01-11-2019, 10:33 AM
Nice design. The only complaint that anyone could have is that somebody they want included isn't included. John Lennon, Leo Tolstoy, Martin Luther, Mao Zedong, and Napoleon Bonaparte would be interesting. Jesus and Lincoln? Everyone claims Him and him. (Get it?)
Adding more people would create clutter.
I notice that figures from the 18th and 19th century (Jefferson, Wagner, and Victoria) are added. Good choices! I am glad to see major theologians, philosophers, and scientists added. I am aware on Wagner on what Woody Allen says of him: every time I hear him I get an urge to invade Poland".
People who have ranged widely over this circle, including Churchill (free-market maven and defender of Empire and to the nationalist and traditionalist in charge of an economic system arguably as regimented as a Commie state)... and especially Laval (socialist as a young man, fascist while the puppet of Adolf Hitler) do not fit well. People better known for what they did than what they believed (George Washington) would be hard to place. With many creative people one sees a beautiful painting (Cezanne), reads some fine expressions of fantasy (Rowling), or hears majestic music (Schubert) without asking what those creators really mean.
It is best to ignore people who might simply be cranky while brilliant, like Buckminster Fuller or Vincent van Gogh. If I were important, I would be in that category. I would be right-wing in opposition to Castro and left-wing in opposition to Pinochet, which means little.
I'm reasonably satisfied that I would put Freud about on the line between the white bulls-eye and the countercultural zone. But that would be clutter. I would put Picasso about where Einstein is, but melding of characters is itself clutter. Besides, with some creative people like Bach and Shostakovich we have people who lived under repressive societies that largely suppressed any political expression. Shakespeare, another such example, is one of the blandest people to have ever lived. Someone like Kurosawa or Fellini might have been a fascist before 1945 and a democrat of some kind after 1945.
The trickiest people to place would be the 19th-century abolitionists. Are they the sorts of people who support free and unfettered enterprise except for the trading and exploitation of slaves, or are they true proletarians? About everyone except genocidal fascists claim them.
Adding more people would create clutter.
I notice that figures from the 18th and 19th century (Jefferson, Wagner, and Victoria) are added. Good choices! I am glad to see major theologians, philosophers, and scientists added. I am aware on Wagner on what Woody Allen says of him: every time I hear him I get an urge to invade Poland".
People who have ranged widely over this circle, including Churchill (free-market maven and defender of Empire and to the nationalist and traditionalist in charge of an economic system arguably as regimented as a Commie state)... and especially Laval (socialist as a young man, fascist while the puppet of Adolf Hitler) do not fit well. People better known for what they did than what they believed (George Washington) would be hard to place. With many creative people one sees a beautiful painting (Cezanne), reads some fine expressions of fantasy (Rowling), or hears majestic music (Schubert) without asking what those creators really mean.
It is best to ignore people who might simply be cranky while brilliant, like Buckminster Fuller or Vincent van Gogh. If I were important, I would be in that category. I would be right-wing in opposition to Castro and left-wing in opposition to Pinochet, which means little.
I'm reasonably satisfied that I would put Freud about on the line between the white bulls-eye and the countercultural zone. But that would be clutter. I would put Picasso about where Einstein is, but melding of characters is itself clutter. Besides, with some creative people like Bach and Shostakovich we have people who lived under repressive societies that largely suppressed any political expression. Shakespeare, another such example, is one of the blandest people to have ever lived. Someone like Kurosawa or Fellini might have been a fascist before 1945 and a democrat of some kind after 1945.
The trickiest people to place would be the 19th-century abolitionists. Are they the sorts of people who support free and unfettered enterprise except for the trading and exploitation of slaves, or are they true proletarians? About everyone except genocidal fascists claim them.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.