th anniversary of the dropping of the bomb, and a few others published previously. One book in particular interested me greatly: the story of the development of the US history standards for schools (History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teachings of the Past -- Nash, et al.).

Among them are (these are the ones I own):

Truman and the Hiroshima Cult -- Newman

Judgement at the Smithsonian -- Nobile, et al.

Truman -- McCullough

Hiroshima in America: A Half-Century of Denial -- Lifton et al.

Hiroshima -- Hersey

Prompt and Utter Destruction: President Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan -- Walker

History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for the American Past -- Engelhardt et al.

Hiroshima: Fifty Years of Debate (Both Sides) - Young

An Exhibit Denied: Lobbying the History of Enola Gay -- Harwitt

I began looking for (and reading) these books after Elliot's first extended debate on the subject of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yo, you're doing fine, it's not like you misspelled misspell. Your meaning is understood.

Another variant is: 'Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.' (Proverbs, 16:18)

If we look into ourselves we can find some of the answers to the bomb. Why did it get used, what were the alternatives; these have some logical answers within our own context of life. Fear, we don't want to lose more of our boys OR we spent so much on this damn bomb we have to try it! Or we could have just bombed with conventional tonnage. Who cares. We used the damnible things and it was with sickening results. No doubt it was a win/win situation for Truman who would save boys and stop the war. What did he have to lose? Japanese lives? Historical reference to his name and the bomb? Jeez...

I think I change my vote to Disney.

WRT Message #426

PE:

Just asking, but why not conclude that Hitler was just another barbarian at the gate? Hitler failed in his agenda. I'm not saying the vicious bastard's a footnote but POC?

With all that's gone on in this century, I'd like to avoid giving the POC to a thug who failed. Give it to the gatekeepers who saved classical liberalism from fascism and communism. Or Salk, Fleming. Hell, give it to Kurt Godel (as one mostly likely to to be nominated by a future generation).

Reefer:

"Mispell" is the subtle spelling, used for satirical purposes, of course.

Hey, Irv:

I gave MK Gandhi honorable mention back around the early 20s in this thread, and mentioned Indonesia, to boot. Are we in sync, or what?

Cool!

Thanks, Ariel. Only took me 400+ posts to get to it.

Btw, do you agree that Message #371 is quite perceptive? I'm still waiting for the groundswell of support.

Hmmm. which to choose, so many choices ;-)

Regarding Message #371:

It makes sense to me! Consider this the start of a groundswell. I shall begin lobbying Time immediately.

AND, you lazy thing, all you had to do was goto #20, as you know, and scan down. Hmf.

Ariel, here it is, from Message #23. I admit to missing it the first time around. The content makes my post sound repetitive. Nice post! (better late than never)

"Honorable mention goes to MK Gandhi, Churchill's nemesis, for taking apart brick by non-violent brick that which Britain most sought to keep, control of the crown jewel of the Empire. His influence extended all the way to the Civil Rights movement in the US, and can still be a force with which to reckon -- in Indonesia, next, perhaps."

And I certainly hope Gandhi's principles are truly taken to heart here in Indonesia. Right now he's getting a lot of lip service, but will the people be able to reign in their passions when the time comes?

Thank you kindly, young Irv.

MrSocko

Message #417

Dave Barry: Not on the list. Mencken, perhaps? Woodward and Bernstein? Ernie Pyle? We're any journalists influential enough to end up on the Top 100 list?

Tiger Woods: Too new. Jackie Robinson outclasses him by far.

Celine Dion: Hardly. But Presley and the Beatles, probably somewhere in the Top 100, yes.

109, MSit, Socky, Xena just married her male producer, disappointing a large contingent of lesbian fans, according to a local tabloid. Not that that should disqualify her from consideration.

ATS -- Sorry, I meant "Pride goeth before ... a fall". Also, "Brevity is ... wit".

Message #424

Irving Snodgrass: Well, Time choose "The Endangered Planet" one year as "Planet of the Year" or something like that, so your 'human race' probably isn't far off the mark!

Seriously, yes, you have a point. 'Women' is too big a group. How about Feminists? Women Suffragists?

HCaulfield:

'Pride goeth before a fall' is an accepted alternate form; Sophocles also said something similar. I quoted my reference because I like the 'destruction' part the best.

I apologize for failing the 'brevity...wit' test yet again.

I wonder how sex works with regard to the person of the century?

Is it a female for heterosexual man?

Is it a male for heterosexual woman?

Is it a male/female for the homosexual?

Victoria Woodhull and Christabel Pankhurst!

Please define for me?

Yo:

It's "Person" for all of the above.

Hmmm. ahhh!

Aha! I've converted Ariel to the path of true wisdom! Damn, I'm good.

I think it's funny that people mention Victoria. Why? Not too many people have mentioned UN figures, or Ho Chi Minh. Ho definitely changed the course of human affairs. No one has mentioned the Ayatollah Khomeini, who definitely did so as well.

No one has mentioned too many military figures, either, which is odd considering the impact some of them have made (and no, I'm not talking Ike or Monty or Ludendorff or Kitchener). The only thing I remember seeing is associating Churchill with Gallipoli, and I don't even think you can blame the fiasco on him -- if the fleet had pushed up the Dardanelles that first day, there was absolutely nothing but a single German battlecruiser and a handful of mines and mostly unmanned gun emplacements to stop them. They could have been shelling the capital that night. But the Fleet didn't -- a few floating mines scared them. Likewise, if the troops had moved ashore at first, there was no one to stop them -- they could easily have taken the heights on the first day. But they gave Kemal a chance there, too, and he got his troops there first. Gallipoli really should have worked.

Possible military figures to include (I'll explain why, if it becomes an issue):

Douglas MacArthur

Chester Nimitz

Erwin Rommel

Hugh Dowding

Less likely:

Isoroku Yamamoto

George Patton

Lev Bronstein

Curtis LeMay

Vo Nguyen Giap

'Fast Heinz' Guderian

I'll agree with Giap and Rommel

I'm also sort of surprised that no one has mentioned Eliot, Faulkner, or Hemingway in the field of literature.

And I don't think it's any big mystery why people are mentioning entertainers, poets, playwrights, or novelists -- the category including them has been proposed. Really, no one is saying that John Crowe Ransom ought to depose the Temporal Power winner.

I especially agree with Giap whose troop movements trumped the French.

The military guy would be Alfred Thayer Mahan. He's the one guy who could be called responsible for the first arms race of the century (naval) which led to WWI. He's still important today.

Oh, yes. I forgot von Manstein.

Yo:

Christabel Pankhurst, 1880 - 1958, was a well known member of the women's suffrage movement in Britain. She had a checkered career, early fame having to do with her espousal of a militant campaign (instead of the formerly passive resistance) in the interests of women's suffrage. Her image is marred, however, by her flight to France where she could direct the movement without fear of imprisonment. She ended up as an important member of the Second Adventist movement in the US, where she died in 1958.

Victoria Woodhull, 1838 - 1927, was an amazing woman. She was prominent in the American Suffrage movement; the first woman to run for President (nominated by the Women's National Equal Rights Party); first female stockbroker on Wall Street (backed by Cornelius Vanderbilt); first woman to found her own newspaper; and the first suffragist to be allowed to testify before Congress.

Oddly enough, she died in Britain in 1927 (in contrast to Christabel Pankhurst).

Well, no one but me has mentioned members of the Secret Services (in any country), either (except to label J. Edgar a fraud), and in many ways this century has been their century, for good or ill.

This post is just so Ariel knows I read hers.

Very cool Ariel!

Victoria was a figurehead, the 'Victorian Era' notwithstanding. When Albert was alive he took care of business, always convincing Victoria that he was merely rendering advice, a pattern closely followed by her Prime Ministers. After Albert's death, she went into seclusion for 20+ years, and was highly unpopular with the masses as a result. She had to be gently prodded to read the red dispatch boxes, and her Prime Ministers had to travel to the wilds of Scotland at her whim. Victoria basically re-emerged at the time of her golden jubilee (1887), surprised at the fuss.

She was an interesting woman, no doubt in my mind at all, especially as regards her skillful manipulation of the web that connected her by marriage or direct kinship to most of the Royal houses of Europe, but she didn't have much interest in or knowledge of her own kingdom.

Thanks, Yo!

I think J.J. Angleton and Wild Bill Donovan get edged out by J. Edgar Hoover. But, by far, the most important advance from intelligence has been the Lockheed satellites. I'm trying to remember the person responsible for the Corona project, which kicked off the whole affair.

You know, I'm tempted to tap Von Braun, even though ballistic missile technology would have eventually come around. The reason I don't is that the Vengeance weapons, though destructive, really didn't alter much of the course of WWII. The real importance of Von Braun is that he showed it could be done, and his research fueled both superpowers' missile programs -- since that's mostly a matter of precedence, I exclude him.

I'm also talking about the Cambridge Spies, Stewart Menzies, the KGB, etc. The names would fill this whole page.

I think that J. Edgar had a better p.r. machine and an ability to scare anyone of importance due to his 'intelligence gathering' methods.

Oh, before I forget: Robert Moses, King of NY.

MsIT...

"Hey, Ptboya Not for nuthin', but it wasn't IRVINGS suggestion. But that's to be expected from a boya....." Guilty as charged. Was rushing off to my daughter's dance concert and gave a too cursory reading.

PE...

"Do you think special & general relativity has been as important, either to science or to the culture or to society or to technology, as quantum mechanics?" ...I think Res gave a sufficient reply to this but let me expand a bit. Without Einstein's quantum leap (anachronism as applied to him I know) from the Michelson, Morley experiment we probably don't have atomic weaponry in this century. That's enormous. Think what the Cold War stand-off might have been like if the Soviets had known they could take actions anywhere on their perimeter facing only the threat of a conventional warfare response. WWIII might have been inevitable.

"I think people pick Einstein more because he's a cultural icon than because his accomplishments are genuinely influential." AND

"I think Elvis Presley, the Beatles, Irving Berlin, or any other pop cultural items, have been far more influential than any classical musician..." These are both your quotes. The inconsistency is obvious.

Part of my reason for choosing Einstein was *because* of his iconic stature. Icons are ipso facto important. The fact that he, a scientist, could be so culturally important, must also have encouraged thousands of fledgling scientists to fly.

"...the point is that precursing an important development isn't necessarily important in itself."...Again, I think it depends on how long it might have taken for contemporaneous ideas to have led to the development in question anyway. In general I do buy Dennett's evolutionary argument that Shakespeare's creations are less inevitable than Einstein's theory but I don't see a Shakespeare around this century. So I'll stick with Einstein.

Just skimming here... Has anyone mentioned Simone de Beauvoir?

The emergence of feminism has done a huge amount to transform Western society for the better, more than any other 20th century social phenomenon that I can think of, and still has a long way to go (especially in the political arena). And Beauvoir was *enormously* influential in kicking it off. Many, many women of my mother's generation had their lives changed by *The Second Sex*. And these women changed the world.

Maria Callas.

Alistair:

She's been mentioned twice. And her name was even spelled correctly on one of those occasions.

Peartree,

Message #367

I should have been more specific. Agreed—Faisal I had very little influence, but Alec Guiness was very sexy in the movie so I think of him fondly.

No, it was Faisal ibn Abdul-Aziz I was thinking of for the reasons you said. I lived in Saudi Arabia while he was king and I still vividly remember the day he was assassinated. Tremendous loss.

The other reason I'd swap him for Saud is because Faisal is probably the most responsible for Saudi Arabia being the stable, reasonably moderate place Arab nation it is today. But you make a good case for Saud.

i want to drop einstein and atomic energy. it seems to me that if it wasn't nukes, it would have been bio or chemical warheads. yes our mythology is large on the spectre of nuclear holocaust, but it seems to me that the cold war would have worked the same way with respect to detente and deterrence with a killer anthrax.

Are you the boohabian that was here before, or no?

It's pretty much acknowledged anyway that a full-scale CBW exchange would be much more damaging to the environment than a full-scale thermonuclear exchange; more damaging especially in the long run.

Nobody's including Einstein with the nuclear weapons, though. Einstein, like Heisenberg, changed the way we perceive our universe on a fundamental level. Einstein demonstrated that there is no such thing as absolute time or space; Heisenberg demonstrated that the amount of information we can possess on a system has an upper limit, a limit that keeps us from ever being able to truly 'know' how the universe works, among other things.

yea verily i have returned with a trimmer name.

going back: on the scientific end, i'd have to give the thumbs up to von nuemann. the computer could have been built any number of ways, which i'm sure mavericks like danny hillis would gladly explain, but it did go with the von neumann model, which directed everyone else.

i'd also agree that deming is the most influential guy in the business sphere unless the new way of valuating businesses (depreciated cash balance?) which has driven mergers and acquisitions turns out, in the long haul to be sustainable. but we won't know for a long time until cats like milken can get back into the markets in a major way.

along with robert moses, some dap has to go to general sarnoff in the sphere of broadcasting and mass communications/propaganda. as i'm saying all of this it occurs to me that we ought to be talking about the most significant ideas and movements of the 20th century - because as it has been indicated, if it wasn't hitler, it would have been someone else.

Boo,

I knew it had to be you; all that lower case couldn't be a coincidence.

Hi--I thought you'd left for good.

Significant ideas and movements:

I'd put the black civil rights movement, feminism, and gay rights under the same heading; what the heading would be, who knows. But it seems to me that for the first time in history a dominant culture or group was forced to allow for the minority *without* the minority having to redefine itself to fit in with the majority.

As I'm sure you'll agree, the process isn't complete. As you may not agree, I think this movement had a downside as well as the obvious benefits. But influential it certainly was.

i don't know who exactly should get props, but the 20th century is the century of the mega-organization. perhaps that is stalin.

also freud has to get my vote for his concepts relating to the underlying cause and meaning of things. in western ways of thinking, this is certainly the winner and scores a direct blow against the likes of ayn rand and the american pragmatists. we are in this century utterly subversive, i beleive we owe that to dr. freud.

combine those two and you get the nsa, submarine warfare, shadow governments, the national security state and all those forces which are ultimately in conflict with the kind of nation which would be run by islamic fundamentalist or ghandi himself.

i rather see there being two types of nations in the world - those whose interest is in the soul and standing of its citizens, and those whose interest lies 'beneath' that in the operating principles of the mechanism of the state itself. in the former, courageous/charasmatic individuals like ghandi seek a popular movement on the basis of a moral clarity. in the latter, such energy is secondary to that focussed on an infrastructure which should be greater than the sum of its parts.

so when i look at the 20th century (not that i ever really have much before, or in contrast to others) it seems to me that it should be framed with regard to the people and processes which have had the most success leveraging those two ways of leading people and gaining their loyalty.

i just dropped the anti-racist activism here - i'm closing the books on it this year and have moved on to deliberative computing. one of the reasons this thread is interesting is because i think people will feel it fails if we don't come to some consensus. this is rather unique in cyberspace and i am interested to see how that all works out.

at any rate, it is all very curious to see as well, how this discussion is a fixation of people on the julian calendar. you'd imagine that china, for example, is not about to have a year 2000 problem - so one of the things i'm doing is learning how to work an abacus, and figuring out which banks i want to hold my money next year.

anyway, ghandi is large in my view because of his manner of political leadership. and looking at him leads to the examination of che guevarra, subhas bose, malcolm x, mlk, stephen biko, nkrumah and suharto and many others who have promised political representation & recognition to the *majority* of the world's population left disenfranchised by colonialism and other corruptions of the democratic ideal. clearly, those encouraged by his example, while not directly involved in our little chat (or time magazine for that matter) might have a good deal to say. it's tough to guess - whose century is it anyhow?

i think irving kristol(?) makes a good point in taking ghandi and king down a peg for the circumstances of their greatness. it is indeed one thing to lead a non-violent movement against imperial england or america in the 20th century and another thing altogether to create a nation from scratch. but that actually proves them to be the great reformers if not saviors of western civ. one might sniff at the bandung conference now in retrospect (or can one really?) - but there has definately been a point at which racial and gender biases could no longer be sustained in the leadership of the modern western state non-violently. so the heading (for gay, feminist, ethnic rights) would be the practical reform of the principle of individualism in western nations. the other direction was hitler's.

The man of the century without a doubt is Josef Stalin -- turned Russia from an underdeveloped backwater to a world power in just 20 years, stopped Hitler in his tracks, and set the stage for the stalemate that held the world in thrall (in fear of its own destruction) for 50 years. Oh yes, he was also responsible for the deaths of about 50 million people. Builder, politician, soldier, murderer, he had it all!

Re military figures (Message #467) -- why not Zhukov?

Has anybody mentioned Albert Kinsey, Dr Ruth or Hugh Hefner?

Thankfully no, wonkman. But Freud has been mentioned and that's an intriguing choice, an often overlooked one. If it were possible to dip into the late nineteenth century for the most important person to the 20th it might be Nietzsche or Bismark, who's resignation -- forced as it was -- set in motion much of the disaster that was to come.

Boohab

Nice to see you. I'd thought we'd lost you.

What is deliberative computing?

Irv

This is more work than you should take on, but it would be interesting to have a web page keeping track of nominations. I haven't yet taken the plunge into web page design or I'd volunteer. Any chance someone could help with this?

Yes, Irving "Who's our Jew in Los Angeles?" Kristol is perfectly suited to judging King and Gandhi.

Person of the Century: Paul Robeson.

Frayster of the Century: Elliot.

back
next

home