Asklemmy

43913 readers

332 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
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

139

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

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

113 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

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The British with Winston Churchill, US with Reagan.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Not everyone in UK or US is a brainwashed idiot. There's plenty of people who know their history and are in good faith.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Regime does even need a majority, a solid 25-33% of hardcore larpers make the regime work as we see it today.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Plenty, yes. Majority? I doubt it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

...The US with Winston Churchill.

—Actually I don't know the history surrounding Churchill, I know someone once asked in a r/explainlikeimfive reddit post, but all that I really remember was that he was super-conservative.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

What he did to India is akin to what Belgium did to the Congo. He was also extremely racist, said Indians are "a beastly people with a beastly religion", Arabs are "a lower manifestation than the jews" who "only eat camel shit". The Jews, who he thought implanted communism in Russia as part of a conspiracy to control the world (same thing the Nazis said).

When defending the Israel plan of displacing Palestinian people, he said:

I do not admit for instance that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race or at any rate a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. I do not admit it.

And of course Asians wouldn't be left out: "I hate people with slit eyes and pigtails. I don't like the look of them or the smell of them"