Slashdot Mirror
A Quiet Adult: My Candidate for Man of the Century
A Quiet Adult: My Candidate for Man of the Century
by David Brin
It seems our favorite preoccupation this year -- even more riveting than worry about the Y2K bug -- is an obsession with making lists. The 100 best movies of all time. Top musicians of the millennium. And so on, as if we'll somehow better grasp the coming era by tidily summing up the past.
Time Magazine is one beneficiary of this mania, as crowds throng to its web site eagerly voting for who will be named "Person of the Century". Of course the matter won't be decided democratically. Time's editors will select whose face fills the first Year 2000 cover. (And pedants will insist that Time can do it all over again in January 2001, when the next century officially begins.)
Naturally, I have an opinion. But I'm not hopeful that Time's editors will pick my candidate, a man whose name many readers may not recognize, even though they owe him a great deal.
#
The poll figures at the Time Magazine web site show, if nothing else, the power of organized write-in campaigns. Heading the list are Yitzhak Rabin, Elvis Presley, and Billy Graham. In slots number six through eight we have Pope John Paul II, Martin Luther King and Gordon B. Hinckley, Chairman of the Mormon Church. People also tend to pick "favorite" figures, hence the prominent appearance in the top 20 of John Lennon, Madonna and Princess Diana.
A large number of rather dour folks seem to have concluded (reluctantly, I hope) that Adolf Hitler was the most significant figure of this century, because he caused the biggest ruckus and slaughtered lots of people. This faction is large enough to win him the number four slot.
Only a handful of the top twenty made a decisively positive difference to world history, instigating profound and universally recognized changes for the better. People like Dr. King, Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela and Henry Ford certainly deserve mention. But in my opinion, none of the flamboyant top candidates altered the course of human civilization as much as one quiet man who was never an entertainer, religious figure, or chief of state.
His name was George Marshall. Let me explain.
#
At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, there were fond hopes for a new era of reason. Some of the world's great intellects spoke of a coming time when nations would abandon the strict command hierarchies of the past, such as monarchy or inherited wealth, in favor of more open systems based on merit. A time when colonialism would give way to equality among peoples and superstition would step aside for of free enquiry. While few contemporary politicians shared these aspirations, there were some exceptions. Theodore Roosevelt and later Woodrow Wilson proclaimed their belief in such a vision, calling for a mature, planet-wide civilization based on pragmatism, mutual respect, local self-determination, universal education, democracy, and international cooperation for peace.
As we all know, events did not go as they wished. After the horrific agonies of World War One, the progressive worldview was rejected both in America and abroad, partly due to narrow minded self-interest, but also because humanity was otherwise preoccupied. Like careening drunks, we commenced a long and horrible infatuation with ideologies -- from communism and fascism to nationalist jingoism and every other "ism" imaginable.
Hitler and Stalin were no more than particularly gruesome manifestations of this fever -- a passion for simplistic visions of utopia, shared with almost hysterical ardor by millions who invested their favorite manifestos with the kind of devotion formerly given to kings and religions. These hypnotic formulas were nearly always based on reducing human beings to formulas or paper caricatures, denying our true complexity.
Today, at the end of this tense century, we might look back on it as a pit that Homo sapiens fell into, then somehow managed to climb out of again, chastened and perhaps even a bit wiser. Though ideology still sings its polyphonic siren call to millions, the trend in human affairs seems now to be gradual movement toward tolerance and pragmatism... along with a healthy dose of suspicion toward all authority. Despite a myriad problems, ours is a better, more hopeful world than it was in 1942, when humanity wallowed in violence, justified by frantic polemics.
How did this change come about?
First and above all, the worst ideologues had to be defeated. For this task, Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- who guided the United States from isolation into the crucial alliance against fascism -- relied utterly upon his most trusted military advisor, George Marshall.
Earlier, Marshall had been responsible for training a generation of American officers in completely new doctrines and tactics that modernized our armed forces, preparing them to face the coming struggle with unprecedented agility. Then, as Chief of Staff, Marshall streamlined the chain of command and personally selected the younger leaders who won great victories.
When offered command over the D-Day invasion of Europe, and the glory that would come with it, Marshall passed that honor to Dwight Eisenhower because FDR confided -- "I don't sleep well when you are away." His value as a wartime diplomat, nurturing a fragile alliance among prickly allies, was immeasurable. In gratitude, Winston Churchill called him 'the noblest Roman.'
Marshall's most difficult work commenced after victory was achieved. Dragged out of retirement in order to serve as U.S. Secretary of State, he worked with fellow titans -- Harry Truman and Dean Acheson -- to counter relentless crises from Finland to Greece and helped midwife the birth of Israel.
Of course he was the guiding force behind the "Marshall Plan", which turned the great wealth of the United States into a river for the war-ravaged peoples of Europe and Asia. In fact, if the Plan had been his sole accomplishment, it would be enough to merit placement on the short list for Man of the Century. That one act of resolve -- achieved over fierce political opposition -- reversed the bellicose tradition of 4,000 years by treating vanquished foes with generosity instead of vindictiveness. Among those who have been honored with the Nobel Peace Prize, few names were ever so universally acclaimed.
While Marshall's name may be unfamiliar today, the respect that mid-century contemporaries held for him was almost unprecedented. President Harry Truman once said of Marshall that "He was a man you could count on to be truthful in every way, and when you find somebody like that, you have to hang on to them."
David McCullough adds to this image, in his biography of Truman. "Like George Washington, with whom he was often compared, Marshall was a figure of such flawless rectitude and self-command (that) he both inspired awe and made description difficult."
Amid the tempests of an angry era, Marshall (again, in cooperation with others) helped ensure that the United Nations was built into something more capable than the old League of Nations and that the principles Woodrow Wilson pleaded for in 1919 would at last become the official standards of world conduct.
Yes, I'll concede the obvious. Adherence to those standards has been spotty, even by the nations who championed them. Nevertheless, we should find it profoundly historic that there is now a widely accepted world moral code, one that even the worst dictators pay lip service to. Today the words that Woodrow Wilson used so long ago cast long shadows across every negotiating table. They have weight whenever oppressed people rise up to denounce the tyrants that kept them down. Without a world conscience to appeal to, how would Ghandi and Mandella have prevailed? Marshall played an important role in putting ideals high on the international agenda.
Alas, ideals aren't enough. Good words often must team up with harsh practicality. Back in the late forties, ideological fevers still raged, both in Moscow and in a Washington D.C. that seemed awash with hysteria and panic. Surrounded by frantic calls for either isolationism or spasmodic war against the Soviets, George Marshall calmly helped forge the Atlantic Alliance. The strategy of containment that he and Acheson devised -- aiming to neither provoke the Communist Empire, nor allow it to run wild -- was the middle road that guided every U.S.administration for 50 years, notwithstanding episodes of naivete and saber-rattling.
In sharp contrast to the spasmodic impulsiveness that used to drive international affairs, Marshall's global plan was sober, far-seeing, patient, prescient, and it held until the Soviet fever finally broke.
Many mistakes -- and even calamities -- happened along the way. Much that is regrettable was done in the name of America and the West. But you have only to ask the people of Prague, Warsaw, and a hundred other places how they feel about the outcome.
Above all, we did not panic and fry this planet.
Wasn't that enough?
Then consider yet another great service, when the administration headed by Truman and Marshall ordered the United States military to end racial segregation and discrimination in its ranks, becoming the first great American institution to show the way. With the armed forces integrated -- passing millions of young men through a rigorous "school for equality" -- the writing was on the wall. There could be no going back. The rest of society must follow.
George Marshall would be the last to claim sole credit for any of these accomplishments. Invariably courteous and imperturbable under pressure -- ('the imperturbability of a good conscience,' George Kennan called it) -- he was, in David McCullough's words "without a trace of petty vanity or self-serving ambition."
Which is my chief point in nominating him. For it is ultimately demeaning to pick one charismatic individual, elevating him to stand, detached in godlike splendor, above all the other billions who lived and labored in this century, making our age unlike any other for its combination of savagery and progress. The great achievements of this era were realized by teams of bright, cooperative people, not megalomaniacs or magnetic orators. In the long run, leaders are only as effective as the citizens they persuade to follow them.
By appointing and encouraging skilled people, demanding the best from them, and then stepping aside when his pupils won acclaim, George Marshall showed us how to guide a modern, confident civilization, not a fervid rabble. This style explains his effectiveness... and the reason why so few of his countrymen now know his name.
#
As the Twentieth Century wanes, the notion of arranging society according to some contrived dogma has at long last begun to seem tiresome. Many of us now see that all of the radical and zealous prescriptions were part of the same feverish disease, that only time and patience could cure. Even modern saints like Ghandi -- though properly admired for their principles and moral courage -- are seen to have been limited or foolish in their specific political agendas, from pastoral-socialism to libertarian solipsism. Humanity proved more complex than ideologues ever imagined.
Couldn't the "Man of the Century" somehow reflect this hardwon lesson? Naturally, it should be a person who dramatically affected the course of human events. But how about also picking someone who can serve as a role model?
Many of the most popular candidates displayed courage, brilliance, fortitude, compassion and relentless tenacity -- admirable traits of heroes. Indeed, George Marshall exhibited many of those same qualities.
But he also showed a few that are far more rare. Calmness, quiet competence, adaptability, a genius for detecting and promoting talent, an aversion toward flamboyance, plus a tireless willingness to hear the other guy's point of view.
These traits go beyond mere heroism. They are features of a genuine adult.
That word -- adult -- is one the editors of Time Magazine might do well to ponder when they pick a "Man of the Century." If we humans are going to make something of ourselves in the next hundred years, we should not start by picking our role models from among the last century's passionate prima donnas.
How about instead honoring the millions who are best exemplified by George Marshall. Those who spent their lives in quiet service, showing us how to behave as grownups.
-- David Brin
November 1999
http://www.kithrup.com/brin/
David Brin is a scientist and bestselling novelist. His 1989 thriller Earth foresaw both global warming and the World Wide Web. A movie with Kevin Costner was loosely based on The Postman. Startide Rising is in pre-production at Paramount Pictures. His latest novel, Foundation's Triumph, brings to a grand finale Isaac Asimov's famed Foundation Universe.
Brin's non-fiction book -- The Transparent Society: Will Technology Make Us Choose Between Freedom and Privacy? -- deals with threats to openness and liberty in the new wired-age. http://www.kithrup.com/brin/
My vote for Man of the Century is Albert Einstein. His achievements - and there are many - are original and on a grand scale, not just confined to earthly matters. His achievements has lasting consequences over a long period of time and go beyond his field. He made us see the Universe in a new way and our place in it. He is also kwnown for his humanitarian qualities, quick wit and wisdom. Albert is THE man.
Some of my favorite Einstein's quotes :
1) Imagination is more important than knowledge.
2) After the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshma, he was asked if he think there will be another world war, he replied with words to the effect : "I don't know, but the next one will be fought with sticks and stones."
Anyway, I know there's a lot of ill-will towards the US post-WWII. Especially in light of the US actions towards Israel and Britain with the actions in Egypt, it's interesting that the two nations have remained such close allies.
However, I think, as someone else pointed out, that a lot of the reason the US did that was realizing the mistakes of the Versailles Peace. And after the Soviets "turned" the Marshall Plan into a seeming plan of US-imperialism, it became critical to get the Germany back on its' collective feet to defeat "The Red Menace". Britain, as a fellow victor, wasn't seen as needed the same help.
Yeah, I'm that guy.
I get particularly annoyed by this mistake because this simplistic definition and condemnation tend to be attached to anyone who sees large-scale problems and calls for large-scale solutions. Sometimes the assertion that problems are complex is used to paralyze any kind of action at all, on the grounds that we have to complete our analysis before we do anything even if that takes forever. It's important that over-simplistic thinking be refuted where it's spouted, but I think trying to create a category called "ideology" meaning "analysis of society, its problems and solutions that I don't like" is as meaningless as talking about "pornography" meaning "erotica that I don't like".
There are ills that Hitler and Stalin have in common, but this way of looking at them doesn't capture them.
--
Xenu loves you!
The Marshall Plan was 'a good thing' but strangely the people of, say, Britain were rather confused about the way the US was so keen to help the vanquished, and yet at the same time, so very unwilling to help the victors.
Bullshit. Here's a link.
Here, have another.
You may want to research this stuff before launching int Yet Another "Ugly American" Tirade.
SoupIsGood Food
According to the history books, Churchill came up with an answer: get help -- American help -- by any means necessary. That's pretty much what happened, modulo Hitler's suicidal stupidity in violating both of Liddel-Hart's two rules of warfare ("never start a war on two fronts" and "never start a land war in asia"). But Roosevelt charged a heavy price, one that most Americans today don't even understand:
He demanded -- and got -- the dismantling of the British empire.
In 1945, Britain was within one week of going bankrupt. It would have been easy to drain the resources of India, Australia, and other countries to support the devastated Imperial hub ... but instead, they quietly and without much fuss shut down the largest empire the world has ever seen (at one point it covered 24.6% of the planet).
Giving Marshall Aid to Britain would have undermined the US State Department's leverage over a British government that wasn't really sure it wanted to definitively relinquish its place as a superpower (which is what the UK was, prior to 1914).
Uh, the Marshall plan alone (the only thing I associated with the man before reading Brins article) would qualify him to win an European "man of the century" award. The Marshall plan wasn't just about giving away money, it was given in forms that forced the European nations to cooperate, in order to prevent a new war. In a way, George Marshall founded the European Union.
I know this is tired, but I figure someone has to say it.
The Marshall Plan was 'a good thing' but strangely the people of, say, Britain were rather confused about the way the US was so keen to help the vanquished, and yet at the same time, so very unwilling to help the victors. Britain's war debt to the US was crippling for years after the end of the war, and the US wasn't all that keen to write it off.
I'm no expert on the history of all this, but more than one person has pointed out that the Marshall Plan, as well as ensuring a sort of peace, also ensured increased power for the US and a nice market to export to.
So, not everyone in Europe sees the Marshall Plan as the most wonderful act of generosity ever conceived....
-----
Maker of amplifiers for playing hard rock and shred music. Much more significant than some scribbler.
;)
This comment illustrates the supreme self-importance of this "movement". Ok, so Stallman's still pissed that Xerox wouldn't give him the source to a printer driver and obsessed over it the rest of his life. You compare that with putting Europe back together after WWII? Give me a break. That affected REAL lives in serious ways. The effect of Stallman is Unix got cheap for a few guys who want to play with the source. Big fucking deal.
If anyone should get the prize for a "new way to look at information" it'd be Berners-Lee or even Andreesen fer chrissakes. Or yes, Grace Hopper for COBOL! I'm sorry, but technically speaking you're not looking at ANYTHING in a new way, you're just duplicating what was already there - built by PAID programmers working for a BIG CORPORATION. No question putting that in Everyman's hands is a great contribution, but not enough for Man of The Century.
As I recall there was plenty of public domain software around when RMS started the FSF, and you didn't have to buy into his political/social movement to use it, and you could do anything you damn well pleased with it. Now all people do is argue about license terms.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
I have to say I agree completely, and in addition would note Marshall's involvment in the McCarthy trials. His brave stand against McCarthy and his acusations delt a serious blow to the Red Scare and sped an end to one of the darkest chapters in American history in this century.
A true American and man of this world indeed.
I like the idea of Mr Marshall for Adult of the Century. I know europeans might not be keen on that, but he has had a lot of influence on the latter half of the 20th century.
No one person will get loved by everyone as "Carbon Based Life Form of the Century" It is human nature.
I'm surprised General Marshall hasn't popped up earlier (in public, not on /.), but then again, sadly, maybe I'm not.
;)
It's strange how history works, how for the greatest stresses and strains great men (and women) seem to come to the fore. Or at least, if they're not great, they put aside their weaknesses to lead. Turns out we were lucky in getting Marshall, Bradley, Nimitz, Eisenhower, great men and great leaders. The last time a happy accident like that came about in Western Civ was probably the American Revolution..
Hell, I'd compare George Marshall to Agricola as much as to George Washington. Anyone would be infinitely lucky to live in a nation founded on the principles of any of those men.
What has this to do with slashdot, you might ask? Well, if it wasn't for Marshall, you probably wouldn't be at that terminal looking at pixels, you'd probably be a wisp of carbon dancing gently across a pockmarked landscape or starving to death in a still-bombed-out European city. I guess it shows that, on occasion, America can export something a bit more useful to the world than 'Baywatch'. If there's any justice, Marshall stands among the greatest men in all of recorded history. And having an idea of Marshall, he probably would balk when asked to line up with them
Happy holidays!
Your Working Boy,
What would you do? Here you are, in command of the US, there's a war raging a continent away that could dramatically alter the power base of the world. Do you sit there, or do you act? We acted, and emerged some 40 odd years later as the last standing superpower in the world.
People are rational.
People try to make the best decisions based on the resources and information available.
People, when in groups, tend to throw morality to the wind.
For geeks, I can illustrate the last point quite vividly by pointing them to the playgrounds of their youth - chastised ... never by one, but by a group. The other two should be self-evident. Combine these together and you have a fairly effective formula for determining what that person will do - they're rational. What would you do in their shoes?
This "man of the century" stuff presupposing that this person is somehow superior to his peers is non-sense. They had, or developed, the character traits needed to survive in that position. Some succeeded brilliantly at the task, others failed miserably. Was it really personality, or was it just good (bad?) timing? I lean towards the ladder - I believe every individual, at any time and in any location, can make a difference. Sorry Time, but you should put a mirror on that page, and let us make a difference in our own private lives. In the final analysis, that's all that matters.
going way out on a limb and staking my whole life's reputation - that they pick the assassinated civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for century person - that ought to grab headlines and sell magazines.
Boojum
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
We need to ask ourselves: Why do we really need a man (or woman, let's be PC for a minute) of the century? Is it really that important to pick one person and tell everybody that that one is the best/most important/etc.?
All these arguments over who is person of the year, person of the century, Time's poster-boy, whose face goes on the Wheaties box... It's all rather absurd if you stand back and take a look at it! What these magazines and writers should be focusing on is the fact that it took the cooperation (and competition) of LOTS of people to make the world what it is today... not just one or two guys.
________________________________
I don't question that the US has indeed caused problems with our mixed motivations, but I can't say I'm impressed with criticism coming from someone who can't even get the basic facts right.
Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt was president of the US from 1901 to 1909.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was president of the US from 1933 until his death in 1945.
(And while he was far from perfect, comparing him to Stalin is just ludicrous.)
Perhaps you mean the US-Philippine war? (I'm don't usually care about spelling mistakes, but given the context ...)
1 million Phillipino civilians and 20,000 Phillipino millitary casualities (estimate).
Whose estimate? Source, please?
One of the more interesting american policies: "Kill everyone over ten".
Who are you quoting? Source, please?
Yes,I think Roosevelt was a bit much like Stalin.
So's my Aunt Tilda ... but not in any meaningful way.
I was not confusing the Roosevelts, although it might look that way;
It does.
I just meant to say that I don't know too much about G. Marshall & Co.
Hmmm. To say that you don't know too much about a person, you criticized a different person whose name you didn't get right. [shrug] Okay, whatever.
I am still struck by the conflict that although he worked for peace, he was a soldier - and soldiers are trained to kill other human beings to forward whatever political agenda is on the table
Maybe bad soldiers, but not good ones. Good soldiers are taught to WIN, not to kill. There's a big difference, and that's one point Brin was making -- that despite being a "killer", Marshall instituted some of the most generously peaceful actions of the century, in hopes that they would PREVENT wars and killing in the future.
Despite the popular characterization of the military, most generals are more likely to be considered "wimps" by barroom standards. They tend to spend a lot of time reading philosophy texts and other boring things like that.
Marshall would have been very familiar with the following notion:
to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting - Sun Tzu
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I've visited the George Marshall library in Virginia - just because we happened to be driving through and looking for tourist sites. The place left me in awe - he was a truly great and humble man. Personally I would have voted for Gandhi or Einstein, but Marshall definitely deserves a place in the top ten most important individuals of the century.
Energy: time to change the picture.
to hear a voice proclaiming that "Its not what people think of you that matters, but how you act and what you accomplish" Brin's article alone makes me want to read more about him.
Even though I'm not anti-Katz, I do appreciate the opportunity to read a professional writer who isn't concentrating on current hype. Brin's article on TPM was equally thought-provoking, perhaps CmdrTaco and co. can arrange for a more frequent view on Brin's mind?
Please?
e to the i pi equals negative one
This paradoxical situation was satirised in the Ealing comedy "The mouse that roared", starring Peter Sellars. In the film, a small European principality which is on the verge of bankruptcy decides to declare a war on the USA with the specific intention of losing and then claiming Marshall aid. As I recall, their "invasion" of the USA goes unnoticed because when the the invasion force - a handful of men - arrives in NY, the whole city is hiding in the cellar from a threatened nuclear attack.
Today, at the end of this tense century, we might look back on it as a pit that
Homo sapiens fell into, then somehow managed to climb out of again, chastened and
perhaps even a bit wiser.
Quite idealistic, to think that humanity as a whole has managed to change, even if a little, for the good. There are still so many tyrannies and cruelty going on, that its hard for me to believe that humanity have ever learned from the past.
The problem with picking Stalin is that by the end of the 20th Century his influence has been eclipsed by the postwar policies known as the Marshall Plan. While Stalin was certainly a major influence, I think he was overshadowed by several figures including Marshall, Mao and Lenin in importance.
There is no question in my mind of the greatness of George Marshall. He is the greatest statesman of the century and the man who is responsible in large part for the success of democracy over tyranny in the second half of the 20th century.
There are very few others that I would place in the same league. Perhaps Zhang Zemin and Teddy Roosevelt.
From the technology field I'd pick Einstein and Fleming. But at this elevated level the competition is so great....
The real question I wonder about is who is the man of the millenium...
My choice is Thomas Jefferson. When John Kennedy gave a state dinner for American Noble Prize winners (about 100 attended) he started off his introduction with... "Never has there been assembled at the White House such talent since Thomas Jefferson dined here... alone".
He's not saying that having an overarching strategy to solve problems is bad. He's saying that taking one stance on everything is. One viewpoint, and no matter whether it fits or not, shoving the problem through it, is bad. The idea that you can reduce all of the worlds problems and solutions to a set of dogmatic beliefs.
And worse not just adopting the static set of viewpoints for yourself. But making/forcing everyone else in a state/nation/whatever to follow it also. A mature individual is someone who can calmly look at the facts, and come up with a good solution for a problem without trying to let their own biases screw up the process too much. A mature society is very similair. No one is saying you can't have a philosophy/ideology of your own. He's saying one-size-fit's-all is a poor fit for your mind.
In effect, you are saying the Europe got American goods for free. Under most circumstances this would be a calimity for the recipient economies, and certainly this was bad for a few fortunate individuals who might have stood to profit from severe and widespread want. On the other hand given the state of postwar Europe I don't think most Europeans would have been better off wihtout the Marshall plan. And, in the end, you can't exactly call a country like Germany an economic colony of the US.
In my view, the fact that Americann companies benefited enormously makes this a stroke of genius. It was a plan at once mutually beneficial, politically feasible, and humane. Statesmanship simply doesn't get better than this.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Funny how history repeats itself. William Marshall was the chief military advisor to Henry II, as remarkable a king as FDR was a President. (It's after him that the term "Knight Marshall" comes to us.) Like his distant namesake, he was widely reknowned for absolute integrity.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
That's the problem with military force, and government power in general - it's a vector quantity that can be rotated very rapidily, increased more slowly, and almost never reduced. A powerful military may be pointing in the "protect our people's freedom" direction one month and the "destroy the enemies of the Fatherland" direction the next.
Also note that being opposed to a strong standing military doesn't mean being a pacifist. The authors of the Federalist papers viewed a standing army as one of the greatest threats to freedom, prefering a strong militia to defend the nation from invasion.
But it is an interesting question whether non-violent resistance could have turned the German population away from Hitler with less loss of life than was involved in WWII. Thoreau's civil disobedience was a tactic designed for use against the laws of one's own government, and that's where it has seen its greatest successes - Indian independance, the US civil rights movement, the end of apartheid. I don't know if it could be used against an invading state.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Do you have a better EUROPEAN candidate? Winston Churchill, no question. (And I am American) Think about it, without Churchill: 1) England would not have gotten her troops to France in time to help stop the Germans at the Marne in 1914 (When WSC was the First Lord of the Admiralty) 2) The English welfare state would not look the same (WSC was an ally of Lloyd-George in getting the welfare state off of the ground) 3) Of course, England would probably have surrendered in 1940. Hitler would have won, and been able to invade Russia without any distractions.
Irrespective of the achievements of the current Bishop of Rome, your statement's overreaching implications are patently ridiculous. To assume that a man who holds some sort of spiritual position is ipso facto disqualified from temporal recognition is itself the more insulting of the two choices. If a man does great things, it matters not what ice cream flavor he might prefer.
Spain does not hesitate to honor its Christian, Jewish, Moslem, and Roman countrymen. Go to Córdoba; go to Toledo. Observe the statuary and respect. Why should we be any less respectful than they are?
Probably because of my background(I'm a brazilian) I studied the History of the United States without the many myths surrounding it in episodes like the founding of the colonies, the "democratic" american revolution, the civil war and the period of reconstruction.
Theodore Roosevelt was the most weird american president(my opinion). He invaded Cuba and expanded more the territories of the United States and the policy of imperialism(remember the expansion of the USA to the Pacific and Phillipines). He loved hunting and guns and often had explosions of rage when his decisions were contested by the Congress.
And Woodrow Wilson launched the policy of "America for the americans". His discourse is very beautiful, but behind this lied a policy to show, specially to Europe, that all Americas should stay in the sphere of influence of the USA. This speech influenced generations of north american governments until today to use any methods they could to protect american interests in Central and South America.
So I must disagree with the point made by David Brin about these two presidents and their positions concerning democracy.
"Learning, learning, learning - that is the secret of jewish survival" -- Ahad A'Ham
Don't forget that many anti-communist agitators in eastern europe were priests. Several were killed for such activity in Poland alone; the pope himself only barely escaped that sad fate.
That said, anti-communism strikes me as a one-note philosophy, lacking a connection to a larger whole or principle. Which isn't to say that anticommunists are unprincipled, merely that the anti-communist movement as a whole is such an incredibly mixed bag that we can use it as proof of almost nothing - except for anti-communism itself, of course. It spans the breadth of political thought, from die-hard leftist intellectuals (Orwell) to totalitarian dictators of the worst order (Pinochet).
When selecting a man of the century, one should select a man who exemplifies the thought of the century. Should we select a man who exemplifies only a single thought - perhaps a man who only had a single thought? If we are to select a laughingstock, then we should abandon all pretense and seek out the greatest laughingstock available.
If we are to seek out a great man, on the other hand, then someone who thought great thoughts and performed great deeds (that is, someone who wasn't along for the ride of history) is as good a choice as you could possibly make. Marshall is an entirely apt choice in this respect.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
Look at the religious right in the US, preparing for (or preparing to cause) the end of the world in a week. Look at extremist Islam in Afghanistan, where women are treated worse than animals. Look at Yugoslavia and Rwanda, where people were tortured and killed simply because of their nationality or beliefs.
Even now in the supposedly educated and enlightened West, look at what unbridled corporate power has done to our ability to truly live and speak freely.
Now, I grant that no large-scale movement of the type or scale of fascism or communism has been able to take hold, but we all have our ideologies, and sadly, I don't expect them to go away anytime soon.
--mark
I've noticed that several people are already complaining about the fact that Marshall was a member of the military.
I keep getting this feeling that a lot of you believe that being a member of the military automatically makes you a violent person who likes to kill.
There are very few jobs in this world where the employee enjoys EVERY SINGLE task that they have to perform. The same is true of the military. If you took a poll of military people, and asked them how many look forward to war and killing people, I'll bet less that 1% answer that they want war and death.
Being Pro-military in the USA does not mean you are Pro-war, or even Pro-conflict. It means you are Pro-defense, and often Pro-peace.
Does the bully quit picking picking on the little guy because the little guy 'wants to talk about it'? Not likely. He will quit when someone with equal power and strength, or even less power and strength but more courage, stands up to him.
To say that you could like Marshall, except that he was a 'military man' is just dumb. The fact that he was a high ranking member of the military does not mean he was a murderer, a war-monger, hateful, or violent. It does mean he believed in defending what you believed to be right. The pen is not always mightier than the sword and sometimes physical power is required for defence as a last resort.
"Anyone who can't laugh at himself is not taking life seriously enough." - Larry Wall
George Marshall is a good choice, for sure. However, I am still struck by the conflict that although he worked for peace, he was a soldier - and soldiers are trained to kill other human beings to forward whatever political agenda is on the table.
Quite frankly, I cannot think of a single person who was the *most* important in our century. It is like choosing the most important of equals.
My choice for the most influential person is that guy who shot the Prince that started WW1. Now there is a person who influenced the path of the whole world. Another vote would be for Admiral Yamamoto for drawing the US into WWII. If it wasn't for these guys, we'd be living in a wholly different world.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
If it wasn't for the military, we would all be living under Hitler -- and he might still be alive today, picking the next racial target to exterminate.
I am genuinely curious what you would have done, as a pacifist, when Hitler started rolling through Europe (I'm assuming you are too young to have been there -- a European pacifist almost by definition would have to be).
And what if you had been Jewish? Would you simply have engaged "passive resistance" as your entire race was wiped out?
---
Ah, Marshall. An excellent paen to a forgotten hero as well as why the list thing is inane in te first place.
Assuming that you are right Mr. Brin -- and I think you have put together a very persuasive piece -- it is sad to say that Time would never put on the cover a visage and name that would leave 80% of the population under the age of 65 just scratching their heads going, "huh?"
Marshall may win on the fundamentals but I have to give Churchill the win on style points. Sure he was an egotist, but what a life he lived!
Also, gotta thow Gahndi in there. If one is consigering Dr. King, one should go straight to the source. He taught Dr. King everything he knew and made freedom possible for more than half a billion. King is such a navel-gazing, America-centric choice.
"Being Irish, he possessed an abiding sense of tragedy which sustained him through brief episodes of joy." -W. B.
> The Pope has been quite influential, but how did
> he play such a great role in bringing down
> Communism?
I hate to nitpick but...what downfal of communism?
The Downfal of communism in the USSR happend right
at the begining. Lennin and Stalin were the
Downfall of communism. Mostly because, they were
not communists.
Communism is a socialist system. It is a system
where everyone lives in communities, works for
the good of the community and shares in the
productivity of the community. A system without
classes.
Lenin and Stalin didn't want that. They created a
top ruling class for themselves. They were
communist in name only. In fact, I would go as far
as to say that Stalin was more closly fascist than
communist.
There is plenty of "Communism" around. Priests and
brothers in most christian churches I know of live
communisticly. They all live together in dorms,
they share communal vehicls. they take care of
each other.
There are even small communes spread throughout
the US of people who were disdainful of this
capitalistic society and wanted to live together
in peace. They got a bunch of land and set up a
commune.
THAT is communism (well a form of it...however the
Russians NEVER had a form of it)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> Adolf Hitler, while intensely important for a
> short period did not a particularly large impact
> outside the second world war.
Certainly not directly. However he is a shining
example of what it takes to persuade people.
He *WAS* the epitome of what it is to be a
politican.
> In fact some will argue that the Treaty of
> Versailles made Hitler inevetable.
Certainly the Treaty fueled German anger. However
I don't know if Hitler was himself inevitable.
Things he did and specifics about him set off
chains of events that still haunt us today.
If it were not for his persecution of Jews, one
of the largest mistakes in history, the creation
of Isreal, would never have taken place. However
he did, and it did.
Now, Of course it wasn't Hitler who made the
decision to place isral in what is probably one
of the 2 or 3 WORST possible places on the face of
the earth to put it. That was someone elses bright
idea. However if it wasn't for him, the zionists
would never have been able to leverage the
political pressure ot make it happen.
Still today we suffer because of some morons
throwing matches into a powder keg.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I realize fully that there is no right answer.
My original intent was very simply to state that
the article was wrong in saying Hitler doesn't
qualify because he wasn't "Positive" (however we
chose to define positive...I would personally
even argue that historical events are neither
positive or negative since there is no way we
could know what things would be like had they
gone differently)
I was simply refuting the Dismissal of Hitler as
important, not to say he is somehow better than
Mr Marshall.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Definitly agreed....a sad epitat on this is
m l
the Time top 100 polls...
"Elvis Teaches Teens to Rock and Roll" is winning
as "Most important event of the century"
#2 is "Man visits the moon" with over 7000 votes
LESS than elvis.
invention of the trasistor? less than 5000 votes
(elvis was almost 50000)
An interesting note on this...try asking a
romanian about Vlad Tepes. It seems a web page
ranked him as the "Most evil person of all time".
Mostly because of historical acounts of burning
large numbers of people alive...and the feat he
is known most for, having thousands of people at
a time impaled and left to die on high stakes.
This web page author got a very differnt view from
any romanians he talked to, who said that Tepes
was a good guy. They claim he only did it to the
rich who were epxloiting the poor, along with
thieves and other dishonest people.
BTW Tepes was also known by the name Dracula.
The page is here:
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/good.ht
fun reading.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Long after people have forgotten about Marshall, simply the administrator in charge of a huge welfare program to rebuild the "Kosovo of 1945" ("Europe", that is, Kosovo on a grander scale), people will instead remember the ones who pioneered a new way to look at information, a way that reshaped the modern economies of the world.
You don't have to buy everything Stallman talks about or even like him, he's a fallible human like everyone else: the "give me liberty or give me death" squad of this age. But he was, early and often, the gazeteer of the movement, the wacky anarchist on the soapbox in the public square. In the next century, when technology is creating many marvelous possibilties and you are thankful that the human genome has been GPLed, you'll come to understand what I'm talking about.
Also, despite his accomplishments in more peaceful fields, Marshall is too much of a militarist for me to respect this much, me being a pacifist.
So, while George Marshall was certainly a great man, he was not a man I could nominate for this title as I am European. :)
As he correctly points out, the people who have had the loudest voices or the biggest followings have been quite influential (that is one of the definitions of "influence") on our progress as a civilization. If it weren't for these people shouting their ideas -- even the bad ones -- we wouldn't be where we are now.
However, as we here on Slashdot should realize, the loudest people don't always have the greatest effect on humanity at large. There's always a group of people who are saying, "Forget the publicity, ignore the heckling, let's just get this job done!" We may gripe about clueless management, bad pay, less-than-perfect working conditions, but we stay in and do the work, and we tweak it where we can to make it a little better.
And as a result, a program that was originally designed to let a particle physics research group transfer graphic data from CERN led to the medium by which you're (hopefully) reading this.
Honestly, I think that perhaps, rather than a "Person of the Century," some magazines might want to broaden their view to include some groups like the software development team at CERN that first came up with http.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
Like I said, and I think you agree, I don't think facism or communism or capitalism or whatever will ever be able to explain a person, much less society. However, we may be able to come out of the 20th century with the knowledge that we need to be wary of anyone who proselytizes the simple solutions that historical ideologies have proffered. We may not need to condemn them (i.e. MLK or Ghandi), but we need to be sure to understand that there is something deeper than their simple solutions.
So, I think what Brin is trying to say is that ideologies, at least by his definition, are just the facade or "front" for deeper issues, whether we understand that at the time or not. As such, they can't address everything coherently. He is not saying that "ideologies are bad because ideologies are bad"...that would be tautological and pretty silly. It seems that he is simply showing how, by his definition of ideologies as "simplistic visions of utopia", ideologies are not the final answer, and that we need to learn that lesson.
I think you're right, though, that we can't let this stifle our search for the answer. Some "ideologies" have been almost inarguably good in their effects, and we've learned a lot from even the bad ones (not that I'd care to repeat some of them!). Hopefully the lesson we take with us will be one of humility, something like "we don't know the answer, we've tried some simple ones that for whatever reason don't work, but we've learned to be more careful and think about things a little more". Who knows. At least people like you and Brin are thinking about it; if everyone looked at it with some criticality, I think we could solve a lot of problems (although that, too, is probably an ideology :).