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.
I think it’s a publication bias thing. Because so much was written about these people in their day, they become mascots for the time period. And what they did, while objectionable, is impressive. They had a massive influence on recorded history.
My own theory is that there is so much written in these times because of the massive inequality then. Books, statues, etc are expensive. In times of ecomonic equality, especially before the press, people would be less likely to waste time and resources on such things. Thats money better spent on improving their and their communities lives. But when you have massive inequality and a narcisist in charge, you get books, statues, and massive projects dedicated to the men who can afford them.
I think you are right. But I don’t think that’s the whole story.
I think it is also just the fact that they were the winners of history. And we like winning more than we like being moral.
And we like winning more than we like being moral.
I wonder why when it comes to “humanity is awesome” variations of sci-fi, we always have to lean so hard on creating a fictional alien race that is somehow worse than humans to prove how “awesome” we are.
Maybe, just maybe, we’re kind of fucking assholes.
Conversely why do we act horrified that someone in the past didn’t act according to standards that only exist today and pressures that don’t.
We are horrified by our ancestors actions because we’re different than them, we don’t understand them. We have the benefit of hindsight and can see the results of their actions. We put ourselves into their world and view it with our standards of today, because we don’t want to think we could do the same now that we know better. I can be horrified by the actions of someone in the past but also know that the further back into the pastI look the less I understand of history people.
A good though to have in ones mind when thinking about this topics is that you will probably be seen as someone horrible and barbaric with evil-morals by future standards.
It’s not a modern standards thing, Genghis Khan was seen as a complete monster in his own time.
Probably by people conquered by him. People riding by his side probably would have a different view of him.
We all exist because of those people’s exploits.
That’s basically where the concept of glory begins.
I don’t understand in what way we wouldn’t exist without their exploits?
Well, take me for example. Both of my grandmothers had to leave Pommern due to the second world war. If Hitler hadn’t started shit I never would’ve been born.
The phrase was "we all exist because of those exploits *, that seems a bigger claim
We all are products of the history we were born into is what I’m saying. If Alexander hadn’t conquered the known world history would have ben different and so would todays world be, inlcuding (or rather excluding) us
Historical materialism perfectly answers your question. Quote from On Dialectical and Historical Materialism by J.V. Stalin:
"It is easy to understand how immensely important is the extension of the principles of the dialectical method to the study of social life and the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.
If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of “eternal justice” or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.
The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite understandable and natural phenomenon, since it represents an advance on the primitive communal system
The demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic when tsardom and bourgeois society existed, as, let us say, in Russia in 1905, was a quite understandable, proper and revolutionary demand; for at that time a bourgeois republic would have meant a step forward. But now, under the conditions of the U.S.S.R., the demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic would be a senseless and counterrevolutionary demand; for a bourgeois republic would be a retrograde step compared with the Soviet republic.
Everything depends on the conditions, time and place.
It is clear that without such a historical approach to social phenomena, the existence and development of the science of history is impossible; for only such an approach saves the science of history from becoming a jumble of accidents and an agglomeration of most absurd mistakes"
The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite understandable
What bullcrap! Slavery exists today. It’s still repugnant even though it “makes sense” to those that benefit from it.
The Mongols rampaging across Asia and offering the false choice of slavery or anhilation to all the people they encountered was evil then and it’s evil today. Distancing yourself from it doesn’t change the evaluation.
Slavery exists today
Blame the translation. By “slavery” Stalin meant “slave society” instead of “forced labor”. These two are very different things. Today’s forced labor is yet another effect of capitalist contradictions
I don’t think we glorify them, but we consider them significant figures in history. Remembering and talking/studying history and significant figures allows us to learn more about ourselves as well as learn how things can be done better than they once were. But I don’t really see these people glorified. Nobody calls them heroes or people to emulate.
Do we glorify them, or do we just learn about them because they had a huge impact on the world?
I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone holding Genghis Khan up as a role model.
We literally call Alexander “the Great”, and Caesar’s name was adopted as a title more than once by powerful rulers (e.g. Kaiser and Czar). Sounds like glorification to me.
Exactly. I was kinda confused when I read the question because I dont think they are glorified at all. They probably arent shamed as much as Hitler for example because they dont have such a direct impact on our lives.
Genghis Khan isn’t as glorified as the rest, because, …, he’s not white/European. He’s glorified in Mongolia and some other Asian countries, but not in the western world.
But the rest of them? Yes, we do. Maybe not always so overtly, but the implied greatness of most of these figures is tied to how much wars they waged and how many peoples they subjugated. And if you simply go to any primary or middle school and ask the kids who are into history, you’ll find lots of boys (mostly boys) who will rave on about how this or that was the absolute GOAT.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone holding Genghis Khan up as a role model.
There is a huge statue of him in Mongolia, and one of the apparently most popular Mongolian song is titled “In praise of Genghis Khan” so now you heard.
Go to Mongolia and you will see it.
And Julius Caesar is literally known for being hated and brutally murdered by those closest to him because he was such a shit.
In some countries, it’s so “machismo” that being a descendant of Genghis Khan gets you a consumer’s discount in some establishments.
The guy killed by the girl he was trying to rape becoming a symbol of machismo is oddly fitting.
Probably more people are descendents of Ghengis Khan than aren’t. Certainly nothing special.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
How is simping them any different from calling them “basically Hitler from the past”? If you’re talking with your feelings, what you are saying is by definition not-objective, like with simps, but also with haters. I doubt you or OP are any more informed on history than the average Lemmy rando. By starting with the desired conclusion, rather than with arguments, the discussion is already beginning on subjective terms.
We also glorify horrible people from the present, so why not?
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.
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.
You should be more worried about why we glorify horrible contemporary people, or from the more recent past. Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Donald Trump, Ellen DeGeneres, the list is endless. There are a lot of people that even glorify Hitler himself.
And wrt Alexander the Great, having killed a lot of people does not make a person horrible. My grandfather killed a lot of people, probably hundreds. He never wanted to talk much about it. He was a great guy and a hero. Alexander the great killed a lot of people, but in doing that he eliminated the enemies of his people. He is recorded in history for spreading civilization, arts, education. He founded many cities that flourished, some of them even stand today. He freed a lot of cities that were ruled by his people’s enemies. His conquests are one of the major reasons modern western civilization exists. He did all that as a military leader and he killed a lot of people.
daddy worship spotted.
What do you mean “objectively studying history”, what is objective about History? What you’re studying is a narrative, that has been put together by experts, based of what remains from that past. There is nothing “objective” about History, it is an educated guess. Even written records are narratives told from the perspective and culture of the ancient writer.
This is to say that, the reason we don’t judge historical figures through a modern lens is that to do so is to ignore history. It doesn’t matter what your think about Alexander the Great, it matters what his contemporaries (both friends and enemies) had to say about him (objectively biased narratices). For another example think about what the Greeks wrote about the Persians during their many wars, and vice versa. They are conflicrive accounts. Both biased and political. So again, what history is correct, objective?
There is nothing “objective” about History, it is an educated guess.
A lack of absolute certainty does not equate to a lack of objectivity. You’re right that history is necessarily written by individuals who have biases. But it is also written by many individuals from different perspectives and correlated with a variety of other sources of knowledge, such as archeology, geology, etc.
For another example think about what the Greeks wrote about the Persians during their many wars, and vice versa. They are conflicrive accounts. Both biased and political. So again, what history is correct, objective?
They are conflicting on some things, but they also agree on many things. For instance, I’m sure we can agree that the Greeks and Persians existed, controlled large empires, fought wars against each other, etc. Historians are trained to analyze all of the documents available from all perspectives and arrive at the most objective conclusion that they can muster.
I strongly oppose the postmodern attitude that everything is subjective. It’s good to remember the limits of our knowledge, but to completely discard an academic field such as history as entirely subjective is quite absurd.
I strongly oppose the postmodern attitude that everything is subjective. It’s good to remember the limits of our knowledge, but to completely discard an academic field such as history as entirely subjective is quite absurd.
Its not really, history doesnt have a central paradigm of provable statements, it cannot be objective. Yes, they may have had armies, someone may have also went back and fucked with all the records of the armies numbers, compisitions etc after the fact.
Writing and mental production have been controlled till very recently by the upper classes, the written record was usually the thoughts of the upper class, or those they allowed to write.
You know the study of history isnt just taking one account and believing it, right?
You build as much evidence as you can from multiple sources so you can account for and remove those biases. Obviously, the further back you go, the harder it is to find evidence but that doesn’t mean you work from one source.
They are conflicting in some things but agree on many things…
If this is your definition of “objective”, something you can say about the books in the Bible, sure bro I guess. To me objective means it can be empirically proven: 2+2=4. Earth is the third planet from the Sun. Water at sea level boils at 100c. Etc.
If you think the one of many competing, historical narratives that you or your culture chose are “objective truth”, sure bro, that’s how politics works.
If this is your definition of “objective”, something you can say about the books in the Bible, sure bro I guess.
Seriously? What a ridiculous, intellectually dishonest false equivalency. Why not respond to the remainder of my argument? Do you actually doubt whether the Ancient Greeks existed?
To me objective means it can be empirically proven: 2+2=4. Earth is the third planet from the Sun. Water at sea level boils at 100c. Etc.
Pure empiricism is pure nonsense. Objective truths exist independently of individual minds, while subjective truths exist within minds.
History is composed of a series of events that physically occurred on Planet Earth within the past ~5k years, and were recorded in written form by human beings. Human beings were born, did certain things, wrote them down, and died. We can dig up their remains and verify many of the things they wrote via empirical, scientific methodologies. You can choose to doubt various interpretations of the facts, but your delusions cannot change the inherent reality that lies within.
Your choice to contest the validity of history is demonstrative of a profoundly irrational mindset, because you are rejecting verifiable information in favor of your own subjective assumptions. You would prefer that history not be objective, because you wish to believe your own subjective version of history as an emotional coping mechanism.
Lol. Cope.
Probably for the same reasons Benjamin Netanyahu was glorified in U.S.A. Congress a few weeks ago.
