So I've been thinking......
Thread Starter
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 24,416
From: Stuart, FL
Is it great men who make change or history by leading the numb and dumb masses or is it the masses, which come together when the need arises due to a common vision or ideal and change the course of history... or rather their future?
What I am asking here is, history is written to lead us to believe that one man leads society to change, but do you believe that one man leads society to change or society as whole decides this change is necessary and a leader, later credited with the changes success arrises from the group that believes the change is necessary?
(this is not a new question posed, i'm just posing it here to see what the nopistons consensus is)
What I am asking here is, history is written to lead us to believe that one man leads society to change, but do you believe that one man leads society to change or society as whole decides this change is necessary and a leader, later credited with the changes success arrises from the group that believes the change is necessary?
(this is not a new question posed, i'm just posing it here to see what the nopistons consensus is)
Super Moderator
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,763
From: Savannah, Ga
Its the masses. Without them, a leader has no power. Those men who go down in history as great leaders of change were often just acute enough to see a coming shift in the wants/needs of the masses. Few leaders have been able to stay in power without the support of the masses, and even less came into a position of power without that support.
Thread Starter
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 24,416
From: Stuart, FL
So did the leader of the change gather the people behind his belief and convince them his belief was necessary or did society already hold this belief and the leader rises merely out of a necessity for representation of the masses?
Super Moderator
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,763
From: Savannah, Ga
Originally Posted by phinsup' post='898396' date='Apr 11 2008, 06:24 PM
So did the leader of the change gather the people behind his belief and convince them his belief was necessary or did society already hold this belief and the leader rises merely out of a necessity for representation of the masses?
Theres a saying "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time." I think the masses can only be led on by a charismatic leader for so long, certainly not long enough to go down in history, unless its for the leaders quick fall from power. I think the former falls more under being a cult leader, while the latter is the person who goes down in history as the leader of the change.
Thread Starter
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 24,416
From: Stuart, FL
Originally Posted by 1988RedT2' post='898408' date='Apr 11 2008, 09:08 PM
People are sheep. They will follow a shepherd. If the shepherd ***** the sheep, they will either like it and stay, or not like it and go find another shepherd.
I would have bet $50 you'd say that
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,016
From: St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by 1988RedT2' post='898408' date='Apr 11 2008, 05:08 PM
People are sheep. They will follow a shepherd. If the shepherd ***** the sheep, they will either like it and stay, or not like it and go find another shepherd.
Totally true. And just like polititians the most ideal one would never **** you....but no matter what they WILL **** you...so just like sheep the shepard only gets to **** them for 4 years than they are guaranteed new dick.
Thread Starter
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 24,416
From: Stuart, FL
Originally Posted by 1988RedT2' post='898408' date='Apr 11 2008, 09:08 PM
People are sheep. They will follow a shepherd. If the shepherd ***** the sheep, they will either like it and stay, or not like it and go find another shepherd.
Does our (US) history support that theory?