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.

  • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 months ago

    Because for centuries, western society has valued one thing above pretty all else: winning.

    If someone’s an asshole, but they’ve gotten on top in something, people may say, “They’re an asshole, but hey you gotta admire that they’re so good at [insert subject].”

    That’s why so many people admire Ray Kroc. Yeah, so what if he brought McDonald’s to a position of national and international dominance? That doesn’t mean he’s worthy of our respect. If anything, the way he rose to the top, being as disgusting as it was, should mean he’s anything but worthy of our respect.

    Victory in something by itself shouldn’t be respected; what you do to get to victory matters equally as much, if not more.

    • thepreciousboar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s right. They are not glorified as being enlightened or particularly great at things in general. Those figures are idolized because of the power they managed to obtain and their skill in military tactis and strategy.