The December issue of the Atlantic Monthly hit newsstands last week, confronting readers with a cover story befitting of Time or Entertainment Weekly: “The 100 Most Influential Americans of All Time.”
Indeed, Time has already run its annual top 100 issue; in May it went with the cover story of “Time 100: People Who Shape Our World,” a list of contemporaries that included Daddy Yankee, Muqtada al-Sadr, and Bono. In fact, last week’s Time magazine settled on the “all-Time” 100 Albums. Several trade publications are currently contemplating the top 100 wines, PCs, automobiles, and music videos. But that’s Time. What’s up with the Atlantic?
The obvious excuse for padding the year-end issue with a top 100 list is that the Atlantic is now celebrating its 150th anniversary. For the past 11 months, in honor of the milestone, the Atlantic has reprinted notable excerpts from issues past. Their subjects have spanned American political and civil rights leaders, economics, environmentalism, and feminism. By all accounts, it’s been a laudable historical exercise with a subtle emphasis on the achievements of a great magazine. They’ve also been doing literal victory laps for much of the year: earlier in the fall the magazine announced that prominent staff members would hit the road for a “live tour” — also to honor the 150th — organizing panel discussions and book signings in Boston, Washington, San Francisco, Chicago, and New York.
We thought it an odd choice, then, to punctuate the festivities by addressing such a nebulous concept as “influence” — especially in the form of a top 100 list. Which brings us to the content of this list.
The list of American icons that inhabits 21 pages of the magazine is overwhelmingly dominated by dead white guys whose accomplishments are summed up in a single terse sentence. In the space between the columns of names, Atlantic editor Ross Douthat muses — almost apologetically — at the apparent shortcomings of the influential rankings as they appear in the magazine:
The final 100 also suggests that men still rule, at least in many historians’ eyes — oh, and make that white men. Ten women are on the list (the highest-ranked is the feminist pioneer Elizabeth Cady Stanton, at No. 30), and eight African Americans, but the Top 100 is heavily WASPish. Martin Luther King Jr. (8) was among the top vote-getters, but there isn’t another African American on the list until Jackie Robinson (35). And there are no Hispanics, Asian Americans, or Native Americans.
The racial and gender lopsidedness of the list might be due, in part, to the tendency of the panelists (historians, all) that were called on by the Atlantic to favor dead people, because, after all, the civil rights movement is still a relatively recent phenomenon. So when we consider that 97 percent of the “influential Americans” that made the cut are no longer among the living, it makes sense that the list is more representative of the pre-women’s suffrage era instead of offering an idealized image of the past based on modern cosmopolitan and multicultural values. And in fact a short list of “living influentials” that were nominated but didn’t receive the necessary votes to make the final list does include African Americans and women in higher proportions (although still no Native Americans).
What we end up with then is a history of the United States written by the winners — almost exactly as we might expect to find in the most unadventurous of children’s history books. We are reminded, as junior high students have been for more than a century, that Abraham Lincoln was the most important because “He saved the Union, freed the slaves, and presided over America’s second founding.” And that’s all that needs to be said about that. A pithy, one-sentence epithet, which is all that we’re given for any of the names on this list, is the manner in which the lives of these “American influentials” are summarized; just enough to pass the test.

Mr. Boyer decries the supposed "oversimplified historicism" created in naming a list of influential Americans populated disproportionately by "dead white guys".
"Diversity", that High God of modern liberalism is obviously displeased to see white males credited with anything other than oppression or greed... And Mr. Boyer apparently advocates displacing some of these "dead white guys" with others...
However, Mr. Boyer inadvertantly argues both sides, here... He wrote "what we end up with then is a history of the United States written by the winners"
Obviously, the most "influential" people in ANY situation will be the "winners"... A reasonable person will hardly find utility in a "Most Influential Loser" list....
Typical of similar white-male bashing liberal tirades, Mr. Boyer's rant here is long on criticism, but short on alternatives. Notice that he hasn't described any particular faults in the selection process or suggested any particular additions or replacements to the list of influential Americans.
Mr. Boyer, like many liberals, just doesn't like dealing with reality- namely that "dead white guys" largely made the decision that forged our tiny, back-water country into the greatest nation on earth in less than 200 years.. And that these "dead white guys" made their decisions without any meaningful help from women or minorities...
This simple fact isn't going to evaporate simply because it offends liberal sensitivities...
Of course, for a group of non-wacky academics to find that these dead white male decision makers should end up stacking a list of "influential" people in American history is hardly surprising... To anyone except a misguided CJR minion, that is...
Posted by padikiller on Tue 5 Dec 2006 at 01:45 PM
Indeed it was a pretty sad list. The typical justification for a top-100 list is that it gives people something to argue over, but the squishiness of the term "influential" makes the Atlantic list unfalsifiable. It would be like publishing a list called "Americans Americans Like".
Posted by Andrew W on Tue 5 Dec 2006 at 01:54 PM
Andrew W. wrote:
the squishiness of the term "influential" makes the Atlantic list unfalsifiable..
padikiller responds:
It's funny that liberal critics only decry the so-called "squishiness" of laudatory terms like "greatest" or "most influential" when white males are involved..
You won't see CJR lamenting the "laziness" of listing the greatest black leaders in American history... Or the greatest women in American hisory... In the context of such segregated social accounting, the CJR editors are as happy as clams when faced with such terms..
But when the dust settles in an integrated environment.. And an independent panel of academics selects (GASP!) white men for its list of most influential Americans..
Then the liberal P.C. whack-jobs come out in droves to argue nonsense ... The dangerously silly liberal agenda-to downplay the undeniable accomplishments of Americas influential white males in the name of the all-holy (and divisively racist) social goal of "Diversity"- is unfulfilled when an independent panel of experts has the nerve to actually select a group "dead white guys" over unnamed others CJR would prefer to see recognized.
So CJR bitches and moans (without proposing any alternatives, of course)....
SUCH one-sided tripe is a disservice to CJR's readers...
Posted by padikiller on Tue 5 Dec 2006 at 03:29 PM
yeah, let's hear it for AMERICA!
the greatest nation this sad little earth has ever seen. and don't try to tell us otherwise, you limp-wristed CJR commies! how dare you criticize a list of influential AMERICANS. i don't care how dull or uninteresting of a list it is, or how tedious it may be to read, or how vague its definition of influence. those are AMERICANS you're criticizing, and padikiller and i simply won't stand for it.
if someone paints a mediocre picture of james madison, and you say, "that's a bad picture," or notice that james madison is white and dead, then you're a racist and you hate this country and all it stands for--you might as well be osama bin laden.
Posted by nonono on Tue 5 Dec 2006 at 06:30 PM
I don't know how good or bad the Atlantic thing is yet, but this CJR piece is typically atrocious. Dorm-room rantings of a mediocre mind. Dead white guys, blah blah blah.
At least the Atlantic didn't use the word "epithet" in a completely wrong way. And I don't even have to read it to know that.
Posted by biff on Tue 5 Dec 2006 at 06:40 PM
And, good lord, you actually accuse *them* of being "lazy and boring," even as you pull stock phrases from the PC Dictionary of 1988?
Lookie here to see how it's done:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/12/04/wait-so-who-freed-the-sl_e_35487.html
Posted by biff on Tue 5 Dec 2006 at 06:46 PM