This is the similar to what got Bill Mayher's last show "Politically Incorrect" cancelled.
Cultural relativity.
Cultural relativity.
Opinions on Michael Eddington
- Thread starter Emperor Norton
- Start date
Having rewatched Blaze of Glory my opinion of Eddington has shot through the roof. He nearly brakes down when he seeing the Maquis's broken bodies and nearly wailing about his failure.
No one who is interested in the game of hero would have that sort of reaction.
He really deserved better.
No one who is interested in the game of hero would have that sort of reaction.
He really deserved better.
And Cardassia would never have joined the Dominion. So Eddington's got those lives (and blood) on his hands as well.
He was arrested when his people needed his leadership, inventiveness and courage the most and that's why they were defeated.
The Klingon invasion of Cardessia is responsible for that. The Changeling Martok encouraged Gowron to invade and being a Klingon he fell for it. It was all part of their plan to destabilise the quadrant, and it worked.
Nnnnnoooo, they were defeated because the Jem'hadar outclassed them in numbers and technology and combat prowess and resources.
Eddington's leadership might or might not have bought the Maquis more time, but they weren't going to win under such circumstances.
You don't subscribe to the great man theory I presume.
More like the "Eddington is a douchebag" theory.
It's sad, really - to stop Eddington dead in his tracks, the Cardassians should have just put a damn MIRROR in front of him. Woulda stopped him COLD.
Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, Genghis Khan, Jesus, Muhummad, Nader Shah, Tamerlane and Albert Einstein disagree with you.
Of those, once you leave aside the mass murderers, the potentially fictional ones and the warlords whose actions led to millions of deaths to no great benefit you are pretty much left with Einstein, who would have disagreed with you.
I believe the current academic consensus is that both Jesus and Muhummand existed, mass murderers? Conquerors! Great men who shaped the lives and fortunes and millions upon millions more than their own. Warlords? What other classification is there?
I remember sitting in church and going "what?!?" when the Bible says that nobody recognises Jesus after the 'Resurrection'. Jesus-ganger? Doppel-Jesus?
I think we can be even more specific in this refutation of this ridiculous list, starting with the fact most of them can't have said to ascribed to any sort of Uebermensch philosophy. Alexander's conquests clearly unfolded in the context of extending Greek civilization, which Nietzsche disdained. Yeshua ben Yosef did not make claims to power; he did nothing to affirm the privileges of aristocracy. And Hitler's conquests were too shallow in nature to have had a direct impact on future political developments.
I just watched For the Cause the other night so this thread is nice timing. I liked Eddington. He was better than Cal Hudson, and his character was just fun, especially in Blaze of Glory.
I'm pretty sure the academic consensus is pretty ambiguous and had they not been religious figures would not have garnered anywhere near the attention nor the desire to validate what is ultimately pretty scant evidence of their activities.
Conquerers generally are mass murderers by the way yes, it's a euphemism and if by "shaping" you mean "violently ending" or "forcing into subservience" then by all means I whole heartedly agree.
Great men are those who have actively contributed something beyond the means of others to humanity, not those who took their personal inadequacies out on it.
Archer: "Great men are conquerors! Not peace makers!" In a Mirror Darkly.
Peace activists and philanthropists don't shape history and man's destiny near to the extent of the men I mentioned.
Christ and Einstein were not pacifists? Interesting.
Hitler shaped civilization according to his designs? Completely incorrect.
