What do you all think? That's my impression. I know that people who made a difference made an impression, and were influential because they were genuine, convinced, and had a better plan, and spoke out.
But it seems to me that the most successful were flexible and allowed for the differences of others, and if not, their ideas weren't popular enough to survive them. Maybe I'm being an optimist. Is it better to be flexible and practical, or rigid and intolerant?
2007-07-22 14:29:29 · 10 answers · asked by WomanWhoReads 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
I think that depends on the culture or society and its position compared to its peers. For example, a powerful military empire that has rigid rules and is unflexible can subjugate weaker neighbors through sheer force, and for its neighbors, adaptability and flexibility would mean survival, resistance would mean annihilation or slavery.
2007-07-22 15:52:15 · answer #1 · answered by J Kibler 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you are over simplifying a complex process. History is full of intolerant tyrants, selfish monarchs and ruthless rulers and even in the bad sometimes good emerged.
Henry VIII is an example of a selfish monarch and a ruthless ruler who introduced a whole new religion to the English people in order to marry his mistress because he didn't like the religious rules he was forced to live under. This resulted in the death of alot of people who would not convert. It also resulted in the death of several wives. Henry ruled till death nonetheless and until Elizabeth I was crowned even more people died over the question of religion.
Stalin was another ruler who ruled until death who was brutal to his people and never called to task for his behavior. However he pulled Russia up to be a world power.
2007-07-22 21:42:48 · answer #2 · answered by Jackie Oh! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on your situation. For example the Conquistadors were rigid and intolerant and conquered two major empires which spanned two continents but they were too rigid and intolerant and couldnt adapt to the needs of their colonial subjects thus losing their empires.
It utterly depends on the situation
2007-07-22 23:23:45 · answer #3 · answered by Roderick F 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. I offer as proof the US Constitution. It is flexible and we have not needed a new one. Other countries or states have had 5 or 6 already.
2007-07-22 21:42:44 · answer #4 · answered by redunicorn 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you're right. Inflexibility isn't going to get you anywhere. Intolerance is probably the only thing, attitude that should not be tolerated.
2007-07-22 22:08:13 · answer #5 · answered by 34th B.G. - USAAF 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely, those who have the ability to adapt will always be the ones who survive.
2007-07-22 21:33:29 · answer #6 · answered by lilykdesign 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i do agree ...unfortunately that is the case...alot of half-truths ...the re-writing of history done on the part of being fexible and accommodating...
i think in order to see change..sometimes drastic measures have to be taken..i mean..come to think about it...even the people are considered revolutionary....did much really change?
2007-07-22 21:48:38 · answer #7 · answered by A Girl 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its not just one person, its entire societies..look at the viking encampment in IceLand...had they adapted and used the techniques of survival that the Inuits were using, they would have made it, but they stubborned out, adapt or die.,
2007-07-22 21:35:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That wasn't history that was the theory of evolution!
2007-07-22 21:35:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you learned to kiss a s s and brown nose you were in to stay.
2007-07-22 21:38:14 · answer #10 · answered by Teenie 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋