Talk:Father of the Nation

I must say that I find it a big surprice to learn that the Soviet Union is regarded as a nation. Until now I've always believed that not the least Lenin put great pride in the multitude of nations comprised in the Union. No offense intended!

Maybe Fathers of the Fatherland would be more appropriate,

...but it doesn't look like good prose, does it?

-- Ruhrjung 23:19 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It would. The USSR was by no definition a nation. FearÉIREANN 00:21 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A couple of changes. The term 'father of the nation' does not always mean a founding father. It may also be used for some key historical figure whose moral leadership made him the embodiment of the national spirit. Lincoln for example is often called the FotN alongside Washington. Stalin during his period in power was called the father of the nation, and was called that after his death until his reign of terror was finally revealed. In modern Spain, King Juan Carlos is often called the FotN because of his role in turning the Francoist regime into a modern democracy, and in particular by his role in preventing a coup in 1981. Another of the titles occasionally used to describe him is the 'father of modern democracy'. And some leaders are called the FotN for a while and then lose popularity, like Eamon de Valera in Ireland. The article in its first draft did not cover the full complexity. FearÉIREANN 02:52 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That's weird. I've never once heard of Lincoln referred to as "father of the nation" before. A google search also failed to produce results. Are you sure? --Jiang 05:24 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes. Father of the Nation does not mean a founding father. It means someone who in effect a dominant personality whose actions, words and deeds in effect embodied in the most symbolic manner the nation. Lincoln with the Gettysburg Address, etc is seen as such. Lincoln was described as being FotN in our American politics lectures by our lecturer, himself an American. I heard a US senator call him that. It certainly cropped up in one American history book I read for the course (that was 1985 so I'm damned if I can remember the name of the book: there was 121 books on the reading list and I read four fully and skimmed another 20 or so!) As to google, as I have discovered so often, google searches are absolutely worthless in a large majority of cases. As I have said elsewhere, google searches for wiki have gotten the surname of the Prince of Wales wrong, the details of W.E. Gladstone wrong, information on Eamon de Valera wrong, biographical details of Mary Robinon wrong, information on the Australian republican debate wrong, information on the Queen Mother wrong, information on the 1937 Irish constitution wrong, information on the Irish 1922 constitution wrong, biographical information on Michael Collins wrong, some basic facts about the White House wrong, information about an encyclical by Pope Pius XII wrong, details of not one but two electoral voting systems wrong, elementary information on the European Union in law wrong, information about Irish neutrality wrong, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Personally I think wiki should ban google searches because much of the time they are about as scientific and reliable as reading tea leaves! :-) FearÉIREANN 02:08 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Maybe you know of some Americans who call Lincoln as father of the United States, but its not common, and I think most Americans would think that its a bit odd. User:Roadrunner

The guy in question was a visiting Professor of Government and Politics from an east coast rather famous university! And I do tend to think that Ted Kennedy tends to be worth listening to as well. :-) FearÉIREANN 04:43 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to this except that I've lived in the United States for a long time, and I've never heard of anyone refer to Lincoln as the father of the United States. Maybe this professor thinks that Lincoln is the father of the United States, but I do not believe that this is a view that most Americans share.

Keep in mind that the opinions of East Coast professors of Ted Kennedy are not necessarily representative or authoriative. Something that *still* is the case is that people from New England tend to think much more highly of Lincoln than people from the South. It wasn't that long ago (say 40 years ago) that Lincoln was *HATED* in many parts of the United States.

One bit of oddness is that Lincoln's Birthday is a federal holiday but not a state holiday in most parts of the south, which means that federal offices are closed, but most state offices and businesses aren't.

Roadrunner

Roadrunner is right -- most Americans do not refer to Lincoln as a "father of the nation." I do understand how an historian (whether American or not) could characterize Lincoln as a "father" of the nation, because one could very reasonably argue that the "nation" did not really exist until after the Civil War, when it became clear that the US is not a union of different states but one country (thus, the movie Birth of a Nation is about the Civil War and its consequences, albeit from a pretty uncongenial view). One must distinguish a claim about Lincoln versus a claim about what most Americans think about Lincoln. For example, political scientists and historians could debate whether Herbert Hoover or Ronald Reagan (or Clinton or whomever) was the best 20th century US president. But whatever they conclude, that is quite different from asking who most Americans believe is the best president. In short, I have no doubt that a professor of JTDIRL refered, wich good reasons, to Lincoln as a father of the nation. Nevertheless, Lincoln is not "often" refered to as father of the nation. the two facts are by no means mutually exclusive. Slrubenstein

---

About Sun Yat-Sen. I do not recall ever reading anything from the PRC that referred to Sun as Father of the nation. If someone can point me to something in that vein, I can revert. Roadrunner

I have been told by a friend who lives in the mainland that they do indeed call him "Guofu." There is a big picture of him in TAM. Maybe we can ask some resident mainlanders for further verification. --Jiang 07:32, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sun Yat-Sen? you mean Sun Zhongshan?(孙中山) well, i don't know, but i seldom hear people call him "Guofu" here, i know people from Taiwan often call him 国父, but it's not common in my area (Canton). if i don't mistake, the textbook prefer to call him "forthgoer"(革命的先行者？). i am not sure about that. it seems that there is no a specific Guofu in mainland now....:O --Samuel 14:34, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We seldom call Sun Yat-Sen as "Guofu" in mainland. As Samuel pointed out, "forthgoer" is a term that is more frequently used officially. But interestingly Sun Yet-Sen's photograph is now the only image that appears in national day celebrations, while Lenin's photo is not often seen nowadays.--Formulax 07:43, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Really? but i haven't seen that image used in national day celebreations here, you meant in Taiwan? --Samuel 07:46, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This: [1] (http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/dispatches/09.22.tiananmen/sun.yat.sen.jpg) --Jiang

wow, that's amazing. that's the only image used in that celebreation? :O --Samuel 08:09, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

While the information about Stalin is all true, I think there might be a bit of misunderstanding regarding his status as a father figure versus the actual father of the nation.

Even at Stalin's peak, the Soviet propaganda of the day continued to idolize Lenin as the Soviet Union's founder. Stalin was the man who was carrying on Lenin's ideals, hence the common images of Stalin and Lenin hanging out together, looking at books, etc. Stalin was never presented as the "father of the nation" per se, just as a father-like figure, who all Russians were supposed to love. So in that respect, I don't think Stalin really belongs on this page user:J.J.

George Washington? "Father of the Nation"? When has he ever been called that? The term is "Father of his country." RickK 03:52, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I protest to having Enver Hoxha as the father of the nation of Albania which at the very least is very POV and I don't think it is even accurate. If someone has to be picked, it might as well be Ismail Qemali, but I don't think there is a "father of Albania" that has been declared anywhere. I will remove the entry on Albania for now. If it is decided on someone else we can put it back in. Dori 15:41, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

User:TwinsFan48 had reverted my earlier edit as part of edits suspected to be PoVs (inviting debates in the summary, if felt otherwise)

But, I am removing Jawaharlal Nehru from the Indian line again. Readers may please note that this is not my POV.

If the list is about the list of most important people in Indian history, I have no objections to offer, except that the list may never be complete. However, if it is about common parlance and usage, I insist on Gandhi alone to be included.

In terms of plain usage, Gandhi is "The Father Of The Nation" in India. I am not kidding or bragging, but this is often the very first "lesson/fact" in Indian history learnt by school kids in India. Jawaharlal Nehru is considered to be an important protege of Mahatma Gandhi, and a great national figure, but "Father of the Nation" is a widely used epithet in India for Gandhi alone, unlike some other countries where it is not a popular phrase, and an issue open for discussion among scholars.

Any editor from/with a considerable knowledge of India will agree to me on this usage fact, regardless of his affiliations and his views on Gandhi/Nehru.

It may also be of interest to know that Nehru was fondly called Chacha Nehru (Uncle Nehru), primarily because of his love for children.

Finally, I quote Nehru himself, in his homage speech to Gandhi, when he was assassinated; where he calls Gandhi "Father of Our Nation". Hope that settles the issue.

The entire text of speech can be found here :- http://meadev.nic.in/Gandhi1/nehruspeech.htm

chance 11:17, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

---

TwinsFan48, your recent edit reverted several of the previous edits, while also introducing a table so it's less obvious what's up. Please make it easy on others and separate content from formatting changes in the future, esp. if there seems to be contention about the content changes. --Shallot 08:09, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any major contention. I agreed to remove Hoxha a long time ago and put in notes about Mao and Nehru. I also changed only one word outside of the table and kept all of the people who were there (except for people which I put in earlier and then found better information to disprove my claims). I haven't heard of any problems other than those. Let me know if you feel otherwise. --TwinsFan48 25 Jan 2004

---

I always thought Bismarck was considered the "father" of Germany? Oberiko 19:08, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Peter the Great is probably a good founding father for Russia. Which is nation, unlike the Soviet Union.

---

Calling as divisive a figure as Eric Williams "Father of the Nation" of Trinidad and Tobago is not only an insult to the half of the country that opposed him, it is also not historically realistic, since he came to power by cutting deals with the Colonial Government to avoid a majority government. Since he managed to gerrymander his way into power for the rest of his life he was able to use the government propaganda service (which included the only television station and one of two radio networks) to style himself as 'FotN'. 'Destroyer of the Nation' might be more apt though Guettarda 21:31, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If he declared himself "father of the nation", was a noted scholar, and ruled as the first prime minister of Trinidad for quite a bit of time, then who does the opposition support as the country's "father"? Ellis Clarke? Basdeo Panday? (hahaha) It would be extremely POV to insert your claims into Williams' article (which so far includes no information on his actual tenure).

"Fathers" do not need to be perfect. Sir Vere Bird, for example, was one of the most corrupt figures in the history of the Caribbean, but he is included because he played the decisive role in the independence of Antigua and Barbuda and this is recognized by the population. If Eric Williams was still alive and ruling and doing all the corrupt things you say he did, then I would take your claim more seriously. If you know a lot about this topic, clean up the POV and improve Williams' article with information about his term in government.

By the way, probably every "father" in his/her time had at least half of the population opposing him/her. --Sesel 23:31, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Declared himself" FotN - my point exactly. If you use that logic, why is 'Uncle Patrick' not there with him (since he did the same thing). Why declare anyone "father of the nation" - there was no fight for independence, the Brits were glad to get out. Are we children who need a 'FotN'? I find that assertion highly insulting. And I don't see the greatness of holding power through rigged elections (like the 1961 vote where ANR Robinson got more votes than there were registered voters), splitting the coutnry on the basis of race (both to Afro-Indo and Afro-French Creole) importing foreigners to vote for you, calling 40% of the country a "stubborn and recalitrant minority" for not obeying you fawningly (granted they fawning followed Capildeo & Bhadase, but that's not the point) and calling them 'primitive' in one of his books, bankrupting the country through his corrupt sycophants, laying the groundwork for the current disrespect for the law, having contempt for the electorate that befits a dictator ('the people will vote for a crapaud in a balisier tie')...need I go on? What about the police brutality against NUFF and the trade unionists of the 60s and 70s? He may look "not too bad" when you compare him to the really brutal dictators, but that doesn't say a lot.

If you feel so strongly about the lack of any info about Williams' tenure as PM, why not do the work and include it, instead of just complaining about other people's work. And sign your comments.

As for calling my insertion PoV - all I did was connect the EXISTING statement at the bottom of the page with a good example. I could find MANY Trinidadians who would disagree with Williams as FotN. It's mainly rooted in politics - his supporters want to use that term, people who lack the self-reliance want a 'father'. I would never think to call Panday FoTN, although I would say that he is a very good student of Williams, and I say that with no admiration. It's rather juvenile to try to make this about race. That I despise Williams has NOTHING to do with his race and EVERYTHING to do with his track record. He did the country great harm, and his legacy lives on. Guettarda 21:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oops, yeah, I forgot one key fact: Deadbeat Dad. Williams refused to pay child support for his older children; if I remember rightly, a warrant was issued in the US after he refused to appear in court to pay child support. Father of the Nation? What about father to his own children? That is the kind of man you want as a role model? Guettarda 21:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I did sign my post. It was three paragraphs and I signed on the third one.

Many of the post-colonial leaders in the Caribbean and Africa, particularly, were simply given their office by the departing superpowers. It is not an issue of whether they vigorously fought for independence. The world would be much worse off today if every country had to fight a war like the Americans or Vietnamese did to simply gain self-determination.

Was there anyone who did more for Trinidad after its independence, whether or not those contributions were negative?

Here are some excerpts from a history of the Caribbean islands [ISBN 0-452-28193-8] (from a very right-wing bias) that I have, but I make no claim as to whether these things had the effect that the author says they did:

"Following the 1971 rebellion, Prime Minister Williams moved to strengthen governmental powers . . . Many Trinidadians were unhappy with the Williams government by the May 1971 elections, but the various factions once more failed to come together. With the opposition parties—and most voters—boycotting the election, the PNM captured all 36 seats in the parliament."

"The government began to buy up key industries before 1973 in response to criticism of foreign ownership by union and black power leaders. Its ownership accelerated as oil revenues grew. The government purchased several oil companies in 1969, and it nationalized the remaining oil firms and all gas stations in 1975. State-owned companies also took control of other major industries—including sugar producers, electricity and water utilities, airlines, banks, and insurance companies."

"Throughout the 1970s, oil revenues fueled a continuing boom. As funds poured in, Prime Minister Williams remarked that 'Money is no problem.' His government used oil revenues to maintain artificially low prices for consumer goods, such as gasoline. And it spent lavishly on education, public works, and welfare programs from food stamps to old-age pensions. As in other Caribbean nations, the government gave out economic benefits in return for votes. The National Housing Authority, for example, was used to channel patronage to black contractors and construction workers."

"As the Williams government increased its control over Trinidad's economy during the 1970s, the prime minister became even more autocratic and aloof."

--Sesel 02:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Postscript: There is at least one other "deadbeat dad" on this list. --Sesel 02:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My apologies for my anger. It was out of line. Quite simply, while I acknowledge that Williams made a large contribution to TT, I don't see his claim as "FotN" as anything but controvertial. In the 1956 elections, the PNM won the most seats, but did not win a majority. Rather than for a coalition with the Butlerites (which would have made sense) or the Gomes (with whom he had bad blood) Williams convinced the Colonial government the PNM have the unelected members of the Legislature. Using that non-mandate "majority" Williams negotiated Independence once the Federation collapsed. Having lost the 1960 Federal elections, Williams introduced voting machines, and won the next election. On a PNM ticket, Robinson won the Tobago seat polling more votes than there were voters. (That number was only 'corrected' after the results were announced and there was public outcry). The Opposition (Capildeo) was unhappy with the idea of independence with a government system which allowed a 'winner-take-all' government; only after Williams agreed to negotiate a system that allowed more rights to minorities did the Colonial Secretary agree to independence. Williams reneged on this promise. Whether the 1966 elections were rigged or not, the voting machines were still used. Through the 60s Williams ran things heavy-handledly - you just need to look at the way the unions were treated. Then came Black Power and the Mutiny in 1970, the vote boycott in 1971, and he was about to resign because he had dug the country into such a deep hole economically...and then he was saved by the Arab-Israeli war.

Williams dominated the early days of post-Independence Trinidad, and did so with contempt for the people (that they would vote for a crapaud in a balisier ties), contempt for the elected MPs of his own party ('millstones") and finally, contempt for other human beings ('When I talk not one damn dog bark'). He was always autocratic and arrogant, and it is a tradegy to Trinidadians that so many were enamoured with him, and continue to be enamoured with autocrats, be the named Panday or Manning. Anyone who asked in 1961 would have taken Trinidad to independence. It was already thrust on us in the form of the Federation. If the standard for being called 'FotN' is being able to say "ok, thanks" when someone says "you take this, I don't want it any more", then Williams deserves it. If it has anything to do with nation-building, then no, he doesn't deserve it.

Regardless, my only point is that Williams provides a good example of someone for whom the designation in controvertial. By disputing the issue I make it true. Then it's only a question of whether there is critical mass to make the statement worth making. My experience is that yes, it is. I did not remove him from the list. I just connected him with the existing comment at the bottom of the list. Guettarda 16:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 POV and bogus information 2 About the cut 3 Fiji's father 4 Cliche on George Washington

POV and bogus information

The article is very POV

1. The sentence

Perhaps the most famous "Father of the Nation" is the American revolutionary general and first president of the United States, George Washington. Washington's image as a national icon of pride and leadership has become almost a cliché to the point where other countries even sometimes refer to their own independence leaders as "our George Washington."

is POV and w/o sources

2. I think that dozens of African and Asian dictators do not fit into what "Father of the Nation" means.

3. The items for Czech Republic and Czechoslovakia are wrong (Masaryk doesn't belong there, Czech Republic isn't nation)

I recommend to reduce the table to half a dozen of names that are no controversial. Pavel Vozenilek 19:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is the Czech Republic "not a nation"? Guettarda 19:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, the table lists states, maybe states OR nations should be used (in this case Czechs, Czech Republic and Palacky sounds very funny to my ear, he lived so long before Czech Rep. was constituted) Pavel Vozenilek 20:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I had previously listed Václav Havel, but then (I think it was an anonymous IP) asserted something to the effect of "Palacky has been Czech FOTN for over 400 years." You can check the edit history for the exact note. --Sesel 20:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The recent edits by 80.222.96.251 are (as far as I can tell) bogus with no basis in fact. I am the user responsible for much of the expansion of this list, for I believe Wikipedia should be as comprehensive and inclusive as possible; I have made some mistakes and later removed them. The recent inclusions of Nehru and Mao (figures who I tried to add a long time ago) contradict what has been discussed with regard to this page, and monarchs such as Idris and Faisal are, for the most part, reviled by their people. I will look over this page again. --Sesel 19:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do you think about having just minimal table with few names - just those who are broadly acknowledged? The term became overloaded by journalists and is almost meaningless, IMHO - like the mentioning of Afghan king by local politician. Pavel Vozenilek 20:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The United States isn't a nation either because their is no "American" ethnic group or "American" language, just as there is no "Tanzanian" ethnic group or "Tanzanian language." But we use the terminology anyway because "father of the state" sounds too clinical. --Sesel 19:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to sort it out - it looks like 80.222.96.251 made quite a mess of this page. Guettarda 20:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, that sentence is very POV. I've never heard anyone refered to as that country's "George Washington".

About the cut

Is the massive truncation of the list in the interest of the article and of Knowledge? I doubt it. I vote for a revert. Add your voice if you agree. --Liberlogos 06:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion it is good thing. I would truncate it even more to just half a dozen of representative names.

For example Czech Republic may be removed: the term is almost unused here. I saw it only once in combination with Palacky and this was from 19th century text.

If loss of information is feared then new article "Dictators and politicians claming to be Father of the Nation" may be created and filled ad nauseum. Pavel Vozenilek 19:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think the cut could go a lot further. For example Alfred the Great is never referred to as the father of the English nation, indeed he never even managed to rule the whole nation simultaneously let alone be the "father" of it. Personally I think this list should only contain those who are explicitly referred to as the "father of x nation" or similar, otherwise it is mere opinion. Rje 01:36, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rje. If Alfred is never called father of the nation. To include him in the list seems to come from some concept that what a nation is is clear and objective and that all nations have fathers.Dejvid 17:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Fiji's father

Ratu Sukuna is considered the founder of modern Fiji. He was the first university graduate, founded Fiji's first political party, founded the Great Council of Chiefs (which still has a constitutional role), and was the first speaker of Fiji's legislature. His birthday (mondayized to the last Monday in May) is a national holiday. Sources [2] (http://www.expedia.co.uk/daily/wg/P41044.asp?CCheck=1&), [3] (http://www.pacificislandtravel.com/fiji/about_destin/visitorsinfo.asp), [4] (http://www.anz.com/Fiji/importantinfo/default.asp).

Sukuna is "official" as a father of the nation; beyond any question, he needs to be in this list. Mara and Ganilau are unofficial, both supporters and opponents labeled them as such at their funerals. Whether that will stand the test of time cannot be proved; I personally believe it will, as one intimately familiar with Fijian affairs (but I cannot put my original research in Wikipedia). However, if a strict criteria of "official" national fathers is applied, I would not object to removing Mara and Ganilau. Sukuna should definitely stay.

Seru Epenisa Cakobau also has some claim to be the nation's father, too, as it was he who unified all of Fiji's warring tribes into a single kingdom for the first time (in 1871). He was not the founder of the modern nation state, but definitely forged the first identifiable entity known as Fiji. David Cannon 01:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cliche on George Washington

I am confused about the appropriateness of this sentence

Washington's image as a national icon of pride and leadership has become almost a cliché to the point where other countries even sometimes refer to their own independence leaders as "our George Washington.

I have never heard anyone calling their national leaders "our George Washington". Isn't it a little out of context.... can anyone provide references on this? Thanks. --Ragib 02:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)