Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
Some of the posts on here remind me of people in the workplace in lower level jobs who are always saying anyone (including themselves of course) could do the big boss's job. And that the big boss only lucked into it.
But anyone who has ever been around people with any kind of power knows there are reasons some people achieve it and some people don't. (Outside blatant cases of nepotism of course.)
I have never been one to venerate John A but to suggest he was a mediocre, bumbling idiot like Richard Dreyfuss in Moon Over Parador who just fell into these roles by sheer coincidence or default is absurd.
Just another example of altering the historical narrative to make it fit contemporary concerns.
|
If you're referring to me, I think you should re-read what I wrote. I never claimed or even hinted that
I could do a better job than anybody. I'm just a guy on the internet who happens to be interested in history. It's my opinion that MacDonald is toward the bottom of the barrel of world historical leaders. Thoroughly unimpressive from tip to taint and what little he has to show for his time in power is largely morally dubious.
I go you one further and say that I don't think it's possible to be a lover of history and be impressed with the man. He's so far from a Spartacus, a Margaret I of Denmark, a Toussaint L'Ouverture, a Georges Danton, or an Ernest Shackleton that it's an insult to genuinely great historical leaders like them to mention him in the same breath. If I cared for him at all, I'm sure I'd feel vicariously embarrassed for him at how poorly he'd do in any head-to-head comparison with these genuinely great historical leaders or their ilk.