>Not to open up a can of worms, but as a historian these Time covers always
>bother me because they rely so much on the "Great man" theory of the past.
>Why believe there was any one person who most influenced the course of
>history? Why assume that category even makes sense?
It's Time magazine we're talking about, a major bastion of American journalistic vulgarity. Vulgar American journalists only understand personalities. They're colorful. They don't require any knowledge of history, politics, economics, or cultural theory. In fact, most journalists think complexity is boring, ok for wonks maybe but not them or their audience. The Balkans? The Middle East? Oh, much too messy for understanding! So you've got this guy Saddam, the New Hitler, and this other guy, Milo, the Newer Hitler. Nazis? Easily explained - it's all the fault of the one original Hitler, evil incarnate. So when you run into one of these Hitlers, you just bomb them. Very simple really. Just ask Time magazine.
Doug