Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After several of your posts, I believe we may safely conclude that you are not a person of substance.
It took you more than one post to figure that out about someone who goes by the moniker "EnochTheSleestak"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
You have a command of this subject, or you do not. There is only one way to demonstrate that you have such a command, but apparently this is beyond your willingness, or more likely beyond your abilities.
Tell you what: stop outsourcing your homework to strangers. When you you can formulate a credible explanation as to how a bankrupt Britain wouldn't inevitably be forced into decolonization -- in spite of Gandhi's PR -- then come back to me.
And if you can explain away Gandhi's self-promotion, why not have a crack at his well-documented racist opinions about blacks and his proclivities toward young girls and enemas. You'll get bonus points.
It took you more than one post to figure that out about someone who goes by the moniker "EnochTheSleestak"?
Tell you what: stop outsourcing your homework to strangers. When you you can formulate a credible explanation as to how a bankrupt Britain wouldn't inevitably be forced into decolonization -- in spite of Gandhi's PR -- then come back to me.
And if you can explain away Gandhi's self-promotion, why not have a crack at his well-documented racist opinions about blacks and his proclivities toward young girls and enemas. You'll get bonus points.
While wrapped so heavily in your narcissism, you failed to notice that I have taken no position at all regarding how Gandhi should be rated. I triggered all of this sound and fury from you simply by asking you to explain why you felt that Gandhi was overrated.
It required numerous posts to extract any information along those lines, with the above being the first hints toward the nature of your complaint.
However, while waiting to learn what it was that disturbed you about Gandhi, I have learned what it is which disturbs me about you. What I have learned is that you belong on the ignore list.
Even to this day he's still considered a tyrant to us Americans and blamed for our Revolutionary War with Great Britain and yet in reality by the 1770's/1780's the british monarch was basically a figurehead as it was Parliament who had the power and specifically Prime Minister Lord North who instituted the infuriating actions and consequent war afterwards with it's American colonies.
Even to this day he's still considered a tyrant to us Americans.
Perhaps such a consideration exists among those whose knowledge of the events of the revolution is a superficial one.
In the hands of historians, the revolution has gone through numerous and different popular interpretations with the prevailing political atmosphere being a major determining factor. In the immediate aftermath, it was an entirely heroic interpretation. In the middle of the 19th century the dominant idea became the revolution as an accident, a misunderstanding between friends which got out of hand. The dawn of the 20th Century ushered in the Beardian economics school of interpretation where everything was being seen through the lens of economic imperatives. They concluded the war wasn't about home rule so much as it was about who would rule at home. WW II engineered a sense of republican purpose and gave birth to the ideological school of interpretation where the revolution had been all about establishing liberty on Earth.
Since then the professional point of view has shifted more toward rationalism and George has emerged as a well meaning mediocrity. He was never a tyrant of any sort, that was purely colonial propaganda. George's primary flaw was that he was a black/white thinker who lost the colonies because he was unable to imagine any relationship other than dominant/subordinant.
That George was never a tyrant of any sort also represents a view I formed about 25 years back and have not had reason to modify. One key to understanding where the tyrant business comes from is to trace the events leading up to George's rejection of the Olive Branch Petition from the 2nd Continental Congress. Before that it jumps out at the reader that the colonial complaints about Britain were all focused on Parliament, not the crown. Parliament was to blame for the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act, the tea tax, the Intolerable Acts.
The colonial mentality was such that their connection to Britain was seen as having a common king, but independent legislatures. It was widely believed that George was their kindly friend, that when things got too far out of hand, the crown would step in like a wise father, chastise the bully Parliament and restore happiness.
It was because of these rosey expectations that the Americans felt betrayed when George sided with Parliament and declared the colonies in a state of rebellion. What that declaration did was to remove the colonists from the King's protection. This infuriated the Americans because it shattered the illusions upon which they had been relying...George their friend and father figure was in reality George the Warden who was about to put the arm on the whole dynamic.
Then....and only then...was George reborn as the worst tyrant alive. It was hyperbole fueled by crash of their confidence in George as someone neutral and above the fray, someone who was going to step in a settle matters in a fair and reasonable manner.
I would liken it to the mother who warns her misbehaving kids..."Wait until your father gets home", only to have Daddy arrive and side with the kids against Mom.
The weren't very many kings who deserved many accolades for accomplishments, good or bad. They were thrust by birth into the reign, every vacuum was automatically filled by somebody irrespective of merit, and most just rolled with the punches. Their renown rests on either the necessities of the times, or palace intrigues. Any crucial decisions they might have made were more likely self-serving or coin-tosses, as opposed to seizing the moment and taking a measured stand in history.
There were a thousand Wally Pipps for every Lou Gehrig.
I certainly agree with this one. She wasn't an especially good actress and was a problem to work with, according to those of her day who knew her and worked with her--chronically late, didn't know her lines, missed days of shooting, spent hours on makeup and hair styling, scenes had to be re-shot repeatedly. It was only after she died that she became the icon she is today. Had she lived she would probably have faded into relative obscurity by the time she was in her 50's. This country is funny like that--when entertainers die young they are elevated in death in a way they would never have been in life.
While wrapped so heavily in your narcissism, you failed to notice that I have taken no position at all regarding how Gandhi should be rated. I triggered all of this sound and fury from you simply by asking you to explain why you felt that Gandhi was overrated.
It required numerous posts to extract any information along those lines, with the above being the first hints toward the nature of your complaint.
However, while waiting to learn what it was that disturbed you about Gandhi, I have learned what it is which disturbs me about you. What I have learned is that you belong on the ignore list.
Pity. And I was so looking forward to hearing about the enemas.
That's not the fault of the Founders. They had no model to work from, and had to make it all up from scratch, which when you think about it, as an astounding feat. Every country in Europe at the time except a few cantons of Switzerland was a monarchy, and the idea of a constitution could have only come later, with the American model to reflect upon.
It is true that almost every country in the world has a constitution today that guarantee more rights to their populace than the US constitution does, and nearly all conform pretty well with its provisions. But still, the Founders made the archetype, and it's good enough to have withstood the amazing changes in society, without having to change any of the amazingly economical wording to make it fit.
To me, the beauty of the US constitution is that it presumes the rights of the people to exist by default, and limits the power of the government to infringe upon them. The genius of the Founders lies in that insight.
Bold contradicts itself, no?
so again, why has the US not done something to modernise and update a constitution that leaves us less free as many more modern ones?
and you said: "and the idea of a constitution could have only come later, with the American model to reflect upon." Magna Charta?
It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered — and implicitly supported what became the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment.
you know, that same writ of habeas corpus that Geoge Bush suspended during his presidency? P.S. I wonder where the tea party was then?
A few writers have questioned whether Alexander the Great really deserved the title of "Great." Alexander had a short, meteoric career and he conquered much of Asia. But in retrospect what did he leave behind of enduring value to posterity? Other than Alexandria, Egypt, there is little to memorialize Alexander as a builder instead of a destroyer. He drove his troops hard,and by the time they reached India, they were almost at the point of rebellion. His life seems to have been one of personal indulgence and dissipation. It's been said that Alexander conquered everything but himself.
On Gandhi, I would say he was a remarkable man who came out of relative obscurity to seriously challenge the British empire by peaceful resistance. It's said that, as a young lawyer in South Africa, he was insulted by a racist remark that set him on a path to right the wrongs of racial inequality and colonialism. The fact that he became a symbol of nonviolent resistance and set in motion a movement that freed a subcontinent from colonial rule and established an independent nation of hundreds of millions of people is, in my opinion, quite significant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who was the most overated figure in history
