25 Greatest Americans

Thank you both...

 

BoB hope was born in GB

 

I don't think there was a founding father that was not of Anglo-Saxon English descent. We also are indebted to Englishmen for the principles upon which our nation was founded (Locke, Paine). English Common Law (which owes much to Roman law) formed the basis for our legal system.
Much is made today(in the US) of the benefits of multiculturalism while minimizing the contributions made to our country by Europe and especially Britain. It has become fashionable to do so however it is a misguided denial of the very foundations and strengths of which we should be proud and grateful.
Many of us still are.


Stonewall wrote:

Scroll back..already acknowledged that

 

Pardon my ignorance, but why Bob Hope?
He made a lot of fairly amusing films, did a fair bit of comedy stuff... but does that make him one of the 25 greatest?

 

Ricky wrote:

His USO tours brought entertainment (and scantily clad starlets) to American servicemen all over the world from WW II to Vietnam and beyond until he was physically incapable of continuing due to age. This despite the fact that he was very wealthy and could have retired to play golf which he loved. In addition Bob Hope was a Hollywood icon that became a symbol of America to the world, as did Gary Cooper, John Wayne, James Stewart, Clark Gable etc.
Symbols are very important to establishing a national identity just as Sir Winston Churchill , Sir Alec Guinness, and an English bulldog are symbols of Britain to many around the world.

As far as who are "the 25 Greatest" Americans one must remember that the poll is of television viewers noy serious historians. IIRC I think not too long ago a poll in Britain regarding the Greatest Americans was won by Homer Simpson which gives you an idea of how seriously people take such things.

 

Re: comments on the list

Yes, but why then do you call him Muhammed Ali. After all, his name was Cassius Clay.

Among cylists he must definitely be the greatest ever, having won the Tour de France no less than six times. However, as a person his greatest accomplishment was probably overcoming cancer, and as an American - cycling isn't done by nation, it's done by sponsor. I don't see any reason to nominate this man.

G. Bush - definitely no. I haven't heard of anything good he's ever done for his country. Obviously we could debate this for all eternity but honestly, please name this man's accomplishments?

Einstein was a German, who did most of his great work in Germany. Therefore the USA can't claim him as a great American, IMHO.

Very true. The entire emancipation movement of the 60s was in fact very two-faced, in that they fought for emancipation of blacks in America (which was indeed necessary) but completely ignored the important issue of the emancipation of women which played in many other parts of the world around that time.

I wouldn't say "he" did an awful lot. He stood at the point in history in which old grudges and movements within the US came to a head, and his soldiers and industries did the job of ensuring that things went the way they went. His own influence on matters I'd say was rather predictable.

Obviously this is where my Eurosocialist attitude pops up. I'd say FDR did a great thing for the US: he made an enlarged government a possiblity instead of a taboo, and his policies at least didn't make the depression any worse, it's arguable that they even helped the US recover. Wherever liberal, free-market policies were carried on after the depression set in, it lasted longer and went deeper than in places where Keynesian policies were adopted earlier on.

But he was also an imperialist.

"Helped rebuild" is as far as you can go on this. In no way did the recovery of Europe result purely or even mainly from the aid given through the Marshall plan. It was invaluable but not essential.

With all the rest I agree, unless I simply don't know them.

 

It seems as if the majority of the Euro comments on the 25 greatest Americans consist of why they think most of the nominees are unworthy rather than actually naming anyone

 

My top three americans:

1.Benjamin Franklin: champion of US independence, diplomat, inventor, author....a genius!

2.George Washington: great general, first president, took a very important part in shaping the US

3.Dwight D. Eisenhower:commander in chief of the allied army that liberated France(and western Europe as a whole), later became president.


Just out of curiosity, which "greatest" were elected in other countries we have members from(Britain, Nederlands....)?

 

in britain Churchill won a Brunnel came second

 

In Finland C.G.E. Mannerheim won and Risto Ryti was second.
What makes Risto Ryti exceptional here is that he wasn't in nomineelist but came outside of that list.
As always, this kind of votings etc attract protestvoters. "Conveniently" out of top 10 at 11th there were Matti Nykänen, former skijumper, nowadays he is a pet of yellow press and in prison because of stabbing.
At 12th position was Väinö Myllyrinne, definitely the greatest finn ever. He was 248cm tall.
For some kind of weird reason, actual votes for only top 10 were ever published. We dont know if these few protest candidates actually did get enough votes for top 10.
Apparently it was essential to get these protestnominees out of top 10 because they made short document of each ot these top 10 candidates and made new voting for these.

 

Not quite. We decided that Homer Simpson would make the best President of the United States!

 

maybe we just think that surely a better set of great americans could have been listed than some of the people you are given to choose from?

i mean george bush? to me that just makes a mockery of the whole exercise to include him in there!!!

 

Most of the people I would think of as worthy to be on the list, I don't know enough about to say which one was greatest. I'd probably end up with the choices of most people here: Washington, Franklin, Edison, etcetera.

(Etcetera was a great American? He sounds more like a Greek philosopher to me! )

In the Netherlands the results were kind of shady. At first it seemed a recently assasinated populist had won (elected for the obvious reason that he was a populist and was shot). But then there was a recount and the final result was William of Orange, the stadholder who led the revolt against Spain in 1579/1581. Neither were half as great as they appear in the media.

 

best?

as far as G. Bush as president i note a certain lack of respect from some of the nonUS members and that's fine but i suspect part of it comes from a lack of understanding about how he is thought of at home. many US citizens deeply respect his handling of 9/11 and its aftermath. after 8 years of having a man that would never make a firm statement without focus grouping it and fencing it in with weasel words we like having a man who lays in on the line. you may argue about his answers to a problem but he is not afraid to tell it like he sees it and is not afraid to take unpopular actions when he thinks them to be right. in short we see him as a strong leader and a man who loves the USA.

teddy roosevelt- why do you call him an imperilist? he was not afraid to wave the big stick but what empire did he build?

i was taught that the marshall plan was the biggest reason for a rebuilt europe, perhaps neither of us has the proper story. to me invaluable means you could not have replaced it with anything else.

fdr- we differ about big governement is a good thing and the reason the depression ended in the US was WWII not the new deal

 

Re: best?

I understand that this is the reason why a small majority of Americans reelected Bush last year, and also why he is widely liked in the US these days. However, imagine what you'd have thought of him had he come after a truly great leader, one of those whom we'd still talk about hundreds of years after (like Washington or Franklin): he would probably be seen mostly as the man burdening future American presidents and taxpayers with insoluble problems tying down the armed forces and an enormous debt.

Any leader would be thought of as great simply because he was a leader, after Clinton. This shows the danger of nominating contemporaries for elections like these - they have not been given a place in hindsight, they are still building their place in history. People are bound to think of them in ways they wouldn't be thought of years later, after the events that did or did not come in their wake.

The Roosevelt corollary established a de facto informal Empire over the entire Western hemisphere. Remember that in those days there was an important amount of informal empire-building going on next to the outright colonization of complete areas. This meant that while a country didn't actuall occupy its "empire", it did have complete economic and military control over it by force of economic and military strength and importance. This is also why the US is called imperialist today.

And then there were the Philippines of course...

Fair enough, invaluable may be the wrong word. It was important, but not the single greatest reason; according to economic historical research the Marshall Plan sped up the recovery of Western Europe by six months, indicating that it could have been done without, but slower.

True, but by that time the economy of the US and the rest of the world was already recovering. The New Deal definitely did have a part in that which could not have been played by small government policies, IMO. But that's my opinion...

*Seeks shelter for Grieg*

 

i got a q? a wot if

if george w bush had been in a presidential election against bill clinton who would have 1?

my own thoughts havin seen wot happen between bush and gore that bush wouldnt have beaten clinton if he could have served a third term.

 

Roel wrote:

The US is only called Imperialist today by Leftists and anti-Capitalists..but wait..I repeat myself

I seem to recall we freed them from Colonialism and a date was set from the very beginning at which they would become independent. That isn't Imperialism IMO.

The New Deal was responsible for the US economic recovery? Lol..I'm not even gonna bother with that one.

Cheeky-monkey wrote:

If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his @ss when he jumped.

I don't have a clue who would win in that contest nor does anyone else. Things had changed and Clinton's (strange) popularity had declined significantly by 2000.

 

TR is my favorite President.

As for imperialism, TR did do some. I think he felt we had to considering the way the European powers had practically laid claim to half the world. The Phillipines, Guam, Puerto Rico, and others we got from Spain as spoils of war.

Panama was different. TR set up a revolution and the US backed them. In return we built a canal and let them benefit from it. Yeah, I guess that could be seen as somewhat imperialistic.

I kinda like TR's "big stick" and "gunboat diplomacy".

Who has seen the movie "The Wind and The Lion"?

For anybody wondering, Ben Franklin was never a President. Just wanted to make that clear for anyone who didn't know.

Clinton got in the first time because folks thought they wanted change. Change for the sake of change is not always good. He got it the second go because the Republicans put Bob Dole up as a candidate. Mr. Dole is a fine American but not as warm, cheerful, and charasmatic as Clinton.

 

:roll:
Now look where we have ended up.

My fault for starting the thread, probably.

 

He says, before being rushed to a hospital in Siberia!