Asklemmy

43995 readers

1034 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

138

Why do we glorify horrible people from the distant past? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 3 months ago by Konis@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

112 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and many more...

These people had beliefs and worldviews that were so horribly, by today's standards, that calling them fascist would be huge understatement. And they followed through by committing a lot of evil.

Aren't we basically glorifying the Hitlers of centuries past?

I know, historians always say that one should not judge historical figures by contemporary moral standards. But there's a difference between objectively studying history and actually glorifying these figures.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

People glorify Winston Churchill. He was a piece of shit. He was just like Hitler wrt the countries england colonized. But he's sooooo loved. I hope he's a human centipede in hell.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 months ago

The Churchill example I think demonstrates the OP's misunderstanding, in that all of them did terrible things/were horrible people, but excelled at being effective leaders in the context they were in.

Churchill was a terrible human being, racist, abrasive, homophobic, a drunk etc etc. But he was an outstanding wartime prime minister, because he was a talented war strategist, a compelling speaker and, frankly, had enormous balls.

We can go back and try and just classify every human into the good/bad boxes, but that reduces away all the details that make them so interesting.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That would be absolute horrible punishment to the person behind him in the centipede.

[–] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Its hell. You can loop him around.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Then he'd be eating his own ass, that's hardly punishment

[–] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

I did not think of that aspect. But wouldn't that just be the case in the human centipede too?