Asklemmy

43995 readers

1060 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

[–] Tenniswaffles@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I bet you think you're taking some sort high road to the effect of "oh I just state the facts, I'm not telling anyone what to think," while conveniently ignoring the part where the way that you report these facts, or which ones you leave out can very much influence the conclusions people reach.

You stated that Alexander killed many people, but also his actions benefitted millions of people. These two things put together in the way that you did will lead an uninformed person to he conclusion that it's fine that he killed people because it benefited many others. And maybe that could be true in some contexts, but you completely failed to mention the fact that he didn't just kill a bunch of people, he executed defeated peoples and sold a whole bunch of people into slavery, which would naturally influence the conclusions a person could come to.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Any narrative will be biased, both in what it says and what it leaves out. But historians have to at least try to be impartial. I'm not a professional historian, so I can have whatever opinion I want.

You stated that Alexander killed many people

Chinggis Khan, not Alexander.

[–] Tenniswaffles@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 months ago

Oops, got my wires crossed with who I was talking about. But my point still stands.

You can have any opinion that you want, I haven't said that you couldn't. I was disagreeing with your opinion and expressing my own, you wombat. That's how discussion works.