Show of HandsShow of Hands

RussianThunder December 2nd, 2017 7:04pm

As a follow up to my question about the most influential or important person of the 20th century...who do you think is the most influential person of this millennium? 1017-2017

10 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

IEatzCookies Alderaan
12/13/17 7:06 am

Not really sure it can be limited to just one. Isaac Newton, any of the Founding Fathers, even Hitler. There were many people who did many things, good and bad, that changed the world.

IEatzCookies Alderaan
12/13/17 7:07 am

On the other hand I'm keeping an eye on Elon Musk. He could prove to be one of the most influential people in history.

Atomicapex Out on the golf course
12/03/17 2:33 pm

Da Vinci, Machiavelli, people of the renaissance.

Harry3603 Tampa Bay Florida.
12/03/17 3:58 am

Joseph Stalin and not for the best tee.

TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
12/02/17 9:42 pm

Johannes Gutenberg.

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/03/17 6:30 am

Hey! That was my answer you you you.....answer thief!! Lol Just kidding. Great minds think alike.
Poor guy died broke and penniless though. Sad.

jadeburt Ann Arbor, Michigan
12/02/17 5:02 pm

Certainly someone from the following list:

Christopher Columbus
George Washington
James Madison
Abraham Lincoln

If we’re naming philophers:
John Locke
Karl Marx (influential for evil, but still influential)

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
12/02/17 3:19 pm

I fear we're being far too orientalist in that we're choosing mostly European figures. Frankly my choice of Marx could be more meaningful if we chose Mao, because like Marx changed Hegelian dialectics into a revolutionary ideology, Mao did the same with Marxist dialectics. Also the fact that I only focused on the fall of feudalism in Europe as the global game changer is orientalist, although it had global ramifications due to how even embryonic capitalism ended in the colonization of the Americas and later the rest of the globe.

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/02/17 3:00 pm

Johannes Gutenberg. His moveable type allowed people to get access to printed material and in turn, that not helped spread information but was used to teach reading to people who otherwise had no access to printed words of their own.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
12/02/17 3:11 pm

Also not a bad choice. Also maybe the popes that led the crusades. Indirectly trading with the east was one of the causes of the Bubonic Plague, which in my opinion, was one of the most influential events which led to the fall of feudalism in Europe.

mbushway62 New England
12/02/17 2:58 pm

Madison, Jefferson and Adam et al, have done more good for the planet than any one else.

Zinkshadow1 Tallahassee
12/02/17 2:31 pm

Probably Martin Luther. His split of the church is practically responsible for the world as we see it today.

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/02/17 3:02 pm

I despise Martin Luther but I will say he certainly left a changed world, that will never be the same again.

GrandmaALiCE Rocky Mtns aerial view
12/02/17 6:07 pm

I know why you hate him, RT. He was an anti-Semite.

However, the question was “most important” or “most influential,” not “most likable.”

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/02/17 7:09 pm

Well, I was agreeing with him. Luther did change the world forever, there is no denying that.

GrandmaALiCE Rocky Mtns aerial view
12/02/17 7:24 pm

Yes, he did. And I see that you did agree with him.

shygal47 Florida east coast
12/02/17 2:30 pm

William the Conqueror
Leonardo da Vinci
... tough call ...

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
12/02/17 3:07 pm

What did Da Vinci do? William the Conquerer isn't a bad choice.

shygal47 Florida east coast
12/02/17 5:34 pm

I’m assuming that was a rhetorical question about daVinci

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
12/03/17 12:07 am

No, it's sincere. What did he do that significantly changed anything?

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
12/02/17 1:49 pm

Really tough call. I mean, it's easy to say Marx, that despite his faults, has led to more change than any other figure, and is unique in that unlike previous important figures, his ideas were truly liberating. However, Marx wouldn't have nearly the amount of prestige he does now if Engels weren't around to edit his writings into comprehensible language.

But at the same time, we shouldn't ignore how in 1017 we had an entirely different world, and there were leaders who led it to be the way it is today.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
12/02/17 1:50 pm

Ultimately I think we'd have to pick a European monarch who was particularly influential in the transition to a capitalist economy, like King William (I think was his name) after the Glorious Revolution in England; maybe a notably influential Enlightenment philosopher like Voltaire; maybe one of the founding fathers, because the creation of the American state truly was a hugely important event in the development of the world. Due to their uniquely aggressive hegemony, we couldn't pick a different countries' founders.

(Half way through the comment I started writing in French, oh the joys of being bilingual.)

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/02/17 3:04 pm

I’ve been so stupid that I actually have posted in Russian. I didn’t catch it though, Oh the joys of being a dumbass lol.

FloridaPopulist Nationalist Right
12/02/17 1:24 pm

Genghis khan? It's a hard one. I don't know enough about history. I wish I knew more

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/02/17 3:08 pm

Well, he certainly left his DNA behind lol

PolitikaDaily Minnesota
12/02/17 1:10 pm

Gavrilo Princip.

I’d say sparking two World Wars is pretty influential!

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/02/17 3:03 pm

Oh that is a good point but he may be more suited to the 20th century question. Still, you make a great point.

Koa18 New York
12/02/17 12:36 pm

I would say that it may be Martin Luther (The Protestant guy not the civil rights guy) because the Protestant reformation had big impacts in Europe and the world and not just for religious reasons

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
12/02/17 1:51 pm

Really? I think the Protestant reformation is largely exaggerated in its repercussions in the lives of the masses.

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/02/17 3:07 pm

I don’t know, I despise Luther but he broke the power of the church. Of course, the Protestants soon acted like the Catholics they just protested but the power of the pope in everyday lives was diminished.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
12/02/17 3:13 pm

That assumes that religion is the driving force in society, which I don't believe it was or is. It was merely a reflection of greater forces in society. The church protected the power of the feudal lords. Luther's philosophy led to the selling of church lands, which reinforced the power of wealthy land owners/the middle class/the bourgeoisie to come.

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/02/17 3:17 pm

No, I think it was the reverse. The feudal lords reflected the church. Look at how the split affected England.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
12/02/17 3:20 pm

Can you be more precise about your analysis of the split in England?

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/02/17 4:02 pm

I will but my family is off to a party for our autism society so I will do it later. Cheers

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/02/17 7:22 pm

It was a horrible evening. Omg. Thanks though.

The split in England happened very close the time of Luther’s reformation. Henry wanted a divorce, the pope would not grant it so he split with the credence to Luther’s reformation. Everyone had to then follow Henry’s new version of Protestantism. He confiscated church property and land. People were simply to forget everything they were taught. Of course the rift in his own children was part of the era. Edward continued his fathers religion but died as a child himself. Mary then had Protestant clergy and followers killed then Elizabeth brought back the Church of England.
Though simplified to the extreme, it’s not untrue to say England is Protestant because Henry wanted to marry a concubine (more or less)

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
12/03/17 12:10 am

My question though is what difference does it make if England is Anglican or Catholic?

Also you mentioned that Henry VIII confiscated church lands. That gives credence to my comment above where I said that the Protestant reformation was closely linked to class and wealth.

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/03/17 6:28 am

Poland is very catholic. When Lech Walesa was uniting people and wanted reforms, one event that occurred was the protestors behind a barricade and the police in front. A picture of Pope John Paul II was placed on the barricade facing the police. The police would not cross. In order to do so would destroy the image of the wildly popular first Polish Pope. The event did not fall along class lines.
Now take that to Tudor England. The pope was followed and then Henry and Edward were. Then catholic Mary was, then Protestant Elizabeth and James (who was beheaded).
When England went Protestant, sects sprang up (they broke with Rome, we can break with them sort of thinking) and it was that religion that took root in the new world of North America. In that respect, Luther and his reforms were carried much further than Western Europe. (Its early and I’m groggy and have not had my iced coffee yet so I may be loopy lol....sorry if this doesn’t make sense)

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/03/17 6:31 am

Oh and the feudal lords adopted whatever religion suited them.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
12/03/17 1:38 pm

I think we just have fundamentally different world views. I don't think any of the resistance to the Protestant reforms in England, or the Protestant reforms themselves, were the primary motor in changing English history. It was the class differences behind it.

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/03/17 1:53 pm

Everything with you is class system though. I don’t see everything through the prism of class, class struggle and Marxism type view. You do. That’s fine. That’s not how I see it and history is so much more than just class struggle.

IEatzCookies Alderaan
12/13/17 7:10 am

Actually I disagree Doctor. Religion was a huge driving force in the middle ages. Wars were fought for religion. The crusades were all fought in the name of Christianity or Islam. Many bishops and Cardinals and whatnot were also political leaders. Religion was a huge part of everyones life back then, whether you like religion or not that's a fact.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
12/13/17 7:15 am

Please tell me how the crusades happened for religious reasons, or what the clergy being in politics proves.

jlong105 Indiana
12/02/17 12:06 pm

Jlong105 hands down

jlong105 Indiana
12/02/17 12:06 pm

Without him nothing would matter to me

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/02/17 12:08 pm

Well......good point long lol

RussianThunder Russia and USA
12/02/17 12:06 pm

💠💠💠 QUESTION 💠💠💠

Who do you think is the most important person of the last millennium. 1017-2017?