David Attenborough or Peter Whittngham
+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Someone not mentioned yet but without whom we would not be chatting to each other on here today; Tim Berners-Lee
David Attenborough or Peter Whittngham
... and back we go to the WB conspiracy !
I'm coming to the conclusion that it's unlikely here that there can be any grown up dialogue. It's very sad indeed if so few people here can manage a sensible conversation, but it does seem that way.
Let's be fair, can you really expect a sensible conversation when you are advocating Nigel Farage as the greatest living Briton? I would have thought that, if nothing else, the last few years has proved that none of those in the forefront of current day politics on either side of the political spectrum is remotely worthy of such an honour.
Brave post ,but I understand the theory, if you believe politics would deliver the greatest person, and his desire and drive has created Brexit and its outcome , which in turn is
dismantling parliament, and modern day politics, splitting the two main parties in two , then yes, he is up thier with Cromwell.
As before,when one has little to say one reverts to child like personal attacks , they are desperately trying to get rid of you and your debate, its called bullying and harrassment.
Dont give in , any view is worth considering ,even if you dont agree it , simply debate it ,if you can that is ?
Your problem here is putting him as one of the “Greatest” living Brits as opposed to influential.
Great or not is obviously going to go down to history and how things eventually pan out.
It is foolish though to dismiss him or his legacy in regards to his influence.
He has certainly achieved part of what he set out to do and for the rights or wrongs, that is certainly some achievement.
For me, the answer to the original question has to be TimBL.
Aren't you really pointing out that the OP has failed to be logical (and therefore rational) by determinedly not recognizing Farage could not be deemed to have any attribute which is "great"?
S/he complains other people aren't being "rational" but fell at the start line her/himself.
Well it is sensible Bob if you understand that those who have achieved historical greatness have always had bitter opponents in their own time and been called all sorts of things by those who opposed them.
Being contraversial or even divisive in their own time has never disqualified anyone from historical greatness - quite the opposite in fact.
The point is that he's done things which will be etched into history, and that isn't diminished because some of his contemporaries don't like him - obviously a lot of people do like him, but that's equally irrelevant.
I don't warm to Kier Hardy but I couldn't and wouldn't deny that he achieved greatness because he effected the history of the country and Europe. That's the test , surely ?
I dispute your notion that Farage has achieved "historical greatness" - what has he done exactly? Brexit has been an entirely Conservative party creation in that there have been people in that party who have been agitating for us to come out of the EU for as long as Farage has. For example, I can remember someone like Bill Cash (who I have never heard talk about else but the EU in a very long career as an MP) being derided as one of a bunch of MPs who were portrayed as loons for their objections to the Maastricht Treaty a quarter of a century ago, but, because he was working on the inside, he was more influential than Farage in bringing about David Cameron's bizarre decision to hold a straight yes or no referendum.
I'd also say various newspaper proprietors had more to do with Leave winning than Farage did with the constant drip, drip of anti EU and/or anti immigration stories over a period of decades being instrumental in changing enough people's opinions to create a situation where Leave could win.
Farage was influential to the extent that he became the public face of a one issue party which did well enough to win an occasional election on a protest vote, but Brexit didn't come about because of one man - claiming that it did is just rewriting history while pandering to an already enormous ego.
Well obviously they are, as is Napoleon and the Emporer Nero. Some people seem to think you've got to like people to regard them as historically significant, but History is neutral in this regard.
Well done Sir Jim! I think you've been honest enough to finally nail your colours to the mast in declaring Hitler to have been "great". The word "great" usually denotes a perception of "size" or of "positivity": Surely neither of these can apply to Adolf? And in any case, he only had one testacle so he obviously didn't have great balls.
Well of course you may dispute it, and you may disagree . You might very well be right because only time will tell.
As I said to the previous poster, History is neutral so it takes no political or personal view, and it's often somewhat selective.
William Wilberforce didn't single handedly abolish slavery but he's the one that's remembered for it because he was the figurehead of the movement.
I'ts only a bit of fun, and I'm merely responding to the OP by suggesting a present day character who ticks all the boxes to be recorded in History as a great man. As it happens I'd probably disagree with you about his merits or otherwise , but that's entirely beside the point.
You mention Bill Cash, but you answer your own question by saying that no one talks about him in the present day, and most of the members of this particular board wouldn't have even heard of him.
I mentioned Oliver Cromwell ,and half the country felt so negative toward him that they went to war over it, yet I doubt that many here haven't heard of him all these centuries later.
I don't know why we're finding it so hard to separate the question of someone's significance in history , ( which is as near as we can get to defining greatness), from whether or not we like them .
And thank you for completing the circle of ignorance ! I've been trying to explain that assessing someone as an historically great figure has nothing to do with whether you like them, and you have concluded that if I regard Hitler as a great figure in history I must like him !
Oh "ignorant" is a tad unfair surely Sir Jim! I was just thinking the name Fred West might be familiar to many on this board and surely he has cemented his name in history. But would you then describe him as "great"? Maybe in Nigel's case you were confusing infamy with greatness. I can understand that, it's a simple mistake to make.
Well you're right that historical significance and greatness aren't the same thing, and there are different applications to the word "great", but when we talk of great men we usually define that in terms of the longevity of their fame,( or infamy) and the lasting effect of their lives upon the course of history.
In fact you choose a poor example in Fred West because no one except perhaps particularly learned criminologists will have heard of him in 50 years - any more than we remember Victorian murderers. Fred West killed some people, but didn't effect history.
Napoleon was regarded in his time and for a while afterwards as badly as Hitler is today - a cruel genocidal maniac who wanted to invade and subdue half the world, yet at this point he is generally regarded as a great man because the rights and wrongs of his actions and the opinions of those who liked and disliked him have passed into the mists of time and been forgotten.
I'm afraid to tell you that the same will happen with Hitler too. Future generations will look at what he did and didn't do, and pass very quickly over his inhumanity, which will not seem tangible to them. As I said earlier, History is neutral you see.
By the way, I hope you don't mind me asking, but didn't you used to post as Viscount Jackie Pallow on the Norfolk Widfowlers Message Board ?