Man Of The 20th Century?

There are a few ways you can go with this...you can guage it on who had the greatest effect on the century, or who had the most positive effect on the century...or the most lasting effect. It's up to you...to me there are probably clear leaders depending on the criteria you choose...I don't think I'll effect the poll by saying that if you go for greatest effect, period, it's Stalin followed by Hitler. If you go for positive effect it's Gandhi, hands down. If it's lasting effect, well, there are arguments for several..I just thought it would be intersting. the only thing I'd ask is that we not be A&E about this, and automatically choose Americans.

Of course you could go a different way, and cite someone like Marx, Freud, etc. who had an effect without being there...or Ford, Edison, etc. for a different type of effect...and there are others, Saddat, Thatcher, Walessa, Steinham, Reagan, etc. who had an effect, but I felt it was less than those on the list.

 

To whomever chose MLK...the reasons I'd put Gandhi ahead of him are these:

* Gandhi did it first, which is boldest, bravest, and more impactive. MLK himself said Gandhi was his role model.

* Gandhi faced a tougher road...in the U.S., at least on paper the black man was supposed to be equal, and all he was trying to achieve, difficult as it was, was a realization of the law. Additionally he had huge areas of support from within the oppressive body, especially in the north. In India Gandhi faced legislated racial prejudice...it was universal, and the British Empire was based on maintaining it.

* Gandhi's movement lead to the freedom and self-determination of almost a billion people...MLK's freed millions, but numerically it's not even close.


I'm not saying that MLK wasn't huge...and he probably made the greatest single speech I have ever heard...but I think that Gandhi's impact was more significant, all told. Thoughts?

 

I thought about going that way...but then why not Lennon...or Monet...or Van Gogh...or Hemingway...or Elvis...or Bergman...or Hitchcock...or Eisenstein...or etc.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just explaining why i stayed away from the subjective realm of art...the list would be endless...


Besides, I hate Beckett...Theatre of the Absurd...pshaw...hey, yeah, why not Shaw?

 

Speaking seriously, it's possible to say that beckett was the best playwright of the 20th Century...but in terms of effect, how significant is that?I think that ta couple of arguments stand against that:

1) It's a bit like saying you were the best power hitter of the 70's. I know it's your field..it has been mine, to a degree, at times...but I think an objective analysis would call theatre in the 20th century s as on the wane..and that the greatest alterations on the theatre in that time were in terms of performance, in which case someone like Stanislavski or Strassburg had a greater effect. I think that the 20th Century will be more defined by film and the written word, leading, if you go this way, to conclude that Eisenstein, Bergman, Hitchcock, etc..or Joyce, etc.
2) I don't think he's that much ahead of, say, an Ibsen...more divergent, yes...but greater? Not as sure as you are.

 

*********Damnit! I meant to put Hitler on there...And Century has a typo...If possible, could a moderator replace Mao with Hitler, and fix the typo in the poll for me? Greatly appreciated.*******

 

I am completely blown away that Stalin hasn'y gotten a single vote. it may not have been entirely positive, but there can be little doubt that Stalin had a greater effect on the 20th Century than anyone on the list. Consider:


*Of the 3 significant events which shaped the century, WWI, WWII, and the Cold War, Stalin was one of the 3 or 4 most influencial figures in the second, probably the most significant figure in the 3rd, and even played a role, although not all that big, in the 1st.

* When he assumed power, the Soviet Union was thought by many to not have much of a chance of even surviving...by the time he died, the USSR had risen to become the 2nd most powerful nation on earth.

* He was the most powerful man, by a mile, for the nation which did the most damage to Hitler's Reich. At the beginning of the war the USSR was still often relying heavily on traditional cavalry...and by thr end, after surviving arguably the greatest force in military history, he had turned the tables and claimed more territory of any Allied nation, and possessed the largest and most experienced land force on the planet.

* He lead the 2nd most populous nation on Earth, and the largest, for almost half of the century...and was responsible for the deaths of more than 1 tenth of them...a greater number than Hitler.


It's not positive, but he certainly shaped the 20th century more than any other individual.

 

Cool...although I voted for someone else, myself.


While we're on the subject, how does FDR have 3x the voted of Churchill? In terms of global effect, they each are pretty much about WWII, and Winston clearly had a greater effect on that puppy.