Historical figures who get too much hate

[peener weener]

It's hard for me to remember any historical figure that gets too much hate that isn't justified (it'd be way easier if it were the other way around), but if I have to pick one that is controversial, that would be Pinochet, the Chilean dictator. I'm not saying that he was good however, as his crimes still need to be considered and I'm against any form of totalitarian government, but he got rid of Alende, who was quickly leading Chile into ruin (ironically, most people remember him well, as if he had done any good thing for the country). If Chile managed to recover and develop to what it is now, it's because he intervened in Alende's business before he ruined the country.

i am totally speechless

[Rapier]

i am totally speechless

Do I smell the start of a cross-examination?

[peener weener]

im just not even gonna tell you anything. i dont think its worth it at this point

[Rapier]

im just not even gonna tell you anything. i dont think its worth it at this point

If you have nothing further to add to the discussion aside from a "lol I'm not going to say anything", then you might not even bother answering, really.

[blah the Prussian]

It's hard for me to remember any historical figure that gets too much hate that isn't justified (it'd be way easier if it were the other way around), but if I have to pick one that is controversial, that would be Pinochet, the Chilean dictator. I'm not saying that he was good however, as his crimes still need to be considered and I'm against any form of totalitarian government, but he got rid of Alende, who was quickly leading Chile into ruin (ironically, most people remember him well, as if he had done any good thing for the country). If Chile managed to recover and develop to what it is now, it's because he intervened in Alende's business before he ruined the country.

It's a matter of opinion if living in a totalitarian state is worse than living in an impovershed one.

[Rapier]

It's a matter of opinion if living in a totalitarian state is worse than living in an impovershed one.

It is not that simple. Allende was hell-bent on turning Chile into a socialist country through his massive nationalization plan, to the point his government's acts were considered unconstitutional as he paid no heed to the promulgated laws which would have prevented him from continuing his plan. Can you really say Chile was just an impoverished country knowing that its president also tried to be above the law?

Until someone proves that there was a socialism-based attempt that suceeded (ie, no tyrants rose to power, no totalitarian state was estabilished, people lived happily ever after), I say my point is taken about every socialist leader. They all demonstrated the same desire to estabilish a strong centralized state control, and there are plenty of (living) examples. Anyone supporting socialist leaders hasn't been paying much attention to history at all.

Again, I'm not saying Pinochet was good. I'm saying it was better to have him than have Chile become like Cuba. A single look toward Venezuela will tell you why it'd be hazardrous if Allende were to continue with his plan.

[Defeatist Elitist]

It's hard for me to remember any historical figure that gets too much hate that isn't justified (it'd be way easier if it were the other way around), but if I have to pick one that is controversial, that would be Pinochet, the Chilean dictator. I'm not saying that he was good however, as his crimes still need to be considered and I'm against any form of totalitarian government, but he got rid of Alende, who was quickly leading Chile into ruin (ironically, most people remember him well, as if he had done any good thing for the country). If Chile managed to recover and develop to what it is now, it's because he intervened in Alende's business before he ruined the country.

You know your argument is really sound when it goes "Well yes, this total right wing dictator was good for my country because COUNTERFACTUALS"

I happen to think Salvador Allende would have been just fine, probably even good for Chile. You can't just assert that he would have ruined the country, jesus christ. Honestly, as far as right wing dictators helping a country, he's not even very good. He's no Park Chung-Hee.

[Rapier]

You know your argument is really sound when it goes "Well yes, this total right wing dictator was good for my country because COUNTERFACTUALS"

I happen to think Salvador Allende would have been just fine, probably even good for Chile. You can't just assert that he would have ruined the country, jesus christ. Honestly, as far as right wing dictators helping a country, he's not even very good. He's no Park Chung-Hee.

"You can't just assert that he would have ruined the country". Sorry, but he was already ruining it. His interventions brought down Chile's economy and helped in its empoverishment. Continue this for longer and you'd have what we see in Venezuela. This is not an assumption, only a conclusion brought by evidence and facts, and they show that Allende's influence in Chile was a negative one.

Also, what are your basis for thinking he'd be just fine/good for Chile? There is evidence pointing otherwise. I don't like to cite Wikipedia as a source (because I find it to be an unreliable one), but reading the page about Allende ought to clarify about what transpired during his government.

Please read my second post, if you may, as it complements my stand.

Also

1) I'm not chilean. I'm brazilian.

2) Tell me how my argument is counterfactual.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Rapier

[Nobody]

"You can't just assert that he would have ruined the country". Sorry, but he was already ruining it. His interventions brought down Chile's economy and helped in its empoverishment. Continue this for longer and you'd have what we see in Venezuela. This is not an assumption, only a conclusion brought by evidence and facts, and they show that Allende's influence in Chile was a negative one.

Also, what are your basis for thinking he'd be just fine/good for Chile? There is evidence pointing otherwise. I don't like to cite Wikipedia as a source (because I find it to be an unreliable one), but reading the page about Allende ought to clarify about what transpired during his government.

Please read my second post, if you may, as it complements my stand.

Also

1) I'm not chilean. I'm brazilian.

2) Tell me how my argument is counterfactual.

Do you have any proof he'd try to do the same thing to Chile, Chavez did to Venezuela?

Because the thing I see the most nowadays is people saying:

"The brazilian military dictatorship was a necessary evil because João Gourlat was going to turn the country into Cuba", something that was NEVER proved. I can't help but laugh at that kind of accusations.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Nobody

[Rapier]

Do you have any proof he'd try to do the same thing to Chile, Chavez did to Venezuela?

Because the thing I see the most nowadays is people saying:

"The brazilian military dictatorship was a necessary evil because João Gourlat was going to turn the country into Cuba", something that was NEVER proved. I can't help but laugh at that kind of accusations.

I did not mean the iron fisted dictatorship of Chavez (though Allende is not a shiny example of democracy either, as some of his politics were placed above the law), I meant the economical crisis that Venezuela is going through because of the amount of interventionism and nationalist politics, which is something both Chavez/Maduro and Allende share. I'm sorry about the mistake.

I also can't help but laugh at accusations as "the elite decided to apply a dictatorship because the president was good to the poor, and they naturally hate the poor because they have nothing to do", one I recall you used a year ago, but this is not the case nor the time to discuss about the brazilian dictatorship... Unless you want to turn it into a new topic, that is.

[Nobody]

I did not mean the iron fisted dictatorship of Chavez (though Allende is not a shiny example of democracy either, as some of his politics were placed above the law), I meant the economical crisis that Venezuela is going through because of the amount of interventionism and nationalist politics, which is something both Chavez/Maduro and Allende share. I'm sorry about the mistake.

I also can't help but laugh at accusations as "the elite decided to apply a dictatorship because the president was good to the poor, and they naturally hate the poor because they have nothing to do", one I recall you used a year ago, but this is not the case nor the time to discuss about the brazilian dictatorship... Unless you want to turn it into a new topic, that is.

Don't put words in my mouth lol.

I've never said that. I said "The middle class of the time was paranoid, since the country had never had a president that thought of the poor a little, and started the communist accusations. The militars used that to take "temporary" control of the country."

I said that the upper classes from the time thought what the president was doing was communism, even though it wasn't, which happened because like most people from that time, they were uneducated. They feared what they didn't know.

I, myself, belong to what one would call the "brazilian elite", and so does most people I know. Me implying that the "elite hates the poor" is something that would never happen, because I know the people I know in general don't, and the "they have nothing to do" part is even more absurd, because most people I know definitely have a lot of things to do.

EDIT: Answer the EDIT.

"Marx" doesn't count as evidence.

LMAO, I don't agree with marx lol.

Hate =/= fear

Edited April 16, 2014 by Nobody

[Rapier]

Don't put words in my mouth lol.

I've never said that. I said "The middle class of the time was paranoid, since the country had never had a president that thought of the poor a little, and started the communist accusations. The militars used that to take "temporary" control of the country."

How is it different from what I said? You're pulling the same baseless left-wing broken disc record about the middle class hating the poor. What's the evidence here that sustains this thoughtline? "Marx" doesn't count as evidence.

Moreover, do you deny the Communist Party's increasing influence over Brazil's politics at that time?

Edited April 16, 2014 by Rapier

[Nobody]

How is it different from what I said? You're pulling the same baseless left-wing broken disc record about the middle class hating the poor. What's the evidence here that sustains this thoughtline? "Marx" doesn't count as evidence.

Moreover, do you deny the Communist Party's increasing influence over Brazil's politics at that time?

It's different because I said it was caused by ignorance rather than hatred. Is this hard to understand? Like everyone from the time, they were uneducated. They thought the country was going to adopt communism because the president adopted some left winged policies, they feared communism, which would indeed be terrible, but there's no evidence that was happening. And keep in mind this don't applies to the current day upper classes. Almost no one thinks the military should dispose a left winged politician, even if they don't like their government, as long as they aren't insane like Chavez or Morales, which neither Allende nor Goulart were. Most people I know dislike our current government, including me, but almost no one think they should be deposed by the military, because they didn't do anything that made them deserving of a impeachment, much less a coup d'etat. They are educated and know that'd be wrong. Again, I think the people from back them supported the military for IGNORANCE not hatred.

And yeah, the communist party had an increasing influence at the time. As long as they didn't start to do a communist coup or revolution, it was ok. I don't thing they were trying to start one, and even if they were, Goulart had nothing to do with it.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Nobody

[ViewtifulBo]

Winners write the history books, who's "good" or "bad". Depending on what's happned or is happening, people automatically label people for what their country, political figurehead, or who/whatever has done and that really urks me. Like in most cases its generally a person or a group who has gotten too much power and tries to set out to make the world in their image or ideology. I don't really think some historical figures get "too much hate", I think they get just enough. People feel justified on whichever side they're on so I feel like this is kind of a pointless topic.

[Snowy_One]

Winners write the history books, who's "good" or "bad". Depending on what's happned or is happening, people automatically label people for what their country, political figurehead, or who/whatever has done and that really urks me. Like in most cases its generally a person or a group who has gotten too much power and tries to set out to make the world in their image or ideology. I don't really think some historical figures get "too much hate", I think they get just enough. People feel justified on whichever side they're on so I feel like this is kind of a pointless topic.

That's a really poor opinion. Like, a horrible one that sounds more at home coming from a young teen wearing a Che shirt trying to justify his F in history to his parents because he focused on how Washington owned slaves and the constitution was shackles for minorities despite that the question was about the invention of the lightbulb.

Seriously. This *might* come as a shock to you, but it takes a LOT of effort to shut down and rewrite history. Not only do you need to simply edit the history books, but silence people who know better, cut off access to information, silence or hide a lot of people and artifacts that show otherwise, and it can all be undone by one slip-up. Yes people have different views on history and the like, but that's because they are different people raised in different places in different cultures, not because one has a heavily modified textbook and the other has the 'real' story. I don't know much about the Louisiana Purchase for example, but that's not because I don't have access to the information, but because as someone who lives nowhere near any of the land that was affected by it, it doesn't matter to me.

And yes, a LOT of people get FAR too much hate historically, and some get far too much love. For example, the South in the Civil War. Mention that you're in favor of the Confederacy and people will instantly assume you were a slave-beating monster when the reason you think the South may have been in the right has nothing to do with slavery and more to do with your feelings on what government should and should not have control over. That's not to mention a lot of people tend to only look at the bad/good elements of a person or event, ESPECIALLY in politics. I'm sure a sizable amount of people on both sides would just LOVE to convince you that their opponent would gladly eat a basket of kittens for breakfast if they could get away with it while they are naught but flag-waving Americans who would NEVER eat a basket of kittens (just don't go into their dining room until they've cleaned up) and, meanwhile, a bunch of people who actually want to do good for the world as a whole and believe they are doing the right thing, possibly even without any 'isms' attached, just simply made the wrong choice or fell in with the wrong crowd.

Also, if the 'winners write the history books' than why don't certain people get 'too much hate'? After all, the winners wrote the history books. You should really despise the Mongols because they were slathering, filthy, barbarian horse-****ers and you know it's true because the history books say so.

[jiodi]

The Mongols were winners for a very long time. They had their own history texts (was secret for a long time). Revisionists will talk about how Genghis Khan was this amazing guy that put forth all these reforms and stuff but really he was just a historical arsonist, All he did was pave the way for his kids and grandkids to make all the reforms we look at with awe. That and he was also probably one of the greatest military minds in the history of human civilization.

Also, I would say that "winners write the history books" is perfectly valid for ancient times. When you have Greeks and Romans and whatnot being one of the only civilizations to have writing then the conquered civilizations who don't cannot put forth their take on what happened. Winners write the stories of their time, which becomes history to the later generations.

It's not as relevant today, I guess, because there are those who try and take an objective take on current events.

[Snowy_One]

The Mongols were winners for a very long time. They had their own history texts (was secret for a long time). Revisionists will talk about how Genghis Khan was this amazing guy that put forth all these reforms and stuff but really he was just a historical arsonist, All he did was pave the way for his kids and grandkids to make all the reforms we look at with awe. That and he was also probably one of the greatest military minds in the history of human civilization.

Also, I would say that "winners write the history books" is perfectly valid for ancient times. When you have Greeks and Romans and whatnot being one of the only civilizations to have writing then the conquered civilizations who don't cannot put forth their take on what happened. Winners write the stories of their time, which becomes history to the later generations.

It's not as relevant today, I guess, because there are those who try and take an objective take on current events.

That's a little bit different. Still, even without the advantage of writing many of the oral traditions did end up getting handed down and later written down. Makes sense really. When the Romans conquered someone there were people who survived. People who would then have to learn the Roman way of doing things including writing, but nothing was stopping them from writing down their history.

Not that it was the point though. The point was 'How can you say that everyone gets exactly the amount of hate that they deserve when claiming that winners write the textbooks?' After all, even if the action doesn't change there is a HUGE difference between 'Well-meaning but incompetent' and 'Hateful and incompetent' among many other things.

[jiodi]

Yeah, I don't disagree with you on the second paragraph there.

But oral tradition eventually getting written down is kind of iffy. A lot of that stuff was changed by those who knew how to write (think like everything translated and written by the Catholic church).

[Rehab]

I don't remember that writing, or even literacy, was something that was very widely available (like to people not either in a religious/monastic profession, rich maybe, or with the state?) until a couple of hundred years ago, particularly in Europe. Part of the reason for the printing press' introduction to them being so influential, so I heard. So, actually, there may have been a lot of practical considerations stopping the Britons from writing down their own stories, for example, even if they did receive some lot of technological knowledge from their interactions with the Romans. (a good deal of enslavement and stirred-up conflict making for difficult working conditions, for another possible example)

And even in, like, China, where they were recording history in detail well before I assume it'd have been possible for the Romans (as in "looking at the evidence" possible, not just "mentally possible," to be sure), occasionally something along the lines of "a shitload of writing and the people who wrote it/had read it were destroyed/killed" happened. There were witnesses that recorded such a thing happened in a number of cases, sure, and/or some evidence was found later to show it had happened and fill in some of the blanks, but it's hard to believe there wasn't information lost, because the sources themselves were gone. And there may have been other such incidents in the past that we haven't yet learned happened, for all we know.

Also, even without looking it up, I can only imagine that many orally-passed traditions have been actively destroyed by conquerors and censors. If the powers that run everything around you would put your family's heads on pikes or something if they caught you teaching your kids your people's traditions, you might find surviving preferable to preserving history, and even if you didn't, getting caught might intimidate enough of your community that something would get lost anyway.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Rehab

[AMCC4728]

After reading through this topic, I'm surprised no one has said Valdimir Lenin. He was a brilliant man and russia's economy thrived under his NEP. He pulled Russia out of WW1(which was going horribly for Russia) and saved thousands of Russian lives by doing so. He also made progress in Universal healthcare, free education, women's civil rights, and legalized homosexuality. He wanted to make sure all of Russia had electricity to help unite people and erase country and town prejudice. I'm not denying that under his regime many "anti-statists" were imprisoned, but overall, I think Lenin was a good leader who gets a lot of flak from other nations(mainly US) for starting the Soviet Union. I can only think what would have happened if he had more time before his untimely death and Stalin's takeover.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Austin LePurple

[Lord Raven]

My understanding was that Lenin was never a bad leader, and everything went south due to Stalin.

[Magical CC]

After reading through this topic, I'm surprised no one has said Valdimir Lenin. He was a brilliant man and russia's economy thrived under his NEP. He pulled Russia out of WW1(which was going horribly for Russia) and saved thousands of Russian lives by doing so. He also made progress in Universal healthcare, free education, women's civil rights, and legalized homosexuality. He wanted to make sure all of Russia had electricity to help unite people and erase country and town prejudice. I'm not denying that under his regime many "anti-statists" were imprisoned, but overall, I think Lenin was a good leader who gets a lot of flak from other nations(mainly US) for starting the Soviet Union. I can only think what would have happened if he had more time before his untimely death and Stalin's takeover.

Not sure what you are smoking but since when Lenin is hated? He's the fucking hero in many communist countries. For example, in Vietnam, he's like the second god, next to Ho Chi Minh. He's clearly not getting many hate, some hate him, some love him. You can say that he is a controversial figure at most.

[Dwalin2010]

A difficult question: all famous historical leaders have blood of a certain number of innocents on their hands. It can't be otherwise: even completely non-violent characters like Gandhi (whom I respect) indirectly provoked the situation that is now in India with Hindus and Muslims killing each other. If you asked: "which historical figure doesn't get enough hate?", that would be easy, since plenty of crazy butchers are considered heroes by their countries, usually because they were the ones who won at the end. There is a saying that, while a death of one person is a tragedy, the death of millions is just statistics.

[Philax]

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.

I've noticed that too. In England, he's only viewed as just another one of their kings. Plus America wasn't England's most important colony - that honor would more likely go to India. In fact, a severe famine in Bangladesh (then part of British India) had killed tea exports (along with 10 million people - so many died because the British refused to help the starving locals), which is why England put the tax on tea. They didn't do it just to be assholes.

Honestly, I think Richard Francis Burton's wife Isabel has gotten a bad reputation. For decades she was painted as a stereotypical Victorian era prude who henpecked her husband and viewed Eastern culture as immoral, but in real life she was his trusted partner and defied several Victorian conventions (like marrying against her parents' wishes), and actually traveled with him and took an active role in the travels instead of just looking pretty and being pampered by local servants like many British explorers' wives were. Her infamous burning of his papers was to protect her husband's reputation more than anything.

Socrates' wife Xanthippe has been vilified in a similar way, to the point where her mere name is defined as a term for a shrewish woman. According to several contemporary sources, the real Xanthippe was most likely not the harpy that Aristotle depicted her as. (Then again, Aristotle was a huge misogynist, so it was inevitable that he'd do that.) I think her alleged shrewishness was probably an exaggeration of flaws she might have had, but hey, we're all human.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Philax

[blah the Prussian]

I'm going to use the revival of this thread as an opportunity to mention Woodrow Wilson. He was the single worst US President, but he is treated as one of the best. He supported the KKK, and played a large role in slowing the Civil Rights movement. He also got the US into WWI, which was a mistake. It was his aggressive policies that provoked Germany into signing a defensive pact with Mexico in the first place. He also made terrible mistakes in terms of how the peace was handled. His decision to force Germany to abolish the Monarchy led to Communists almost taking over, which would have been disastrous, and also led to the Nazis taking control (Hitler manipulated the German Monarchists to appoint him Chancellor, thinking he would help them restore the Kaiser.) He claimed to support self determination, but obviously didn't care about all of the Indians, Africans, Koreans, Laotians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, and others that his allies kept under their thumbs. He also was apparently fine with American imperialism in Latin America and the Pacific. He was a racist self-righteous, hypocrite. While we're on the topic of WWI, Kaiser Wilhelm II does not deserve all the crap he got and continues to get from British media.