Recent/current world leaders who will be remembered as significant historical figures

Apr 2012
963
The Netherlands
#41
Putin will likely be remembered fondly by the Russians for years to come. Whether its fact or mere appearance he did have people see Russia as one of the dominants states again rather than the mere regional power Obama dismissed Russia as. He might also get some sort of credit as one of the big powers behind the dismantlement of Europe should the EU fall.

Trump will likely be remembered....just not in the way he'd like. I imagine he is going to attract historians in the same way as Nero and Caligula do, just without the slaughter.

Erdogan's legacy will also be considered significant. If Turkey turns into a failed state because it so eagerly embraced the Islamic dictatorship model that's failing all over the Middle East then at least they can look at his reign to point at where it all went wrong.
 
Nov 2008
1,160
England
#42
Here is how they are related to the British Raj. When the population of the UK exploded, they moved to the Americas. If all of them had stayed in the UK, the British population would be over 200 million (a guesstimate of the number of British origin persons living outside the UK). It would be a heavily polluted and poor country.

India did not get to export 65 percent of its population to the Americas, Australia, South Africa, etc. If she did, there would be a lot less pollution and crowding in India.

Your arguments reflect the poor schooling in the UK. I guess that is how the more competitive Indian kids thrive there.
A rather specious and simplistic response. Here are the figures:

Between 1815 and 1914 22.6million people emigrated from the UK to settle abroad. Hardly 65% as you suggest. Of those who emigrated between 1861 and 1900, over one third returned. Your figure of 200 million is, as you admit a guess, and a wild one at that. Indeed populations do not always grow exponentially because of many complex factors. Moreover, as a society becomes more affluent and sophisticated, the birth rate falls because families tend to have fewer children. Had no one emigrated from the UK, the population today would indeed have been larger, but nowhere near your figure of 200 million.


You Wrote: "Your arguments reflect the poor schooling in the UK. I guess that is how the more competitive Indian kids thrive there."

This statement of yours amused me. On one hand you suggest there is poor schooling in the UK, and on the other you suggest British children whose forebears hailed from the sub continent of India are thriving because of the education system in the UK. We must be doing something right for our children. Anyway this last sentence of yours typically reflects other posts of yours based on the xenophobic attitude you hold of "Asians good: Europeans bad". I am beginning to wonder whether I am dealing with an adolescent, so immature and simplistic are your posts.
 
Oct 2009
3,356
San Diego
#43
Electoral democracies are kinda Built to PREVENT the "Great Man" style of rule.

it really takes something spectacular for any of them to be singled out.
Out of 45 presidents, we actually remember what, 3 of them? Washington, Lincoln and FDR?

Out of British PMs... who? Churchill?
 
May 2018
424
Ramgarh
#44
A rather specious and simplistic response. Here are the figures:

Between 1815 and 1914 22.6million people emigrated from the UK to settle abroad. Hardly 65% as you suggest. Of those who emigrated between 1861 and 1900, over one third returned. Your figure of 200 million is, as you admit a guess, and a wild one at that. Indeed populations do not always grow exponentially because of many complex factors. Moreover, as a society becomes more affluent and sophisticated, the birth rate falls because families tend to have fewer children. Had no one emigrated from the UK, the population today would indeed have been larger, but nowhere near your figure of 200 million.


You Wrote: "Your arguments reflect the poor schooling in the UK. I guess that is how the more competitive Indian kids thrive there."

This statement of yours amused me. On one hand you suggest there is poor schooling in the UK, and on the other you suggest British children whose forebears hailed from the sub continent of India are thriving because of the education system in the UK. We must be doing something right for our children. Anyway this last sentence of yours typically reflects other posts of yours based on the xenophobic attitude you hold of "Asians good: Europeans bad". I am beginning to wonder whether I am dealing with an adolescent, so immature and simplistic are your posts.
Mr Aelfwine,

You know, I get where you are coming from. You want to desperately believe that your country's prosperity is from the hard work of your ancestors.It is hard to accept that they looted and robbed other countries. Those other countries are poor because they are lazy or unintelligent (Jeffrey Sachs stated that many westerners believe this argument in his book "The end of poverty"). But as Roosevelt told Churchill, the British prospered by looting its colonies.

The UKs population was 10 million in 1815, and above 40 million in 1900. So 22.6 million emigrants will form more than half the population.

List of countries by population in 1900 - Wikipedia
Regency Life - Strange Occurences

The total number of Brits including their diaspora is over 200 million :-

British people - Wikipedia

Your arguments are based on emotions, and not facts and numbers. Kindly go back to school, and learn primary school math all over again. It will help you in the future.
 
Likes: Zanis
Jun 2015
5,496
UK
#46
The conquest began in 1757, about 250 years after the first Brit came to India.

If we use roughly the same timelines, Indians will start conquering by stealth somewhere in 2030. The first recorded Indian came to the UK in 1780 or so.

When the Brits came to India in the 1500s, they learnt Indian languages, cultures, etc. No Indian learnt English form the 16th to the 19th centuries.
no they went to India for conquest. not because India was this powerful empire they wish to learn from or be infuenced by. You don't really know what soft power means then
 
Likes: Aelfwine
Jun 2015
5,496
UK
#47
I agree; but it's hard to criticise her for having to clean up someone else's mess. Having said that, she does appear weak and indecisive - and in politics appearances are everything.
how was it somebody else's mess?

she's made some terrible errors in the process, which Cameron cannot be blamed for. it's only now she is brokering a deal, when there was 18 months
 

Similar History Discussions