Overly Glorified or Idealized Historical Figures

[PureX]

Historical figures disgust me. All of them.

Glorification over time isn't really about the people being glorified. It's about the ideals they have come to represent. It's those ideals that are being glorified.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

This is just congratulating ourselves for having the wisdom to be born in a different time and place.

When even contemporaries at the time had the wherewithal to stand against slavery as an institution, it seems we're not so different from them after all. And genocide is never smiled upon but from the conquerors.

Funny how 2 nuclear bombs conferred permission finally.

Hahahah! Yeah, truly comical how a literal goddamn warcrime sped up the already-in-motion process of a nation surrendering.

 

[Augustus]

When even contemporaries at the time had the wherewithal to stand against slavery as an institution, it seems we're not so different from them after all. And genocide is never smiled upon but from the conquerors.

There have been vegetarians for thousands of years.

If future people stop killing animals for meat should they view everyone who has ever eaten meat (which I assume includes you and all your family) as despicable, evil people because they didn’t have the wherewithal to accurately anticipate future sensibilities?

Don’t you think it would be incredibly dumb to judge 99.99999999% of all humans as evil based on this logic?

Why do you see your argument as being different from this?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Why do you see your argument as being different from this?

Because one is a biological fact of our physiology, and the other is not. This false equivalency just does not stand up.

To expand, vegetarianism ideologically stands against the unethical treatment of livestock animals, not the act of eating meat itself, and attempts to take no part in that industry. That's an entirely separate issue, of which many omnivores share sympathy with. Yet you cannot excuse slavery, past or present, with "but, well, vegetarians".

 

[exchemist]

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?

Mary Seacole.

 

[exchemist]

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



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.

It seems to me one of the issues with Churchill stems from his longevity. I agree he was largely a man of his time, but that raises the question of when "his time" really was.

He was already 40 at the outbreak of the First World War! By the time of the Second, he was an old man (for the time) of 64. His social attitudes would have been largely formed in the late Victorian and early Edwardian eras. But he then lived so long that I remember his funeral. So it's not surprising that people are tempted to judge him, arguably unfairly, by much later standards.

 

[Revoltingest]

When even contemporaries at the time had the wherewithal to stand against slavery as an institution, it seems we're not so different from them after all. And genocide is never smiled upon but from the conquerors.

Hahahah! Yeah, truly comical how a literal goddamn warcrime sped up the already-in-motion process of a nation surrendering.

"War crime" in your opinion.
Winning the war in mine.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

"War crime" in your opinion.
Winning the war in mine.

Pretty sick that you think "winning" is dropping a nuclear bomb on civilians. Is this really the hill you want to fortify?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Is no one gonna bring up Jesus?

I intentionally excluded founders and central figures of religions because the context surrounding them is much more complicated. For any non-believer in a given religion, it's almost guaranteed that said religion's central figures will be "glorified." The question is much blurrier and more interesting when applied to other historical figures.

 

[Debater Slayer]

"War crime" in your opinion.
Winning the war in mine.

Not just his opinion; many around the world, including many military experts, agree it was a heinous war crime. I suspect one would be hard-pressed to find much justification of it outside of the US and other countries that tend to be sheltered from the effects of such crimes on other parts of the world. There's a reason depictions of the bombings in a lot of non-Western media are grim and critical.

 

[Revoltingest]

Pretty sick that you think "winning" is dropping a nuclear bomb on civilians. Is this really the hill you want to fortify?

One could say that it's pretty sick to eschew dropping the
bomb, & instead committing tens of thousands of our
own soldiers to be injured & killed invading Japan in
a war that continued for who knows how long.
Or allowing Japan surrender terms that would allow
it's rapacious military regime to re-build, & once again
threaten China, Korea, Indonesia, USA, etc, etc

 

[Debater Slayer]

In any war, each side values its own more than foes.
The Japanese were the hideous worse side in WW2.
You might disagree with this, but I say that it was
morally compelling to defeat them. This is so,
despite USA being less than saintly.
Winning meant vicious, violent, deadly, destructive
acts. They tried to kill us. We killed more of them.

War is not sport. Fighting fair is a stupid idea.
Results should not be equal. Winning is the goal,
& overwhelming advantage is the best tool.
It's unavoidable that civilians with suffer & die.
No one should kill civilians out of carelessness or
vengeance, but there are situations where their
deaths result from actions useful to winning a war.
The greatest good generally involves some evil.

You're talking about the bombings as if they were an inevitability. I disagree. Taking for granted that "fighting fair is stupid" or that nuking civilians was necessary already lays the groundwork for justifying all kinds of atrocities not unlike what Putin and his supporters have done over the last year. Challenging preconceived notions instead of taking them for granted seems to me the better approach, especially when they can be used to justify mass killing and destruction.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It seems to me one of the issues with Churchill stems from his longevity. I agree he was largely a man of his time, but that raises the question of when "his time" really was.

I highly doubt that most people from Churchill's time would have handled, say, the Bengal famine as he did, where he specifically chose to prolong and worsen it. His racial supremacism was common, yes, but I don't know that the murderous ruthlessness with which he manifested it would have been nearly as common.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not just his opinion; many around the world, including many military experts, agree it was a heinous war crime. I suspect one would be hard-pressed to find much justification of it outside of the US and other countries that tend to be sheltered from the effects of such crimes on other parts of the world. There's a reason depictions of the bombings in a lot of non-Western media are grim and critical.

Of course others, especially foreigners, agree with you guys.
People have their different perspectives & values. Foreigners
would likely value USA soldier lives less relative to Japanese
soldiers & civilians. To those in Europe & environs, war with
the Japanese was half a planet away, & never affected them
personally.
Other factors....
- As we see here, many foreigners (& some here) are hostile to
USA, & biased against it.
- Many have the view that the lens thru which we view history
trumps what people thought at the time.

So what you offer is the opinions of others, as though this
confers authority, giving them The Truth. It doesn't work
that way with matters of opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're talking about the bombings as if they were an inevitability.

Oh, that is so wrong.
I spoke of it as a choice from alternatives.
It's a lesser of 2 evils choice.
Picking the lesser, is the more ethical choice.
You loathe it.
I say it's reasonable.

 

[Revoltingest]

Taking for granted that "fighting fair is stupid" or that nuking civilians was necessary already lays the groundwork for justifying all kinds of atrocities not unlike what Putin and his supporters have done over the last year. Challenging preconceived notions instead of taking them for granted seems to me the better approach, especially when they can be used to justify mass killing and destruction.

That is a specious argument, ie, claiming that the
choice made enables Putin's evil. You entirely
ignore the motives behind each war, & the results
of the actions.
I challenge your pre-conceived simplistic notions
about war in general, about WW2 in particular, &
about morality being more complex than you believe.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Of course others, especially foreigners, agree with you guys.
People have their different perspectives & values. Foreigners
would likely value USA soldier lives less relative to Japanese
soldiers & civilians.

I haven't seen anyone here value Japanese soldiers' lives over those of American ones. I certainly haven't: I have made it clear that I would value the lives of any Allied soldiers over those of Axis ones.

I'm talking about Japanese civilians, who were the most affected by the nukes, and I stand by what I have said in that regard.

To those in Europe & environs, war with
the Japanese was half a planet away, & never affected them
personally.
Other factors....
- As we see here, many foreigners (& some here) are hostile to
USA, & biased against it.

The US wasn't the only Allied power with which a lot of people had issues outside of World War II; the UK, France, and the USSR all had their own fair share of atrocities outside of the war. The US was (and still is) just the only one that dropped nukes on civilians. Bias against the US has no bearing on this. I could just as easily argue that defending the bombings is biased in favor of the US.

- Many have the view that the lens thru which we view history
trumps what people thought at the time.

So what you offer is the opinions of others, as though this
confers authority, giving them The Truth. It doesn't work
that way with matters of opinion.

Between an opinion that defends nuking tens of thousands of civilians and another that refers to the historical record showing that Japan was ready to surrender—and also refers to the many military experts who have agreed that the bombings were unnecessary—I'll definitely go with the latter.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

One could say that it's pretty sick to eschew dropping the bomb, & instead committing tens of thousands of our own soldiers to be injured & killed invading Japan in a war that continued for who knows how long. Or allowing Japan surrender terms that would allow it's rapacious military regime to re-build, & once again threaten China, Korea, Indonesia, USA, etc, etc

That's a lot of words being put into my mouth, as well as just flatly ignoring anything that has been shown surrounding the surrender of Japan. I generally don't like how you frame your arguments in a debate, but this is a really weak position, Revolting.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Oh, that is so wrong.
I spoke of it as a choice from alternatives.
It's a lesser of 2 evils choice.
Picking the lesser, is the more ethical choice.
You loathe it.
I say it's reasonable.

I think viewing it as the lesser evil relies on flawed premises, but I have nothing to add here that I haven't already expanded on.

That is a specious argument, ie, claiming that the
choice made enables Putin's evil.

That's not my claim; I'm saying that the kinds of assumptions you have presented to defend the twin bombings are similar to those made by a lot of Putin supporters about Putin's actions. There's usually a supposed "greater good" or "lesser evil" involved in arguments defending such things. This segues into justification of the indefensible under the assumption that it was necessary.

I'm reminded of Lenin's "the ends justify the means" approach as another example of the problems that can arise from this line of reasoning.

You entirely
ignore the motives behind each war, & the results
of the actions.
I challenge your pre-conceived simplistic notions
about war in general, about WW2 in particular, &
about morality being more complex than you believe.

There are multiple reasons to believe that the result would have been the same without the nukes, save for the tens of thousands of civilian deaths. Motives don't change the outcome. If someone burned down an entire village and claimed to have had "good motives," that wouldn't change how harmful and misguided their actions were, just like the claimed motive of "liberating Iraq" didn't change how criminal and destructive the American invasion was.

 

[Revoltingest]

The US wasn't the only Allied power with which a lot of people had issues outside of World War II; the UK, France, and the USSR all had their own fair share of atrocities outside of the war.

This ignores my stated point that they weren't as
personally affected by war with Japan. This creates
a different perspective...which is worth understanding.

Japanese civilians lost lives for a good purpose,
ie, ending the war earlier, & saving USA lives.
It wasn't right. It was just less wrong than your
alternative, ie, continue fighting that war.