Jump to content

Historical figures who get too much hate


Recommended Posts

Pretty self explanatory, really. So. Genghis Khan, in my mind, was a hero. In an age where burning heretics at the stake was commonplace, he brought equality for women, freedom of speech, and abolition of the lands he conquered to all of Asia. He opposed slavery, only tortured those who had it coming, and respected diplomatic immunity. And yet, he is viewed as a brutal tyrant, because all non-Christians are obviously the spawn of the devil. In the mideaval times, you did not change the world for better or for worse without getting your hands dirty. And yes, I did steal that from Attack on Titan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I thought slavery (maybe with a particularly broad definition) was supposed to be as widespread as anywhere under him, but that slaves (and poorer classes in general) still liked him because under his system, they could earn their way to a better position (so arguably one might prefer to distinguish their situation from the concept a lot of us get in our heads when we think "slavery"), and because he protected them from particularly cruel abuse, or something

Those are just tidbits I heard from sources I can't remember, though, so I guess I wouldn't put all that much faith in them.

Stalin? nah

Mao? nah

Plato- wait, no, I'm thinking of the other way around

(Plato was/could be an acehole, burned other guys' work or some shit)

I do assume this is something that happens a lot, but atm it's a lot easier for me to think of historical figures who get their possibly (sometimes very) dirty bits overlooked. Mother Theresa allegedly having actually pretty shitty opinions of the poor and arguably working to keep the people she "helped" in poverty, Gandhi allegedly being pretty racist and just shy of a sexual predator, W.B. Shaw allegedly also having actually shitty opinions of poor/working class people, etc.

Edited by Rehab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought slavery (maybe with a particularly broad definition) was supposed to be as widespread as anywhere under him, but that slaves (and poorer classes in general) still liked him because under his system, they could earn their way to a better position (so arguably one might prefer to distinguish their situation from the concept a lot of us get in our heads when we think "slavery"), and because he protected them from particularly cruel abuse, or something

Those are just tidbits I heard from sources I can't remember, though, so I guess I wouldn't put all that much faith in them.

Stalin? nah

Mao? nah

Plato- wait, no, I'm thinking of the other way around

(Plato was/could be an acehole, burned other guys' work or some shit)

I do assume this is something that happens a lot, but atm it's a lot easier for me to think of historical figures who get their possibly (sometimes very) dirty bits overlooked. Mother Theresa allegedly having actually pretty shitty opinions of the poor and arguably working to keep the people she "helped" in poverty, Gandhi allegedly being pretty racist and just shy of a sexual predator, W.B. Shaw allegedly also having actually shitty opinions of poor/working class people, etc.

Yeah, he never banned slavery outright, as it would have torn the Empire apart. However, he made it possible for them to be free, which was better than anything else at the time. Mother Theresa and Gandhi both have immunity because if anyone insults them, it will start a massive flame war. But here's a factoid for you: Gandhi was a staunch supporter of Hitler, because Hitler fought the British. So much for passive resistance. Mother Theresa was genuinely awful. She denied her patients painkillers because "there suffering made Jesus happy."

FDR was somewhat of a dick

Care to elaborate?

Edit: I have no idea what happened there.

Edited by blah2127
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to be the hero of this topic and get the edgy viewpoint out of the way for everyone: Hitler. There is no question that he was a monster but the intensity of hate for him is so insane that it eclipses a man who engineered the deaths of tens of millions of people. Actually multiple men, depending on how you interpret history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to be the hero of this topic and get the edgy viewpoint out of the way for everyone: Hitler. There is no question that he was a monster but the intensity of hate for him is so insane that it eclipses a man who engineered the deaths of tens of millions of people. Actually multiple men, depending on how you interpret history.

To be honest - and I know I'm gonna get vilified for this, I'm sure - but if not for World War II, I think history would remember Hitler in a very different light. I recall reading a lot about him, and about how he was so talented at getting people to buy into his policies, and what he wanted to do (aside from, you know, the whole "pure Aryan race" thing) was quite noble - he just wanted to lead Germany to greater heights than ever, especially after World War I and the Treaty of Versailles.

Of course, facism was a shit political system, but I'm sure that at some point even that idea would've gone to shit. I'm sure that eventually - had he not gone and become a total nutter - he would have come to see that, and have created the Germany we know today a lot earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest - and I know I'm gonna get vilified for this, I'm sure - but if not for World War II, I think history would remember Hitler in a very different light. I recall reading a lot about him, and about how he was so talented at getting people to buy into his policies, and what he wanted to do (aside from, you know, the whole "pure Aryan race" thing) was quite noble - he just wanted to lead Germany to greater heights than ever, especially after World War I and the Treaty of Versailles.

Of course, facism was a shit political system, but I'm sure that at some point even that idea would've gone to shit. I'm sure that eventually - had he not gone and become a total nutter - he would have come to see that, and have created the Germany we know today a lot earlier.

I'm going to be the hero of this topic and get the edgy viewpoint out of the way for everyone: Hitler. There is no question that he was a monster but the intensity of hate for him is so insane that it eclipses a man who engineered the deaths of tens of millions of people. Actually multiple men, depending on how you interpret history.

It's hilarious that people on this forum get more angry when you talk about LTCing than when you downplay Hitler's actions.

http://www.britannica.com/holocaust/article-215485

Hitler didn't "go nuts." He was anti-Semitic all along. Take a look at the first paragraph of the article. He wanted a way to get rid of the Jews at least while he was writing Mein Kampf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hilarious that people on this forum get more angry when you talk about LTCing than when you downplay Hitler's actions.

http://www.britannica.com/holocaust/article-215485

Hitler didn't "go nuts." He was anti-Semitic all along. Take a look at the first paragraph of the article. He wanted a way to get rid of the Jews at least while he was writing Mein Kampf.

Even if he was always like this... Think about it. If he didn't want to get rid of the Jews and create his "pure Aryan race", then he could have been a great leader for the German people with his apparent gift of gab.

I'm not saying that what he did wasn't completely horrible and that he came out of the whole thing looking like complete scum, but that could have been easily changed if you removed one small part of his personality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think we do have hitler and his nazi cohorts to thank for the disgust that most of us feel towards racism, genocide, and the deprivation of human rights today.

I feel like that the last two can also apply to Stalin.

Makes me glad that the worst Canada's had for leaders were Prime Ministers that couldn't drag us out of a Depression

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if he was always like this... Think about it. If he didn't want to get rid of the Jews and create his "pure Aryan race", then he could have been a great leader for the German people with his apparent gift of gab.

I'm not saying that what he did wasn't completely horrible and that he came out of the whole thing looking like complete scum, but that could have been easily changed if you removed one small part of his personality.

What makes you think he'd be willing to improve the country if his hatred for Jews were taken away? Getting rid of them was probably one of his driving factors.

Anyway, Hitler is considered to have multiple personality disorders. You'd have to change quite a lot, and he wouldn't even be the same person anymore by the time you were done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, those who said Hitler have guts, but they're just wrong. Just because men like Stalin and Mao don't get enough hate, doesn't mean Hitler gets too much. Also, consider the fifty million people Hitler indirectly killed by starting World War II. In addition, his plan for the Holocaust went much deeper. He planned to kill every single Russian that he conquered. So no, Hitler does not get too much hate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, those who said Hitler have guts, but they're just wrong. Just because men like Stalin and Mao don't get enough hate, doesn't mean Hitler gets too much. Also, consider the fifty million people Hitler indirectly killed by starting World War II. In addition, his plan for the Holocaust went much deeper. He planned to kill every single Russian that he conquered. So no, Hitler does not get too much hate.

indeed Hitler was a nutter, though you have to admit he was a bloody brilliant public speaker.

my main problem with the hate Hitler gets is that people just seem to hate him on the bases of he killed hundreds of people and that he started a world war. and well he did indeed create the policies that lead to these things happening (though the war was kinda maybe sort of totally everybody's fault.) he was actually not that impressive of a man.

now the problem is that people romanticize him into a super evil devil care bears villain who eats the tears of small orphan children and then bites there heads off. hes the entire focus of world war 2 by most people and that is not what they should focus on. they should focus on his policies, the attitude of the ruling party, and the fact that he rather brilliantly worked his way to total political, social, and economical power. despite the fact that he was a very poor excuse for a man. in fact if a logical assumption of Hitler before the second world war happened he seemed destined to become a man of no significance.

i could go on but i'll just say he was a figure of the times and move on.

Pretty self explanatory, really. So. Genghis Khan,

was a truly brilliant man who made a very powerful empire by incorporating technology, tactics and workmanship from many countries to build a powerful army that contoured a large portion of land.

how ever he also had an entire city slaughtered and the bones made into a big pyramid when attacking a foreign nation so it might be a little iffy about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

indeed Hitler was a nutter, though you have to admit he was a bloody brilliant public speaker.

my main problem with the hate Hitler gets is that people just seem to hate him on the bases of he killed hundreds of people and that he started a world war. and well he did indeed create the policies that lead to these things happening (though the war was kinda maybe sort of totally everybody's fault.) he was actually not that impressive of a man.

now the problem is that people romanticize him into a super evil devil care bears villain who eats the tears of small orphan children and then bites there heads off. hes the entire focus of world war 2 by most people and that is not what they should focus on. they should focus on his policies, the attitude of the ruling party, and the fact that he rather brilliantly worked his way to total political, social, and economical power. despite the fact that he was a very poor excuse for a man. in fact if a logical assumption of Hitler before the second world war happened he seemed destined to become a man of no significance.

i could go on but i'll just say he was a figure of the times and move on.

was a truly brilliant man who made a very powerful empire by incorporating technology, tactics and workmanship from many countries to build a powerful army that contoured a large portion of land.

how ever he also had an entire city slaughtered and the bones made into a big pyramid when attacking a foreign nation so it might be a little iffy about him.

Yeah, but consider that everyone else was far worse. Christians and Muslims slaughtered each other daily, in the New World the Aztecs based an entire religion around killing, and several different popes killed more Jews than a certain German dictator ever did. Genghis never did anything pointlessly. He created a reputation of a brutal conqueror so his foes would be terrified of him. Also, any city that surrendered to him would be spared, which was better than everyone else. At the time, targeting civilians was a perfectly legit method of warfare. Everyone else did it, but you don't see, for example, Christopher Columbus not getting a holiday despite being responsible for far more deaths than the Khan was. Ultimately, you have to judge people based on the standards of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but consider that everyone else was far worse. Christians and Muslims slaughtered each other daily, in the New World the Aztecs based an entire religion around killing, and several different popes killed more Jews than a certain German dictator ever did. Genghis never did anything pointlessly. He created a reputation of a brutal conqueror so his foes would be terrified of him. Also, any city that surrendered to him would be spared, which was better than everyone else. At the time, targeting civilians was a perfectly legit method of warfare. Everyone else did it, but you don't see, for example, Christopher Columbus not getting a holiday despite being responsible for far more deaths than the Khan was. Ultimately, you have to judge people based on the standards of the time.

that is true indeed. it is kinda funny how hitler in the modern day is practically considered the reincarnation of the devil when he was in fact of product of timing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defense of figures like Hitler and Genghis Khan is making me a little sick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire

Historians estimate that up to half of Hungary's population of two million were victims of the Mongol invasion of Europ
The impact of the Mongol invasion on the territories of Kievan Rus' was uneven. About half of the Russian population was lost during the invasion.
Documents written during or just after Genghis Khan's reign state that following a conquest Mongol soldiers looted, pillaged and raped, while the Khan had first pick of women captives.
According to the works of the Iranian historian Rashid al-Din (1247–1318), the Mongols killed more than 700,000 people in Merv and more than a million in Nishapur. The total population of Persia may have dropped from 2,500,000 to 250,000 as a result of mass extermination and famine.
Before the Mongol invasion, Chinese dynasties reportedly had approximately 120 million inhabitants; after the conquest was completed in 1279, the 1300 census reported roughly 60 million people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably King George III. American history likes to paint the revolutionaries as freedom fighters against an oppressive government but it seems like the conflict was mostly about taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mideaval world was a fucked up place. Genghis Khan gave the areas he conquered a chance to surrender. If they had done so, nothing bad would have happened to them. Genghis Khan had a noble ambition of uniting the world, ending war, and bringing his liberal policies to the world. Did he use unethical means tho achieve these ends? Hell yes. The thing is, though, everyone else used those same means, and didn't have such a noble goal. By the standards of our time, Genghis Khan would be a monster. But, by the standards of the Mideaval ages, he was a just and fair ruler, and the Mongol Empire was probably the best place in the world to live. To judge historical figures by the standards of our time is unfair. On a side note, I find it humorous that you and I get in deadlocked debates in every thread that we are in.

Edit: Who wrote those documents about him? There is historical bias to consider.

Edit 2: A large amount of these atrocities were committed by future Khans. I'm talking about Genghis specifically, not the Mongols.

Edited by blah2127
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defense of figures like Hitler and Genghis Khan is making me a little sick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire

well you are looking at this statistically. granted i have limited knowledge of the khan but looking at the way he structured his army you cant deny he was bloody brilliant. its Hitler that i get a little troubled by because most people look at him as a boogie man when really he was a pathetic shell of a man who happened to have a talent for public speaking. granted he shouldn't be glorified in a positive light but he should not be glorified in a negative light either. he should be examined as an interesting case study in how much the world fucked up in trying to keep things under control. and then you can view him as a pathetic excuse of a man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well you are looking at this statistically. granted i have limited knowledge of the khan but looking at the way he structured his army you cant deny he was bloody brilliant. its Hitler that i get a little troubled by because most people look at him as a boogie man when really he was a pathetic shell of a man who happened to have a talent for public speaking. granted he shouldn't be glorified in a positive light but he should not be glorified in a negative light either. he should be examined as an interesting case study in how much the world fucked up in trying to keep things under control. and then you can view him as a pathetic excuse of a man.

Yeah, the traditional view of Hitler gives him too much credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mideaval world was a fucked up place.

Good to know. Why is this relevant? That doesn't excuse killing at least 50 million people. He probably has the high score of most murders committed under the orders of one man!

Genghis Khan gave the areas he conquered a chance to surrender.

LOL. This sounds like a screwed up version of Stockholm syndrome.

Genghis Khan had a noble ambition of uniting the world, ending war, and bringing his liberal policies to the world.

So did Hitler.

In contrast to Mein Kampf, in Zweites Buch Hitler added a fourth stage to the Stufenplan. He insinuated that in the far future a struggle for world domination might take place between the United States and a European alliance comprising a "new association of nations, consisting of individual states with high national value"
By the standards of our time, Genghis Khan would be a monster

I always laugh whenever someone brings this up to defend a historical figure. People always use it to defend figures like Prophet Muhammad.

I don't see any other medieval rulers killing at least 50 million people. The vast majority of rulers aren't responsible for grand massacres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to know. Why is this relevant? That doesn't excuse killing at least 50 million people. He probably has the high score of most murders committed under the orders of one man!

LOL. This sounds like a screwed up version of Stockholm syndrome.

So did Hitler.

I always laugh whenever someone brings this up to defend a historical figure. People always use it to defend figures like Prophet Muhammad.

I don't see any other medieval rulers killing at least 50 million people. The vast majority of rulers aren't responsible for grand massacres.

I like how you completely ignored how most of those massacres were committed by other Khans. The only one committed by Genghis was the Chinese invasion, and remember that instilling fear through massacre was a legitimate tactic back then. Hitler wanted to unite the world under an oppressive society where the Aryan Race reigned supreme. Khan wanted to unite the world under a progressive society where everyone was equal. Ultimately, I think that the ends justify the means. You can disagree with me, but the topic is not discussing the morality of Genghis Khan. We can move this into another thread, but I'd like to move on in this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one of my favorite books of all time, Lies My Teacher Told Me, the author discusses the concept of "whitewashing". People who are considered our heroes, such as our presidents, get built up to be "larger than life" - flawless men (and women) who did very amazing things but had no remarkable faults (if any at all) worth speaking of. If you reverse the concept of "whitewashing", you get the idea of people who did terrible things who are made out by history to be completely awful people with absolutely no redeeming factors whatsoever.

History is written by the winners, and human beings are human beings. The "winners" are always going to write the "losers" off as being terrible people. Sometimes the "losers" may not have been as bad as history makes them sound as if they were, especially considering the time and era they existed in. Sometimes the "losers" are really that bad. But the "heroes" are not perfect people who did everything in the name of selflessness. Sometimes "heroes" are so whitewashed that even "heroes" who have committed atrocities on some comparable scale to the "losers" are made out to be progressive people who were valiant, brave explorers who did what they could to further humankind.

At the end of the day, history is not as objective as it really should be. Some people will be praised more than they deserve, and some people will be hated more than they deserve. It's our perspective based on who won, what our culture sees as acceptable, and who is left to remember an event fondly or with hatred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how you completely ignored how most of those massacres were committed by other Khans. The only one committed by Genghis was the Chinese invasion, and remember that instilling fear through massacre was a legitimate tactic back then. Hitler wanted to unite the world under an oppressive society where the Aryan Race reigned supreme. Khan wanted to unite the world under a progressive society where everyone was equal. Ultimately, I think that the ends justify the means. You can disagree with me, but the topic is not discussing the morality of Genghis Khan. We can move this into another thread, but I'd like to move on in this one.

Lol, this is on topic, and a really lousy way to avoid the debate.

Here's a very simple piece of reasoning we can both agree with: If you lived on a planet where everyone committed massacres, would that justify massacres? No.

Khan wanted to unite the world under a progressive society where everyone was equal.

This is trivially false. He wanted himself to be better than everyone else. What does that make him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...