Historical figures who get too much hate

[blah the Prussian]

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.

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

How do you know what he wanted? And okay, let's continue it here. Massacres wouldn't be okay, but it wouldn't be especially evil to commit them.

[Knight]

I often see portrayals of Napoleon as an evil tyrant, but I don't really see it. He unified a nation that was in a complete and utter mess of corruption, revolutionized what would become modern combat tactics and brought much funding to schools and academies for public use (albeit for mostly males). He was a conquerer, and he killed a bunch of people, but there are just as many leaders similar to him in history who don't receive such infamy. I don't think he is as hated as many already mentioned, but I just thought about bringing him up.

[blah the Prussian]

I often see portrayals of Napoleon as an evil tyrant, but I don't really see it. He unified a nation that was in a complete and utter mess of corruption, revolutionized what would become modern combat tactics and brought much funding to schools and academies for public use (albeit for mostly males). He was a conquerer, and he killed a bunch of people, but there are just as many leaders similar to him in history who don't receive such infamy. I don't think he is as hated as many already mentioned, but I just thought about bringing him up.

I actually did a whole persuasive essay arguing that Napoleon was a good guy. It was one of my better ones.

[Chiki]

How do you know what he wanted? And okay, let's continue it here. Massacres wouldn't be okay, but it wouldn't be especially evil to commit them.

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.

I think you're a very morally confused individual. Let's go step by step, as simply as possible.

Regardless of what time Genghis Khan lived in, these things still hold true:

1. People don't like to be killed.

2. People don't like to be raped.

3. People don't like to have their stuff stolen.

4. Normal people are capable of empathy. They realize that it is wrong to do the prior 3 things to others.

---

5. Genghis Khan does not empathize with others. In other words, he is evil.

Premises 1-3 are obvious. Premise 4 is an evolutionary necessity. We couldn't have evolved to what we are now if we weren't capable of empathy; otherwise we'd probably still be swinging from tree to tree. We've been capable of empathy for a very long time:

An increasing number of studies in animal behavior and neuroscience claim that empathy is not restricted to humans, and is in fact as old as the mammals, or perhaps older. Examples include dolphins saving humans from drowning or from shark attacks.

You can apply this to any time throughout history. People who aren't capable of empathy just aren't good people.

[blah the Prussian]

I think you're a very morally confused individual. Let's go step by step, as simply as possible.

Regardless of what time Genghis Khan lived in, these things still hold true:

1. People don't like to be killed.

2. People don't like to be raped.

3. People don't like to have their stuff stolen.

4. Normal people are capable of empathy. They realize that it is wrong to do the prior 3 things to others.

---

5. Genghis Khan does not empathize with others. In other words, he is evil.

Premises 1-3 are obvious. Premise 4 is an evolutionary necessity. We couldn't have evolved to what we are now if we weren't capable of empathy; otherwise we'd probably still be swinging from tree to tree. We've been capable of empathy for a very long time:

You can apply this to any time throughout history. People who aren't capable of empathy just aren't good people.

Oh, for gods sake. I said this before and I'll say it again: who wrote the documents? I don't think, for example, that someone conquered by the mongols would be a reliable source.

[Chiki]

Oh, for gods sake. I said this before and I'll say it again: who wrote the documents? I don't think, for example, that someone conquered by the mongols would be a reliable source.

LOL you completely ignored the latter part. It's hilarious.

You can doubt the sources if you wish, but they've been scientifically proven to be true.

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

In Mongolia alone as many as 200,000 of the country's 2 million people could be Khan descendants.^[8] In addition to most of the Mongol nobility up to the 20th century, the Mughal emperorBabur's mother was a descendant. Timur (also known as Tamerlane), the 14th century military leader, claimed descent from Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan was one of the most powerful warlords during his reign; as a result, the harem that he kept was of enormous size.

[NobodiePichu]

I think you're a very morally confused individual. Let's go step by step, as simply as possible.

Regardless of what time Genghis Khan lived in, these things still hold true:

1. People don't like to be killed.

2. People don't like to be raped.

3. People don't like to have their stuff stolen.

4. Normal people are capable of empathy. They realize that it is wrong to do the prior 3 things to others.

You can apply this to any time throughout history. People who aren't capable of empathy just aren't good people.

people are capable of empathy but depending on environment that form of empathy can be similar to what we have now, or very different. empathy does not always mean a good person and even then most humans will feel sympathy not empathy, because we humans by nature are greedy selfish exploitative assholes. it is a brash and harsh generalization to say those who cant feel empathy are not good people though being able to feel empathy can very often lead to good things and deeds begin accomplished, disastrous consequences can also be achieved through the use of empathy. of course this is all hypothetical then again all arguments are hypothetical from a certain point of view.

LOL you completely ignored the latter part. It's hilarious.

You can doubt the sources if you wish, but they've been scientifically proven to be true.

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

I'm happy your proving your sources to back your argument, but please stop being such a spoiled brat and act more professionally when presenting an argument, and please consider all sides otherwise you seem childish and immature.

[blah the Prussian]

LOL you completely ignored the latter part. It's hilarious.

You can doubt the sources if you wish, but they've been scientifically proven to be true.

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

So, apparently every ruler with a harem was evil. You can think that, but there was nothing specifically evil about Genghis. You want the second part? Fine. By your definition of evil, every soldier ever is evil. They did kill people, after all.

people are capable of empathy but depending on environment that form of empathy can be similar to what we have now, or very different. empathy does not always mean a good person and even then most humans will feel sympathy not empathy, because we humans by nature are greedy selfish exploitative assholes. it is a brash and harsh generalization to say those who cant feel empathy are not good people though being able to feel empathy can very often lead to good things and deeds begin accomplished, disastrous consequences can also be achieved through the use of empathy. of course this is all hypothetical then again all arguments are hypothetical from a certain point of view.

I'm happy your proving your sources to back your argument, but please stop being such a spoiled brat and act more professionally when presenting an argument, and please consider all sides otherwise you seem childish and immature.

What he said.

[Knight]

I actually did a whole persuasive essay arguing that Napoleon was a good guy. It was one of my better ones.

I think the reason that many people see him as a tyrant is simply because the British wrote our history books, whether you're from Britain, America or Canada. He was certainly a villain in the eyes of the British, but not too the French. I always wonder if people in France and Quebec get textbooks that tell of the good things Napoleon did.

[Chiki]

I'm ignoring ShinyPichu, because I can't understand him due to his appalling grammar and spelling mistakes.

Every soldier is not evil. Many, if not most, were forced to become soldiers against their will back then. Wanting to protect one's country is not a bad thing, and that is why many become soldiers today.

Every ruler with a harem was probably closer to the evil side of morality than the good, but many rulers did not win their harem through warfare.

Soldiers don't just become soldiers to kill. That would be evil.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Chiki

[blah the Prussian]

I'm ignoring ShinyPichu, because I can't understand him due to his appalling grammar and spelling mistakes.

Every soldier is not evil. Many, if not most, were forced to become soldiers against their will back then. Wanting to protect one's country is not a bad thing, and that is why many become soldiers today.

Every ruler with a harem was probably closer to the evil side of morality than the good, but many rulers did not win their harem through warfare.

Soldiers don't just become soldiers to kill. That would be evil.

And Genghis Khan didn't start a war to kill. If he did, that would be evil. It is a very thin line between winning ones harem through war and sending slavers out to kidnap women (which most rulers did). Ultimately, there is no difference.

[dondon151]

Premises 1-3 are obvious. Premise 4 is an evolutionary necessity. We couldn't have evolved to what we are now if we weren't capable of empathy; otherwise we'd probably still be swinging from tree to tree. We've been capable of empathy for a very long time:

we would probably not even be swinging from tree to tree if we weren't capable of empathy.

And Genghis Khan didn't start a war to kill. If he did, that would be evil. It is a very thin line between winning ones harem through war and sending slavers out to kidnap women (which most rulers did). Ultimately, there is no difference.

very few people, if any, start wars for the sole purpose of murder. that doesn't absolve them of evil by any means.

the attempted defense of hitler and khan is amusing. it's entirely possible, and actually very easy, to cherry-pick good traits from bad people. the "but context!" argument is about as terrible as similar defenses of old testament morality.

[Phoenix Wright]

i think jimmy carter receives way too much hate. the situation at home and abroad made his job extremely difficult, and i think, all things considered, he did a pretty good job with the hand he was dealt.

i think colombus recieves a little bit too much hate, but i also think he receives too much attention. there were much better explorers in his time, ones that have been forgotten but should be remembered and revered (eg, bartolome de las casas). oct 13 should be called explorer's day goddammit.

[Xator Nova]

A not so well known example, so that I don't get hated by the community.

Abimael Guzmán. A peruvian historical figure, leader of the Communist Party of Peru, a.k.a., "Shining Path".

The general consensus is that he and his party were the main cause of the Internal Conflict in Peru in the 80's due to acts of terrorism, which had 70 000 casualties.

While I don't plan on justifying his actions (in fact, what he did WAS unforgivable, and he deserved to be punished), I think it is an exaggeration to say that he and his party was the main cause of the Internal Conflict in Peru in the 80's. Other factors were more important, in my opinion, related to the incompetent administration of the Executive at the time. He was more of a catalyst than a cause.

In other words, I think he's quite overrated in terms of negative impact in Peru. If anything, I'd say that Alan Garcia or Alberto Fujimori, who were the governors at the time, made more questionable decisions and had a worse impact in peruvian history.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Xator Nova

[FrostyFireMage]

Hitler was power-obsessed, sure, but there were far more Nazis that were more evil than he was.

[jiodi]

- That Jesus guy. He was a cult leader who gets waaaay too much name-dropping.

- Thomas Edison, but that smarmy fuck's reputation seems to be getting fixed as of late.

- Japan was kind of a shitty country for really long time. Like...really shitty. For all the tentacle porn and Playstations they provide for us nowadays there's a whole trough chock-full of sex trafficking, invading other Asian countries and being just generally rapy and dickish.

The stupidest part? The Japanese government is one of the few unwilling to admit to the country's atrocities. I mean Germans might mutter and sigh and try and ignore their past but they acknowledge Hitler's absolute shittiness. Americans teach in schools about how we thrashed the Native Americans and manifested destiny and all that crap.

The Japanese hate the idea of people remembering the butthole crap they did, going so far as to asking for the removal of Korean "Comfort Women" statue to memorialize the trafficking of Korean women to work as prostitutes in Japan and even a select number of veterans and hyper-nationalists go so far as to having the audacity to memorialize and celebrate at a shrine dedicated to the guys responsible for the Rape of Nanking.

[Knight]

- That Jesus guy. He was a cult leader who gets waaaay too much name-dropping.

I don't think you can really call Jesus an evil person, he wasn't. Whether or not you believe in God or Jesus' existence, the man was simply trying to spread the morals and lessons of the bible to lawless societies and bring miracles to the misfortunate. There have been many people in history who have used Christianity for evil influences or causes, but you can't blame those on Jesus. It's like blaming the inventor of the rifle that a murderer used to kill you.

[jiodi]

I don't think you can really call Jesus an evil person, he wasn't. Whether or not you believe in God or Jesus' existence, the man was simply trying to spread the morals and lessons of the bible to lawless societies and bring miracles to the misfortunate. There have been many people in history who have used Christianity for evil influences or causes, but you can't blame those on Jesus. It's like blaming the inventor of the rifle that a murderer used to kill you.

I wasn't calling him evil, that was mostly just a joke.

Jesus stood for a lot of things people that do the dumb shit they do nowadays in his name don't stand for. The dude would be horrified to see 90% of Christians nowadays.

[Chiki]

More people defending Hitler. I give up on this forum, where it's a bigger deal to like Galeforce than to defend Hitler and Genghis Khan.

Why is it true that Hitler's men were more evil? He approved of their actions.

[jiodi]

I dunno, I'd say that after a certain point of evil you stop having a more-or-less argument and just put em all in that same bucket.

[Parrhesia]

The obvious Richard III. Seems a pretty typical ruthless-but-orderly mediaeval monarch from actual history, portrayed by Shakespeare (writing for, you know, a Tudor Queen) as a crippled spider hunchback creature, or as Moustached Ian McKellen.

John Curtin made Winston Churchill very, very angry with the proposal that maybe some Australian veterans should be brought back to directly defend the area actually surrounding Australia, but those reinforcements were crucial for us. Also I have no reading comprehension, Curtin doesn't actually get hate, he's just underappreciated.

People who get too much credit: Generals Blamey and MacArthur need to be burned out of a positive light in history. They were political soldiers at best with no idea of the Kokoda Front, continually firing officers who fought a daring and successful defensive war when it was impossible to deliver the offensive they demanded. MacArthur and Blamey literally never even saw that front at any point. MacArthur didn't trust Australian soldiers, calling them unreliable cowards (note: these were outnumbered and largely militia who ended up causing the first land defeat of the Japanese military - meanwhile, raw americans sent to that particular battlefield totally failed to do a thing, not to take away from their successes elsewhere but jesus christ) and Blamey was just ...

i'm very angry about these people

Edited April 1, 2014 by Parrhesia

[blah the Prussian]

More people defending Hitler. I give up on this forum, where it's a bigger deal to like Galeforce than to defend Hitler and Genghis Khan.

Why is it true that Hitler's men were more evil? He approved of their actions.

It is unfair to judge people by the standards of our time(unless they are from our time). If Hitler lived in midieval Germany and did the Holocaust, no one would remember him. Everyone killed Jews. The thing was though, what is right and what is wrong exist in people's minds. People thought it was right to kill people of other religions, or that targeting civilians was a legit tactic. Neither of those were true now, but with no better example, people like Genghis Khan just didn't know any better.

[jiodi]

It is unfair to judge people by the standards of our time(unless they are from our time). If Hitler lived in midieval Germany and did the Holocaust, no one would remember him. Everyone killed Jews. The thing was though, what is right and what is wrong exist in people's minds. People thought it was right to kill people of other religions, or that targeting civilians was a legit tactic. Neither of those were true now, but with no better example, people like Genghis Khan just didn't know any better.

Yes, because no one remembers the Spanish Inquisition amirite? :P

Is it unfair to judge ancient civilizations that sacrificed children to appease the gods?

Just because it was accepted at the time does not mean we should necessarily give it a pass. How would we ever define the morality of contemporary culture if we did not establish where we stood on past civilization?

[Chiki]

It is unfair to judge people by the standards of our time(unless they are from our time).

Omg. I'm starting to suspect you're a troll because your responses are seriously not sharp at all. I just gave you a method based on empathy which allows you to judge actions without considering time.

[Loki Laufeyson]

Hmmm...Godwin'd.

Hitler to me, is what Bertie in The King's Speech says:

*video of Hitler speaking*
Little Elizabeth: "Father, what is he saying?"
Bertie: "I dont know, but he's really good at it."

Hitler was a dictator who wanted to subjugate people simply due to their race. Yes he was a very bad man. But he was also a very dynamic, charismatic figure who had a really good knack for public speaking. This is why he had followers. Its not shameful to admit that. Its not condoning what he did.

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.

Except when its written by the 'losers' and shit gets scattered to the winds. But yeah this.

- That Jesus guy. He was a cult leader who gets waaaay too much name-dropping.

- Thomas Edison, but that smarmy fuck's reputation seems to be getting fixed as of late.

lol Christ. Well, to be fair to the J-man, im not so sure he was a cult leader. I definitely do not think he was what everyone thinks he was. I think he was a guy with a good idea...well...mostly good idea.

As for Edison, i came in this thread to post that. Fuck that guy.