How do you make history?

[Lebron James]

If someone wanted to make history, who would they have to be, and what would they have to do? This was a question I recently asked to one of my favorite history professors at school; and his response I thought was something else! "This might sound very cynical," he said. "But if someone is going to make history, GET THE OUT OF THE WAY! Chances are they are going to take you down and they are going to take themselves down!" Then he concluded, "But then again, they will make history."

That made me think a little bit, and I'd like to focus the discussion on these two fronts:

1. Great Person, "Personality Theory"
2. Opportunity, "Luck Theory"

From what my professor said, one would instantly think that sounds kind of like a ruthless individual. Indeed, someone could potentially -and rather easily- make it on to wikipedia for just being the next Timothy McVeigh or Lee Harvey Oswald. But then again, I would argue that isn't the kind of history people would like to make, let alone remember. So it seems to me that perhaps just a fierce drive and unrelenting motivation towards ambitions and accomplishment would be what constitutes as a Great Persona. Indeed, when encountered they might appear more machine then man, given by an incredible work ethic and dedication. Because let's be honest here, no one ever got elected President by sitting on their arse.

Now if we were to compare someone who makes history vs. someone who hasn't, would we agree that those who lead are gifted and highly skilled individuals? Lots of people whom we consider to be "historical" are so by their legendary character traits. I am talking about charisma, genius, willpower, and leadership. However, as much as we define people who make history by their character strengths, we also know many historical figures to be defined by their failures and misfortunes. It doesn't take a historian to know that Einstein got F's in school, Lincoln grew up in a log cabin, and Micheal Jordan got cut from his high school basketball team. One would think that these "considerably huge" failures would impede any shot of making history; for instance, how does someone make it to the NBA if they didn't even play ball in high school?!?! It's sort of unreal, and begs the question, did they just get really lucky?

Were would our so called "Great Generals" be if it weren't for the conflicts that allowed them to showcase their tactical brilliance. Would Alexander ever had been great if he were the son of a farmer rather than to a monarch? What would Napoleon and FDR had been if it were not for the Revolution and Great Depression? It seems to me that historical events and circumstances, definitely play a role in defining and "making" the individual. As there are perhaps many Alexanders out there who were just never given the chance to lead. Really, who is Barrack Obama if he is white, and never goes to Harvard? These lucky bastards simply had to have been at the right place at the right time.

But for all the uncontrollable circumstances and timings aside, we know that ordinary people can make opportunity to make themselves better and their world better. Anyone can run for office, anyone can join the military, and anyone can sell something. A nerdy Bill Gates for instance, dropped out of school to start Microsoft in his car garage! Thus I wouldn't say it takes an all star persona, or lots of capital to do something, though it certainly does help! Maybe it is after all, just a fearless drive to do something, or to really try at something. Putting everything everything else aside, and focusing on just a simple goal, making history!

Well I'm obviously lost in abstract thought, so I'll let the community have at it!

[Trax]

If someone wanted to make history, who would they have to be, and what would they have to do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratos

[Lebron James]

That's pretty good Trax!

[Helm]

History makes itself but only the winners get to write it.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I don't quite understand the Great Man theory. Does it mean that if people work, they can become extremely influential, or that through luck, some random people become extremely influential?

Because while the latter is certainly true, many have, most people who do great things had to claw along every inch of the way. Mussolini for example wasn't particularly talented in any field, but he became extremely influential.

Churchill became very talented through his own effort, and then suddenly WWII was thrust upon him.

If you work hard enough there is very little you can't do.

[Lysimachus]

<snip>

You've made history by posting this thread.

[Herakleios]

1. Great Person, "Personality Theory"
2. Opportunity, "Luck Theory"

Both of these factors are relevant. A man may exist within the circumstances, but lack the strength, skill and willpower to change the destiny of nations, like for example Antiochus IV(one of the last men to ever be in a position to stop the rise of Rome), while some men have all of the latter while being the victims of chance, such as Gustavus Adolphus.

[Htom Sirveaux]

The "Great Men" theory of history is dead in the academic sense, though not in popular imagination. These "Great Men" are only an incredibly small segment of society, not coming close to representing their society as a whole. The "Great Men" theory of history was dropped for the same reasons we have increased research on women and minority groups in history. History is not just the story of rich dead men. I'm not saying that such "Great Men" are not worth studying, only that their actions are not die to their own initiative. None of any of our actions exist in a vacuum, we are all products of our class, ethnicity, environment. It is entirely possible that the smartest and most motivated men and women have died in obscurity due to a lack of "luck." In our society, having a strong drive to succeed doesn't count for that much in comparison to one's circumstances. The idea anyone can succeed based solely off of their own merit just doesn't apply to either history or the present day. Bill Gates was hardly poor, his parents provided him ample electronic resources beyond the means of most families.

What could Alexander the Great have done if born to a poor family with little means? He might want to kill thousands and lead armies, but he's hardly going to get there without intervention. Even being a monarch or president with great motivation doesn't ensure that one's actions will be followed. Abraham Lincoln certainly had a desire to make a path towards the destruction of slavery, but could have done nothing without support from northern civilians and soldiers. (As an aside, Lincoln's supposed ambivalence towards slavery is based off of ignoring context in quotations) By extension, Lincoln could have done even less if many thousands hadn't already participated in the debate over slavery in the 1850's.

To make history all you have to do is live in a society, hopefully one with record keeping. Your life, along with many others, might aid some future historian trying to understand 21st century society. You might feel you aren't making history, but you are. By spending money, voting, participating in social movements or causes, you are making history. Most of history isn't spent studying wars or battles, but instead how and in what context people lived.

[Azog 150]

Anyone can make history. By typing that I just made history.