Muloghonto Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 4 hours ago, Mariyam said: Here I must interject. Let us revisit what the Bharat Ratna was meant to signify. Exemplary and service to the (Indian) society, which would leave an imprint on the future generations. Personalities like Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, CV Raman, Vinoba Bhave, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan etc were some of the better known recipients. Sometime in the 90s, the charter of the award was changed, and excellence in the fields of traditional musicians, mainstream musicians and sports were also included. Tendulkar, is arguably the greatest cricketer of all time, but he is nothing but an entertainer at the end of the day. Yes, he has made us proud, and he has won India glory. But the impact of Tendulkar's centuries on the Indian society in say a 50 years from now will be next to nothing. The Bharat Ratna, as an award loses its sheen when its awarded to entertainers. Neither Sachin, V Anand (probable), Ustaad Bismillah Khan, Lata Mangeshkar or Amitabh Bachchan (probable) deserve a Bharat Ratna, no matter how good they maybe in their respective fields. Sorry but i disagree. 50 years from now, only reason people would've heard of Amartya Sen or CV Raman is because they read a page on them in grade 8 school. Thats it. 50 years from now, Tendulkar, Lata Mangeshkar, etc. would be mentioned thousands of times a day in the media, in shows like Sa Re Ga Ma, sports channels etc. Its the same way here. Nobody compares to sporting and entertainment celebrities in terms of long term impact. I still hear the name Babe Ruth and Bill Tilden regularly. Those people played their sport in the 1920s. I hardly ever hear the name FDR or Marie Curie. Even someone as influential as Martin Luther King doesnt get mentioned as much as Michael Jordan. People who are far more popular, have far greater impact. Those who are in the media, those who are famous, the newer generation holds them as role models. That is a fact of life. People who are forgotten simply do not have the same impact.
Vilander Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 I see one guy standing up to the whole forum. I know who the posers are. However trying to argue in a cricket forum that a chess champion is a better icon than a cricket champion would probably be a loosing cause.
Vilander Posted August 4, 2016 Posted August 4, 2016 26 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Sorry but i disagree. 50 years from now, only reason people would've heard of Amartya Sen or CV Raman is because they read a page on them in grade 8 school. Thats it. 50 years from now, Tendulkar, Lata Mangeshkar, etc. would be mentioned thousands of times a day in the media, in shows like Sa Re Ga Ma, sports channels etc. Its the same way here. Nobody compares to sporting and entertainment celebrities in terms of long term impact. I still hear the name Babe Ruth and Bill Tilden regularly. Those people played their sport in the 1920s. I hardly ever hear the name FDR or Marie Curie. Even someone as influential as Martin Luther King doesnt get mentioned as much as Michael Jordan. People who are far more popular, have far greater impact. Those who are in the media, those who are famous, the newer generation holds them as role models. That is a fact of life. People who are forgotten simply do not have the same impact. Did you just say that Michael Jordan has or will have a bigger impact on the society than Martin Luther King had. That's pretty radical I thought you are a history guy.
Muloghonto Posted August 4, 2016 Posted August 4, 2016 16 minutes ago, Vilander said: Did you just say that Michael Jordan has or will have a bigger impact on the society than Martin Luther King had. That's pretty radical I thought you are a history guy. impact can be defined in so many ways. Impact as in empiric impact ? Obviously not- MLK has far greater impact than MJ. But hey, so does the guy/girl who invented the wheel. Impact as in serving as a role model and influencing the newer generation ? Then no, MLK does not hold a candle to MJ. Indians and a lot of the developing world people tend to underestimate the impact of people to serve as role models and people to emulate. This is because media fanbase and involvement is still in its infancy in these countries (most of us can still remember when TV had only three channels - Doordarshan, Bhajan channel and Doordarshan 2) and people do not realize, that famous people are the biggest drivers of personality prototypes and role model candidates than not so famous accomplished people.
Vilander Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 On 8/3/2016 at 8:20 PM, Muloghonto said: impact can be defined in so many ways. Impact as in empiric impact ? Obviously not- MLK has far greater impact than MJ. But hey, so does the guy/girl who invented the wheel. Impact as in serving as a role model and influencing the newer generation ? Then no, MLK does not hold a candle to MJ. Indians and a lot of the developing world people tend to underestimate the impact of people to serve as role models and people to emulate. This is because media fanbase and involvement is still in its infancy in these countries (most of us can still remember when TV had only three channels - Doordarshan, Bhajan channel and Doordarshan 2) and people do not realize, that famous people are the biggest drivers of personality prototypes and role model candidates than not so famous accomplished people. strong arguments definitely, for once dont think that i am discounting the social influence of famous and the accomplished. Totally aware of it and there is no need to get any empirical evidence for it its a commonly accepted fact. But my curiosity was just based on the fact that it is ironic, without MLK there would not have been a MJ or any other super star of African american heritage. May be its semantics but thats impact man. I mean without basic civil liberty there is no sporting glory. Muloghonto 1
Recommended Posts