I understand he was rather pretty when playing at some of his roles, if you’re into that sort of thing.
It seems nobody has considered the implications of presenting the question in terms of biography.
To me, phrasing the statement that way suggests that it’s the whole life story of the individual which reflects, encapsulates, or illuminates the great movements of history. There are certainly some figures for whom this case can be made, but there are many important and influential people of whom it is not true.
For example, I don’t find the life stories of Hitler or JFK particularly telling outside the period of their peak political relevance, but Gandhi’s is.
I found that combining Churchill’s Second World War with Alan Brooke’s Diaries gave a rather more nuanced view of the time. Churchill could write, and Brooke’s is mostly just diary entries (the full version has every entry - including “went home and slept” stuff) but, well, Churchill was never shy of blowing his own trumpet.
Forrest Gump
I think Nixon is a good choice from this angle. His bio gets you WWII, 50s anticommunism, 60s tumult, 70s alienation. He was intimately involved in all sorts of realpolitik and was hip deep in all the domistic conflicts of the middle of the century.
Robert Byrd perhaps?
How about Dwight Eisenhower?
To capture developments in the whole century, I think it’d have to be someone whose active career spanned at least the 1920s to the late 1980s, and that career would have to be connected to world events throughout that time.
As such, & now that I think about it, I agree Deng Xiaoping would probably be the best choice at least for Asia, perhaps along with Emperor Hirohito. I can’t think of anyone in the West whose career had similar longetivity and relevance.
ETA: And even Hirohito missed out on critical developments in the 90s. For a true picture of his own country’s development over the course of the century, I think none can rival Deng.
I agree. IMHO, it was primarily because of Gorbachev the Cold War ended with a whimper instead of a bang. No nuclear war, no Soviet civil war (a failed coup attempt doesn’t measure up), no last ditch attempt to keep the USSR together with Stalineque mass slaughter. It certainly wasn’t Ronald “we start bombing in five minutes” Reagan, who if anything was an impediment.
Gorbachev’s period of influence didn’t span much of the 20th century it’s true; but he did important things in a pivotal place and time which IMHO is more important.
Aside from Roosevelt, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Churchill I would go with:
Gorbachev If it wasn’t for him it’s quite possible that the Cold War and the Soviet Union would exist to this day. If you don’t believe it you only need to look at the survival of vastly weaker Communist countries like Cuba and North Korea. And despite the valiant efforts of his US boosters to pretend otherwise Reagan played a minor role in the collapse of communism.
Norman Borlaug. The Green Revolution is one of the biggest events of the 20th century or any century. Without it hundreds of millions of people might have starved to death.
Nehru. Created the world’s largest democracy against the odds and it has stood the test of time.
Deng. Laid the foundations for rising prosperity for a billion plus people.
Keynes. A market economy with government intervention remains the basic economic model for the world. Keynes not only developed the theoretical framework for much of this, he also implemented some of his ideas as a leading civil servant.
Ford. Refined the mass production model which powered economic development through the century
Einstein. Perhaps the greatest scientist of the century and an eloquent voice for peace and decency.
Chaplin. If I had to pick one cultural medium which defined the 20th century I would go with cinema. Hard to pick one iconic figure in 20th century world cinema but I think I would go with Chaplin.
Michael Jackson: Elvis and the Beatles were bigger in the US but no one was bigger on the global stage possibly no one will again be as big.
On the other hand, the Green Revolution allowed world population to balloon, creating the potential for future famines that would dwarf those conceivable a century ago. The limits of food production remain as “hard” as ever, they just moved.
The rise of a peaceful, stable and prosperous Europe after WW2 is one of the biggest success stories of the 20th century and while we tend to take it for granted it need not have gone so well. Hard to pick a single name though. Adenauer is perhaps at the top of the list but De Gaulle and Jean Monnet were also important.
I think we’ve got different definitions going on of “biographies” and “define.” I don’t think “define” is necessarily equivalent to “influential on.” If there were a real life Zelig or Forrest Gump out there, I think they might fit the bill much, much better than Einstein or Lenin.
Really, if a historian 1000 years from now picks up the sole remaining artifact of the 20th century, and it turns out to be a copy of Moonwalker, that’s going to give him a broad picture of all that happened in the world during an entire 100 year span? Suuuure.
Future famines remain a matter of speculation especially given that world population growth is slowing down. The hundreds of millions of lives saved by the Green Revolution are a matter of reality. In any case regardless of its ultimate impact there is no question the Green Revolution was an enormously important event in world history.
Let’s not forget Dr. Maurice R. Hilleman (1919-2005), a microbiologist who developed vaccines for mumps, measles, chickenpox, pneumonia, meningitis and other diseases. Of the 14 most commonly used vaccines, he created 8 of them. All in all he had almost 2 score vaccines to his name; his measles vaccine saves 1 million lives each year. Old thread.
And all of the lives thus saved probably add up to a fraction of the numbers killed by Stalin alone, through starvation, executions and war. And then there’s Mao. And then there’s Hitler.
I mean, going by all these praiseworthy Nobel-worthy scientists and invesntors, you’d think the 20th century was defined as one great big lifesaving hug fest. If only it were so – but as praiseworthy as they are, I don’t think these biographies define the bloodiest century yet known to man.
A big problem with this thread is that “defined” is ill defined.
To me, a biography defines its era if it gives insight into the major historical events of that era. In practical terms, if a person reading the biography could get a pretty good handle on both the vents going on and the reasons behind them.
So, Churchill’s biography defines the first half of the century for western Europe. It covers the Edwardian era of the young Churchill, the lead up to WWI, has insights into empire and colonialism, cover WWII and gives a very good lead into the post-war period. Hitler’s would do a similar job, though probably less useful for the period prior to WWI, and certainly not as good for the post-war period. Hitler seems almost redundant IMO.
To me, what somebody actually did for a living or their political views are meaningless. A well written biography should convey information on the life and times regardless of what the subject thought. So what a person did for a living or thought is not a qualifier. How they interacted with society is much more important. John Lennon, for example, was so detached from reality for so much of his life that I doubt that his biography could tell a reader much about the time she lived in. His early life would be informative concerning the post-war years, but I don’t think we’d get much valuable information about society after the Beatles made it big because John largely dissociated from that society.
In contrast Churchill, like most other politicians, was keenly aware of and reacting to the society around him throughout his career. We can know the people and the times by knowing Churchill, Lennon, not so much.
I wouldn’t generally include scientists, because while the century may have been largely defined by science, it was really defined by practical science. Transistors and rockets are the real defining science of the century, not abstruse equations. The science that defined the century was the science known to everybody, not the science on the cutting edge.
Having said that we need:
Someone from England for the first half of the century. I say England because by doing so you also encompass the colonies for that time period. Australasia, Malaysia, even India could in large part be defined by their interactions with England. So in a short list it makes sense to have a candidate from England in this time period. So Winnie is the obvious choice.
Two representatives from the Americas, presumably the US, for the period from the buildup to WWI to the present. I say two because I doubt one person could possibly do it justice .And I say the Americas because we couldn’t just ignore the region anyway, and the US has been so damn important since WWI that we need voices from the Americas voice.
A representative from Asia or Africa for the period leading to the end of colonialism, say from 1930-1960. Deng is probably a good candidate, since he also provides a neat voice for necessary voice for the Communist world during his period as well as observation on Japanese and American expansionism.
A representative from behind the Iron Curtain, ideally for WWI to 1990, but at least for 1945-1990.
A representative from the Third World for the development period, say 1960-2000. Anywhere in the third world works, just to give an insight into how the majority of people were living during what was one of the largest and least recognised changes in the century, the massive rise of the third world.
A representative from the westernised colonies 1950-2000, ideally not Canadian because we already have an American representative. South African Hong Kong, Australia or NZ. To provide insights on the effects of the end of colonialism on the non-Indigenous peoples.
I’d want people who actually interacted with the general populace and politics of those times, not just people who happened to be alive, regardless of how successful or famous they were. That necessarily means we’re going to get a lot of politicians, and that’s fine. But I have no objections to entertainers, businessmen or scientists provided they actually had meaningful interactions with the social and historical changes in the world around them.
Akio Morato - The walkman forever changed music.
Barry Humphries as an expose on middle class white Australia
Louis Gerstner - Dancing Elephants great look at how business has changed and must adapt or die
Or Robert McNamara; the Ford Motor Company followed by the Vietnam War followed by the World Bank.
The answer is obvious: William J. Seymour.
Who?
William J. Seymour. The preacher who started the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles and is credited as the most important individual in the founding of Pentecostalism, which now has several hundred million adherents worldwide.
Why? Three reasons.
First, the race angle. Seymour was the son of slaves and grew up under strict segregation at a time when the plight of southern blacks was completely off the national radar. Nonetheless he firmly believed in black equality and his life presaged events later in the century, when race issues dominated America and black culture became central to American culture.
Second, the religious angle. The major story in twentieth century religion is the downfall of the mainstream religious bodies and the rise of those groups formerly restricted to the extremes. Pentecostalism is case study number one in that trend. This, in turn, has brought and still is bringing huge social changes to many countries around the world, particularly in Latin America and Africa.
Third, the little guy standing up to the big guy. Seymour’s story is one of humanity’s most amazing tales of someone rising from the bottom of the social ladder against incredible odds. As such, he stands as a beacon and a representative of all those whose struggles against oppression define twentieth century history.