I hate when someone brings up a history figure as a "great person of history", and by all reasonable scales he's right, the achievements of this person is amazing
but then some guy shows up and is like >b-But he did [Comparably minor bad thing]
We're not arguing over whether the person is Jesus or not, we're not idolizing him, but you act like you have some huge invalidation of the idea he did a good thing over something that minor?
The worst thing is when a person known for introducing more modernized ideas of morality, is hated on for not having modern morality in one single thing. AKA a lot of founding fathers of the US and slavery.
>"great person of history" >we're not idolizing him Uhh... >whether the person is Jesus or no >not a great person in history >not idolized Uhhhhh...
>but you act like you have some huge invalidation of the idea he did a good thing over something that minor Did someone rustle your Jimmies kiddo? Just because you want to idolize a great man and gloss over his faults doesn't mean other people don't actually want to examine the person, and compare their great achievements in reference with the negative things.
Yes, glossing over the bad parts of someone and calling them great is idolizing. If you were actually open to the facts and history, you would look at the good and the bad and the historical context.
Dylan Jenkins
So you prefer your biography to be hagiography? where's the line between 'comparatively minor' and 'not fit for the great person of history list'?
I'd rather someone professing to be some sort of historian/a serious hobbyist be a bit of a nitpicker than a bootlicker.
Sorry your preferred historial figure(s) were criticized here and whoever did it failed to preface their argument with 'but overall blah blah great person'.
I'm not trying to be a huge dick here but this is a good example of being unironically 'triggered' in an academic context. Your feelings on the subject aren't supposed to enter into other peoples opinions on the subject.
Jack Martin
I'm not talking about major flaws of the person that really make you think about them, I mean stuff like... I don't even care for MLK Jr much as a historical figure, I prefer reading about European history and shit, but I saw some guy seriously try to shut down his nationwide good actions because he did some bad things to white prostitutes while drunk on occasion. Not "balance him out", just straight up deny him of the accomplishments. I'm sorry, but that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Elijah Lee
That only leaves a bad taste in your mouth because you see them as flawless idols, and that's the popular image in order to glorify the achievements.
The questionable things an individual does does not mean their achievements were not theirs (unless falsely attributed). What it means is the achievements are the achievements. You should not idolize the individual because of his positive achievements.
The only people who get mad about this are people that put these figures up on pedestals.
I think you should take some time to reflect and think about whether or not you're idolizing these people.
David Collins
Not OP but I feel that he has a point. It is really hard to summarize historical figures in a paragraph or so.
If you want the best possible description, it has to focus more on things they are known for than flaws. If you focus too much on their mistakes/flaws without mentioning their main goals, you get a skewed image of the person.
Example is William I of England. Most serious narratives focus on him as conqueror of England and somewhere on a spectrum from destroying to continuing Anglo-Saxon heritage.
What is not helpful is calling him William the Bastard and leaving it at that. Unless you connect it to his main goal/achievement(being King of England/Duke of Normandy), it just looks like you're retarded.
Adding new information can be helpful but you have to add to the narrative instead of destroying it and leaving some half-baked contrarian arguments in its place.
Tyler King
I feel like you are horribly misunderstanding me. It seriously has nothing to do with "existence of bad thing about idol" = "I feel bad".
I used to really like Ben Franklin. At some point someone mentioned he was a slaveowner. I like Ben Franklin a lot less now. At no point was I "rejecting" the idea he owned slaves as a bad thing, and holding onto some hope he can still be "my hero", so I can only conclude your idea of idolization is false.
My main distaste is false equivalence. Hell, I brought up a more specific scenario in the topic, but if someone is a mostly irrelevant historical figure, but someone bloats up some minor thing he did as some horrible/great thing, that would also bother me.
John Jones
I hate all the threads about religion because it's basically the same shit every day. >user A posts bait >user B replies to that bait with more bait >user A calls user B a fedora >user B gets triggered >user C derails everything >total shitstorm ensues >everyone remembers they're wasting their fucking time >thread dies
Michael Watson
Anything by marxists. >you would know that if you had read Kazimierz "The Prole Champ" Kelles-Krauz in the original language
Caleb Reed
> I used to really like Ben Franklin. At some point someone mentioned he was a slaveowner. I like Ben Franklin a lot less now. At no point was I "rejecting" the idea he owned slaves as a bad thing, and holding onto some hope he can still be "my hero", so I can only conclude your idea of idolization is false. You are literally saying you idolized Ben, and because your glorification of him was shattered, you idolize him less. Despite all his achievements being the same.
Are you retarded?
You're just saying, let me idolize great people in history and gloss over their negative sides because I want heros I can idolize.
That's not what OP is saying at all. OP is saying that some guy jumps in, mentions something bad that's normally glossed over, and he gets upset. >I hate when someone brings up a history figure as a "great person of history", and by all reasonable scales he's right, the achievements of this person is amazing >but then some guy shows up and is like Meme caricatures of historical figures, whether good or bad, are generally not useful. No one thinks William is a part of history because he's a bastard. No one thinks Franklin was a part of history because he owned slaves. and so on and so on. Your argument is basically: >daddy why is this fat green man on the $100 bill >sonny that's because he owned slaves and back then you could buy a person for $100 Yeah, that's not happening.
Nathan Sanchez
actually fucker, he understood what I meant just fine, you're a fucking dumbass.
No seriously, that was the point I was making the whole time. Stop trying to make me out as some idolizing man who knows nothing of history and actually fucking read my comments without bias
Aiden Lopez
In addition, I really liked Ben Franklin when I was a fucking teenager. I was just giving it as an example of how I can take in facts without rejecting it. I don't idolize any historical figures at this point
No seriously, did you think it took me to adulthood to figure out "oh that guy had slaves"
Liam Martinez
You are generally expected to read Manifesto and Kapital.
I don't know why people assume reading Ayn Rand is enough.
Asher Lee
When a Christian posts anything or gives his opinion on anything. You're immediately trashed.
Daniel Gomez
this
Christians should stop assuming everybody else lives in their intellectual bubble. "hail yesus son dog :DDD" shut the fuck up.
Brody White
>Atheists should stop assuming everybody else lives in their intellectual bubble.
Eli Ramirez
>You Who is this "you?" Why do so many Marxists expect everybody to have read Gramsci, Lukacs, etc., and then pretend a crime has been committed if someone hasn't?
Landon Ross
What I meant is Christians are masters of circular logic.
>Jesus is xyz because Jesus said so, Jesus said so because Jesus is xyz.
Gavin Lopez
> Go to reddit if you want circle jerk.
Zachary Sanders
Well actually yes. A secular position when discussing history is the default position of most historians and should be the same here.
Landon Bailey
Comments on Veeky Forums that annoy you >Slavs are inferior >Turks are cockroaches >Islam is evil incarnated >everything that guy obsessed with the protestants says >was it autism? >everything that other guy who is most of a christian that the whole Vatican says
and the worst of all...
>duh, duhr. Who would win a fight, Vikings in 0 gravity, samurais in rollerblades or Romans with constipation? Duh, duhr.
Nolan Thompson
I understand what you mean OP. The bad choices that a person makes shouldn't invalidate their achievements. The bad decision might make us think less of them as a person, but it shouldn't take away from the achievement.
Human beings are flawed and weak so when someone does something noble, it is amazing. We unfortunately live in a system of morality which still uses the language of sin and doesn't allow for mistakes. You messed with some hookers once? Yep, you're an asshole now forever now.
This should not dissuade us from treating all figures objectively, but it is not like us moderns need much reminders to pick flaws in people.
Carson Flores
>The nuclear bombs weren't what caused the Japanese surrender, it was the USSR!
At least in my experience, it's not just the comment itself, but the sorts of people who make it are so dogmatic about it, and never even look at the considerable evidence against it, like the fact that the Soviets had no fleet in the pacific and couldn't get to Japan.
Dylan Carter
>>duh, duhr. Who would win a fight, Vikings in 0 gravity, samurais in rollerblades or Romans with constipation? Duh, duhr. Military history threads are fucking painful to read All these autists who think that playing Total War makes them war gods Fucking sad
Grayson Russell
At least in my opinions the ones who shout LOGISTICS when it's inappropriate are even worse. I think they learned that most people don't really understand it so they can win internet arguments by appealing to logistical realities, but god damn does it rustle my jimmies when it makes no sense
Eli Ward
...
Jacob Foster
>Hey guys! No /pol/ answers please!
Jayden Long
>mfw someone praises Bismarck near me
John Harris
>Germany didn't start world war two because France and the United Kingdom declared war at them!
>The extremely romanticized culture from era X looks better than our current culture I actually got to experience, guess that culture is better
Easton Long
Anytime ANYTHING about Britain pops up
>Post about Britain >EDERNAL AMGLO REEEEE :DDDDDDD >That image with the British empire and the labels saying "Natives" "Niggers" "Indians" and stuff >Wikipedia screenshot of that one battle in the War of Jenkins' Ear >lol anglos r so pathetic psht
No proper conversation in the slightest.
Jordan Adams
My nation (same as 90% of nation on this planet) have inferiority complex and stupidly glorifies past kings. Even when i read actual historical essay from PhDr, there are still remarks like "he was a honorable and chivalrous king" and they are completely ignoring some disagreements between ours and neighbours history about him.
Also then there is of course the utter hate for kings during which reign plague/natural disaster came like it was their fault.
Jonathan Perry
>Russia won WW2! >muh Wehrmacht innocence >thinking Islamic civilization was good after 1400 >thinking Islamic civilization was bad before 1400 >guns germs and steel >"would *insert doomed civilization here* have survived if they *insert bullshit*"
I am pretty annoyed by the stupid fucking murricunts constantly bringing up nazis/WW2 or their presidents. There is more about history than that, we don't have to have five fucking threads about it all the time.
Jackson Kelly
I'm curious about why the 15th century is the divider here. I hear in the 16th century some ottoman guy called Suleiman is praised for some code of law he made. Is he an exception to trend? Or is his achievements exaggerated?
Julian Allen
Generally they started going to shit after mongol invasion. Of course you will find exceptions though, history isn't physics and nothing is strictly given.
Carter Harris
>neo-nazis >reactionary they're modernist scum like the rest
Justin Young
>Germany should have been balkanized
Bonus points if...
>...then there would be no degeneracy/multiculturalism/immigrants and I would have gf
Chase Wood
>>Germany should have been balkanized Absolutely nothing wrong with that viewpoint at all,
Joseph Butler
I mean, sure, if you're into the whole cancer thing.
Nicholas Phillips
People using the word "objective" to describe a subjective opinion.
Jordan James
Marxists are like weebs. The most omega males imaginable and indoctrinated to boot.
Samuel Ortiz
>no fleet
That is irrelevent. We used the bombs as a show of force to intimidate them to not get too involved with the peace process when dealing with Japan. It wasnt _just_ the bomb that caused them to surrender, it was showing everyone that the us won the bomb race and to not fuck with us.
Unless you have evidence of the bombs dealing more of an impact on them surrendering, instead of the combined bombs and Soviet invasion, I will continue to believe this.
Sure, they don't have ships to reach the mainland, but practically the entire Japanese army was in China. I am pretty sure the idea of having your cities eviscerated by a new wonder weapon while having the USSR steamrolling through Manchuria would be enough for any man ruling a country to quit.
Bentley Brooks
>Implying the majority of their army was in China instead of just the CEA with 26 divisions compared to the over 140 divisions at war's end >Implying Japan wasn't willing to give up some Chinese gains versus unconditional surrender in which it would become a puppet state of the Allies >Implying Japan wasn't willing to cut ties and fight for every clump of clay >Implying super nuclear tech didn't convince the suicidal-y committed Japs to give up.
Ryan Lee
Try reading the whole post next time.
The argument I get a headache about is the people who claim that the bombs didn't do shit, Japan surrendered because of the Soviet attack in Manchuria.
Hudson Reed
>idolize guy >think hes great >learn something not great about him >stop idolizing him as much >i can take facts objectively without it affecting me wat the fuck double think are you trying to pull
Ayden Cooper
I don't see the problem with this. I stated I was a teen. I knew only the good things about him. If you knew only the good things about any given influential person in history, you'd probably like them too.
But then I learn he has flaws. And I stop idolizing him entirely.
how is this doublethink?
Dominic Lewis
I like this guy.
Eli Howard
>"would *insert doomed civilization here* have survived if they *insert bullshit*" Ha! So true.
