[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Partition had already began in 1905 with Bengal.[/quote]
It certainly hadn’t. Don’t know of any reputable historian who takes that position?[/quote]
The idea of Pakistan as a nation did not develop until the 1930’s. However Britain had partition plans dating back to the beginning of the 20th century. Jinnah’s party merely inflamed nationalist tensions and forced a recognised partition . Neither Jinnah or Ben-Gurion fit the criteria of great men. Read the Wikipedia article on the concept. I think some here are misunderstanding its meaning. [/quote]
You are wrong about Partition and the British having plans for it.
The Great Man Theory suggests that history can be explained by the impact of great men or heroes. Historically, it is undoubtable that Jinnah almost singlehandedly created Pakistan, it is also true that Ben-Gurion had a massive impact on creating Israel. Those two guys certainly changed the course of history.
One of the most expert historians on Partiton says of Jinnah “Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three” (Stanley Wolpert).
If that isn’t a ‘great man’ in a ‘great mans history’, then pretty much no one else is.
[/quote]
After the uprising of 1857 Britain formulated numerous plans involving partition. There’s even a map of the Punjab proposed and drawn up in the late 19th century. I discount Ben-Gurion because so many others were involved.
[/quote]
Your evidence is ahistorical basically.
If very loose ‘plans’ are the basis for your historical analysis, you can be sure that there will be a ‘plan’ for everything Churchill did and for anything that anyone in history did.
You may as well say Hitler and the Nazi regime were completely unexceptional and normal because killing Jews and disabled people, and waging wars on other countries, have strong historical precedents.
And you may as well say Churchill was unexceptional because he was simply fighting a defensive war which again has many historical precedents.
[/quote]
Whatever you say. Historical precedent disqualifies everyone…?
[/quote]
Well that is why the great man theory is completely discredited in historical circles :rolleyes:
[/quote]
Historical precedent isn’t used as an argument to discredit the great man theory because it doesn’t make sense. Criticism of the great man theory argues that social conditions and circumstance create the conditions that influence mans’ nature. That men are a product of their environment. Or Tolstoy’s criticism asserts that great men are merely slaves of destiny.