http://www.historymakers.co.nz/person.php?p=1

Having been voted by Prime and the viewers (myself included), I was repeatedly overjoyed to know that Sir Ernest Rutherford, our greatest scientific mind is clearly the greatest New Zealander in history. Hail!

This man helped to put NZ on the world map for scientific prowess!

Savage is fifth, yay!

EDIT: Muldoon 44th, what the fuck!

I couldn't remember how the great early PMs were ranked. I'd be disappointed if Vogel or Seddon isn't ranked in the top 50.

In my opinion, Sheppard doesn't even deserve to be in the top 10 and neither does Billy T. James.

Billy T. James was hugely popular (and still is to a large extent) as an iconic New Zealand comedian. I'm of two-minds about Sheppard being in the top 5.

He was originally ranked 86th by the network. The viewers themselves thought he should be amongst the top 10. There's quite a lot of viewer bias towards sports and entertainment figures of our lifetime. In 100 years time, James would be as forgotten as those early NZ musicians or that guy who won Wimbledon 8 times and was later killed in WWII; while names like Pickering* (our own von Braun) and Rutherford (the second Newton), lives on inside and out off the classroom.

I was puzzled to hear that Upham made it to the top 10 and Freyberg didn't. There are more places named after the general than the captain. Upham may have been the Commonwealth's most decorated soldier, but he spent the rest of the war in German captivity, while greater heroes died in the field with little or no proper recognition. More New Zealanders think of the Anzacs with Freyberg than with Upham.


*That man visited my high school a year before he died. His achievements were inspirational!



We need the opinions of Samf, our resident historian!

Oi. I'm the historian around here, and I think the whole idea is absurd.

I wouldn't use it as a guidebook for anything, but it's not utterly absurd. In future, historians will look back on this list, and they'll find out a lot about what New Zealanders in 2005 thought made a great person.

The show also highlights the way in which we discuss history these days in public - a preference for lists and rankings, pseudo-democratic voting systems, etc. So history is being molded to a TV format. And our opinions on what makes a great New Zealander might be very different in fifty years' time (not least because of fifty years' more potential great New Zealanders)!

Everything is historically valuable - just not in the way we might expect it or want it to be. Imagine someone researching NZ public history in 2065, sitting in the old Prime archive and going "Eureka! This will tell me shitloads about how my grandparents' generation saw their country. Now if only I could find an old DVD player to watch the thing..."

There's certain bias given to figures that are still in our memory, like Billy T. James having such a high position on the rankings.

I never knew that you have a BA in history and since you advertised that lousy novel about Hitler being a British spy, I began to question your crediblity.

Hey, easy. I can handle some competition. It's just up until now I had a monopoly on blowing my own trumpet as a historian. (Eagerly awaiting a "fixt" post from templar.)

Samf is a spy, I don't know who for, but when we get hold of the LSD and the drugs kick in as we are driving out of central Auckland... all will be revealed!

Could you imagine how lauded a Kiwi F1 World Champ would be today? They would be given the same status as Colin Meads. Dennis Hulme should have scored higher.

For the record, my MA thesis in New Zealand history is in the final stages of being marked. And I was given the postcard of Hitler book by someone in the History department, where I work. There was a random nutter trying to get historians along to the booklaunch.

As for the 'it will tell historians what people thought were important in 2005', well, maybe. I think you were closer to the mark with the commodification and commercialisation of historical identity though, Sam. That's an interesting point, but as another post I made on Friday might suggest, I was too hungover to consider it. However, I don't think Prime TV were undertaking the process in order to make a point about how an Australian TV network can appropriate and package our history for us, and sell it back to us as a vapid reality tv show. That would suggest a capacity for irony well-beyond any television network. Hence, the absurdity (although absurdity can be enlightening, of course).

Oh and Sam, if you ever want to chat about the gruelling year that is a BA (hons) in History, on which you're about to embark, PM me or something.

What's the thesis on? Perhaps I've encountered you around the department...

It's gruelling? I thought I'd swan through it just like the last three years. Is it just a matter of stepping up reading time and advance preparation etc? I shall PM you later.

:hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious:

Young Samf, you don't know what you're in for...

I aced 300. Will that help?

Should do. I bombed 300 myself, and then aced 710. The thing is that it really is a major step up, not like from 2nd to 3rd year, but into really thinking for yourself. That, and you'll have to write about 17000 words in the last 5 weeks of semester two. Basically, it's really intense, but also very rewarding.

You'll be fine, but it's the beginning of getting really serious about your studies.

:ph43r:

On the plus side you get access to the Arts Graduate Centre, which makes you the l33tness. Nothing like having a university swipecard to make you feel like part of the incrowd. On the minus side you'll spend all of your time there, and they took away the kitchen.

Capitalists!

Capitalism kick communist arse!

Grammar kick capitalist arse! Incomplete sentence SMAASH!!!

NIT PICKING GRAMMAR ON INTWRANET WORST KIND OF ARGUMENT. KEKEKEKE!!!11!!!11!

In response to the original accusation, it's much more feudal than anything else.

We, as grad students, are the peasants, who must farm the landlord's land (ie produce research and make the University look good). In exchange we are granted tenancy on said land (the grad centre), and small tokens occasionally (degrees every couple of years). However, we have little control over the development of the land (ie they make unilateral decisions about renovations etc. without consulting us).

Elitist maybe, capitalist, sadly not.

I heard it was essentially an initiation into academic life, where academics bash you with tough assignments and little assistance until you are one of them.

Yes. They also eat those students who maintain less than a B average.

not being much of a history man I read this and assumed that the AVERAGE rapper who lovess his moonshine had been voted 5th greatest NZer of all time.
thankfully i stand corrected.

Scribe would have been more appropriate (not being serious)

welcome to the board.