Hi guys,
It's been a while since i last posted because I just transfer to CSULB and i'm a full time student. I'm having finals in a couple of weeks. So far, I hate my classes they're so freaking hard. Specially two of them my digital logic class and my discrete math class. Actually my discrete math class is not so hard, but My teacher sucks. He doesn't know how to teach. I had even been thinking about changing my major (CS). I have a presentation in a couple of weeks and my topic is Rebellion and creativity. And i was wondering if you guys can help. I have to talk about how having too much creativity can be bad. and how sometimes rebellion can be good. In other words how rebellion and creativity can good and bad. I was thinking on talking about someone famous whose creativity helped him succeed, and someone who rebeled against something like the govertment for the good of his people. but i have no idea on who to pick. I don't know a lot about history. I'm brain death. Do you guys know anyone who i can talk about?
I would really appreciate your help.
thank you.

You could pick about any of the constitution framers.

Gandhi?

Those two are really good ones, but i can't use any of those two because those are the one my teacher use as examples, sorry I forgot to mention that earlier. I'm also not allow to use Martin Luther King.
Thanks guys

Hitler would be a good one. You could definately get some good/bad scenarios out of him.

Hitler is a good one, but i can only think about bad scenrios about him. What would be a good scenario?

thanks

Seen in the context of his time his ideas (at least his initial ideas, later he went a bit overboard to put it mildly) made a lot of sense.

Germany had been disgraced, he wanted to make Germans proud of their country and its heritage again.
Unemployment was skyhigh, he provided jobs in large numbers.
German infrastructure was seriously ignored after WW1, he constituted large programs to improve that.
Germans were given vacations, decent work conditions, etc. for the first time under Hitler.
German industry was neglected under Weimar, it was made strong again and innovative.
Increased focus on self-reliance as a nation meant the country became less dependent on food imports among other things.

Germany was the first nation to start nonstop transatlantic air travel under Hitler (using the Zeppelins), a little recognised feat.
Hitler's rule lifted Germany out of the economic depression of the early 1930s, when the rest of the world was still suffering from mass unemployment and famine.

Of course all of that has been painted black by historians as only a means to an end (recognition that a strong modern economy and infrastructure was needed to support a large scale foreign war of conquest), and not an end in itself.
But I'm not so sure that was the initial goal of Hitler when he took power.
Even his annexation of the Sudetenland, Rheinland, and Austria, can be seen in historical context as taking back (and all through peaceful means mind) lands taken from Germany after WW1.
Austria voted to become part of Germany in democratic elections in fact, they weren't forced in any way.
The French occupation of the Rhine after WW1 had been an affront to Germans and would be quite unacceptable to the world today (it was no different from Israel's occupation of the Sinai after the Arab-Israeli wars in which Israel beat the living crap out of Egypt). It was taken without a shot being fired, in fact the German troops moving in were unarmed.

Kristalnacht (now seen by most as the beginning of the oppression of Jews) was mostly a symptom of anti-semitic sentiment running rampant across Europe (and the Americas) at the time, anti-semitic sentiments which are still there today.
Even without the police turning a blind eye and people openly displaying NSDAP party regalia it would have happened, just like the riots of the last few weeks in France.

The German concentration camps (not talking about the destruction camps, those came later) were no different from similar installations built by many other nations at the time. Initially at least they were no more than makeshift prisons to hold prisoners for whom there as no place in regular prisons.
Forced labour was then (and still is today in many countries including the USA) a common sentence for non-violent crimes.

Of course the invasion of Poland was a war of agression and the start of the real trouble.
In historical context even that could be explained, as there was a longstanding (centuries old) rivalry between Poland and Germany and Germans living in Poland were oppressed. Poland also blocked German access over land to the German enclaves inside Poland (parts of Prusia too had been taken from Germany after WW1 and made part of Poland, initially all Germany wanted was to get those back, which the Poles refused).

So take German history of the 1930s into the real historical context, not just the reports from the mainstream history books, and you're getting a somewhat different perspective.
The NSDAP suddenly doesn't seem so radical anymore (compared to other political entities of the time), it also gets shown as what it really is: a far left political party with ideas not so different from the communist party (except the communists wanted Germany to become part of the USSR, the NSDAP were fiercely nationalistic).

I didn't know that

not many people do.
Remember history is written by the winning party in any war and they will generally portray the loosing party as the greatest villains of all time, completely obscuring anything positive about them.

Even now, were I to write that in most European magazines or books I'd be accused of being a Nazi and might even get arrested for it. Any non-negative commentary about Hitler is actively suppressed here.

He did bad things, he did good things. I really like some of his philosophies, though. Some people believe they were far too radical and idiotic, but I find a lot of them fit for use.