100 Greatest?

Stephen Bainbridge is rightly pissed on the choice of people in America’s Greatest. Kevin Drum also joins in by pointing out notable omissions. Even if you are not American, you would be pissed too if you find out that Dr.Phil is included but not Hemmingway or Warhol. But this whole affair of listing 100 Greatest is wrought with doubt because of its obvious temporal bias. For e.g. if you compile an Indian list of 100 greatest, you are bound to miss out on quite a few worthy names, firstly because 100 might not be enough, and secondly that someone like Sardar Patel has been out of the radar for quite a while now although he deserves to be in the top 10. Also, there is the problem of differing ideologies, for e.g. Subhash Chandra Bose might seem like an automatic choice but Gandhians (if any still exist) are bound to protest.

Anyone dare to compile a list of India’s Greatest?

“100 Greatest?” [Short URL: http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=691] was published Tuesday, May 17th, 2005 at 8:00 am by Patrix, filed under Society Culture. Both comments and linkbacks are closed.

« No comments please?

Math and Girls »

http://www.halfsigma.com Half Sigma
You’re the second blogger to suggest Warhol. What exactly makes him a greater American than the many Americans who did REAL art? I suggested Albert Bierdstadt, Mary Cassatt, Ansel Adams and John Singer Sargent in my blog post. But Andy Warhol???
http://ipatrix.com Patrix
Half Sigma – I consider Warhol’s work pathbreaking in American art history; more so for defining ‘pop-art’ and being a well-rounded individual in many other forms of art. But still I wouldn’t disagree with your choice of Ansel Adams either. He is one of my personal favorites.
http://neetij.com Neetij
Odds are that Shah Rukh will place above Bose or Sardar Patel.
http://www.halfsigma.com Half Sigma
Warhol is famous for being famous and not for any talent or skill he had.
If we’re going to include a marketer in the list, then it’s P.T. Barnum who belongs there, not Warhol.
http://ipatrix.com Patrix
Neetij – That is one of the reason I don’t want to attempt making such a list.
http://wrik.blogspot.com Som
Could it have anything to do with the fact that it is people of today who are compiling the list, people, for most of whom, Netaji does not have much significance in life outside the History book, while Shah Rukh definitely has?
Mirage
SRK or SRK, no list complete..I mean NO list is complete withou “Amma”‘s and Kalaignar’s names. My vote goes for them…I don’t mind SRK, Big B and n number of item gals/guys can join.
http://ipatrix.com Patrix
Half Sigma – That is exactly the problem in compiling such ‘Greatest’ lists…what is important to you may not be for me and vice versa.
Som – All ‘Greatest’ lists are temporal and hence obsolete with every generation.
Mirage – that are two names, how about the rest 98? Coming up soon?
http://chocolateandgoldcoins.blogspot.com/2005/05/greatest-americans.html Michael H.
Hi Patrix
Half Sigma does get around. I’m impressed that he found this site. It’s a great blog btw.
Greatest list are subjective (that’s why their fun). I have my own suggestion (click on my name to read them).
As for the greatest Indians: I think its a comment about how India is changing that you could probably make a good list from people alive today. With the exception of Mohandas Ghandi and some great writers (Tagore no doubt) and possibly some greats from way way back, the great Indian people are the people who are changing India today. You could not include any of the politicians of Nehru’s dynasty: the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.

Nerve Endings Firing Away

100 Greatest?

Related Posts

Subscribe