Overly Glorified or Idealized Historical Figures

[Debater Slayer]

I have been reading about Che Guevara and a few other prominent Marxists, and I find it disturbing that so many people don T-shirts or keep items bearing his visage in an idealizing manner. He had some good goals, such as liberation from imperialism, but some of his actions and words were dubious at best and, in my opinion, should definitely disqualify him from being held up as a role model to the extent where his image is on everyday items.

I suspect that many who participate in the pop-culture glorification of him either contribute to exploitation of third-world countries—which would make them inconsistent or at least misinformed about their own contribution to such or about what Guevara stood for—or would hate to live under the rule of someone with his overall mindset, which was extremely violent and unhesitant in being so.

I also similarly dislike glorification of Winston Churchill. He was a great leader for Britain during World War II, but he was also deeply racist even beyond the norms of his time and oversaw violent colonialism in multiple parts of the world.

Which historical figures do you think are overly glorified or idealized when they shouldn't be?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know of any worthy of "glorification", which
suggests something akin to worship or sainthood.
Some have important contributions that warrant fame.
But all are still human, & have skeletons in their closet.
Flawed people can still be praised for accomplishments.

 

[syo]

Historical figures disgust me. All of them.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Wasn't Che also horribly homophobic and racist? It's been a very long time since I've read anything about him, but I do remember him being a terrible person beyond the typical "communist bad" stuff.

 

[Revoltingest]

Historical figures disgust me. All of them.

I'd say the least disgusting are the ones
who accomplished some great good,
while not also committing great evil
(considering the context of the times).
Otherwise, let's tear down every monument,
painting, statue....Jefferson, Lincoln, MLK,
war memorials, etc, etc.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Wasn't Che also horribly homophobic and racist? It's been a very long time since I've read anything about him, but I do remember him being a terrible person beyond the typical "communist bad" stuff.

His racism was before he became a revolutionary, and he later aided Africans in their own revolutions. I don't know whether he retained racist sentiments toward other groups after he became a revolutionary figure, but it seems doubtful given the history.

He did seem to contribute to machismo culture, though. Gay people (among others) were sent to labor camps under Castro because they couldn't serve in the military, and they were routinely beaten and abused there. Guevara established those camps but had left the Cuban government when Castro started using them to imprison and abuse certain minorities.

 

[syo]

I'd say the least disgusting are the ones
who accomplished some great good,
while not also committing great evil
(considering the context of the times).

If it was up to me, I'd destroy history science. No more history books. Destruction of historical figures.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it was up to me, I'd destroy history science. No more history books. Destruction of historical figures.

What is "history science"?
As for history, I find it valuable to know.
Less likely to repeat some bad things.

 

[syo]

What is "history science"?

History. Organised history. Accepted history.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If it was up to me, I'd destroy history science. No more history books. Destruction of historical figures.

Can we please keep this thread to relevant posts? I don't see how the above adds anything useful here.

 

[syo]

Can we please keep this thread to relevant posts? I don't see how the above adds anything useful here.

ok.

 

[Father Heathen]

The U.S. Founding Fathers come to mind.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The U.S. Founding Fathers come to mind.

Good choice. I'd say Gandhi is another one, for multiple reasons.

 

[Father Heathen]

Good choice. I'd say Gandhi is another one, for multiple reasons.

He along with Mother Teresa and John Lennon.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Mother Teresa

Mother ****ing Theresa... That woman was a pure monster.

 

[RestlessSoul]

 

[Augustus]

I have been reading about Che Guevara and a few other prominent Marxists, and I find it disturbing that so many people don T-shirts or keep items bearing his visage in an idealizing manner

Also for the fact he died staging one of the worst revolutions in history. Sub beer hall putsch levels of clownery.

he was also deeply racist even beyond the norms of his time

He was a racist, but probably not beyond the norms of his time.

He was a “white man’s burden” racialist, although this belief was very much of its time and was deemed scientific and rational by those from across the political spectrum. He wasn’t a hateful racist like a Hitler, but was a white supremacist as many/most were.

Unlike today, imperialism was a progressive agenda of the left too.

I’d say he was very much a man of his time, not an outlier and should be judged accordingly.

For me judging people harshly for holding normal views from their era makes little sense as it is basically us congratulating ourselves for the great moral achievement of being born in a different era with different values.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If it was up to me, I'd destroy history science. No more history books. Destruction of historical figures.

I used to think history was completely worthless as a subject same as you.

No more though. Historical value is essential for perspective and how the future is refined by the very history that brings things about.

I think of it as an aspect of first principles learning.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Mother ****ing Theresa... That woman was a pure monster.

^^^ read the Christopher Hitchens polemic, swallowed it whole, fact-checked none of it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Also for the fact he died staging one of the worst revolutions in history. Sub beer hall putsch levels of clownery.

He seemed to have a savior complex going on, which was probably fueled by the unrealistic and destructive idea that "international revolution" was a necessity or inevitability.

He was a racist, but probably not beyond the norms of his time.

He was a “white man’s burden” racialist, although this belief was very much of its time and was deemed scientific and rational by those from across the political spectrum. He wasn’t a hateful racist like a Hitler, but was a white supremacist as many/most were.

Unlike today, imperialism was a progressive agenda of the left too.

I’d say he was very much a man of his time, not an outlier and should be judged accordingly.

For me judging people harshly for holding normal views from their era makes little sense as it is basically us congratulating ourselves for the great moral achievement of being born in a different era with different values.

I think the fact that he held so much power and acted on the racism warrants greater scrutiny of his beliefs and actions. It wasn't long after he left office that decolonization kicked into high gear, too, so his brutal enforcement of colonial rule seems even more dubious in that light. His reign wasn't distant enough from decolonization for me to give him a pass for how committed he was to colonization.

That said, I'm not judging him by today's standards within the context of his own time; I just think he shouldn't be glorified today when we now know how awful the things he did were. Same for Guevara: it could be argued that a lot of what he did was seen as necessary at the time or had popular support, but recognizing this is different from wearing a T-shirt bearing his image today, which implies glorification despite what we know in the present.