Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Topic: national heroes treated TOO justly! Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 15:27 |
name soem people whos personality cult and reputation as heros are either not deserved or over inflated. heres some
Andrew jackson-just plain terrible, didnt actually do any bit of good for anyone, even his major victory was after then end of a war
Mustapha Kemal- I know Ill get flack from this one, but lets face it it, he was a facist dicatator who is now worshipped like a demigod.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Murph
Consul
Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 319
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 15:39 |
he's a little before my time so i don't really know what to think
some people treat JFK as one of the greatest presidents, while some
think his whole image and persona was inflated by his untimely end
anyone have an opinion on JFK's legacy
|
|
Jalisco Lancer
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2112
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 15:42 |
Let me see, someone who's actions were in some point contradictory , but still , as we say in Mexico, was electated to the altars of the nation:
Gen. Alvaro Obregon:
He fought during the mexican revolution agaisnt Victoriano Huerta and then he turned to attack other revolutionary leaders as Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata while he supported to Venustiano Carranza.
Years later, when Villa and Zapata were killed, he revolted agaisnt Carranza , who was by the way , assasinated.
Obregon was elected President. He had the ambition to relect himself agaisnt the values and ideas of the Revolution. He got killed by a fanatic catholic during his re election campaing.
Edited by Jalisco Lancer
|
|
demon
Chieftain
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Brazil
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1185
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 15:49 |
Ariel Sharon. He is such an egoist racist who mistreats his supoosedly neighbors. I mean, waste that concrete on highways! And we have people like George Bush who calls him "he's a man of peace"??? Also, he should lose weight- he is profiled as to have been one of those heroic israeli soldiers who fought against arabs, but by looking at his fat statue, it is clear that the claim is false.
Abraham Lincoln. I don't know why he's worshipped- jsut because he "emancipated" the slaves. But know that that emancipation took effect only on south when he issued it. He didn't do it for the slaves, but for he's own good. And he wasn't even popular in his administration. He's Gettysburg Adress wasn't immortalized until much later.
anyone have an opinion on JFK's legacy |
He's okay. He sent apollo 11 to moon, greatly lowering Solviet morals. He also saved the nuclear fallout crisis with cuba (well, it was his administration but still he gets the credit for it). Most of the world today is democratic because of his and his administration's support in Cold War. Not a bad leader IMHO.
Andrew jackson-just plain terrible, didnt actually do any bit of good for anyone, even his major victory was after then end of a war |
He was mean- killing and betraying Cherokees. But he saved america in the battle of new orleans, and delayed civil war until much later. I'm not saying he's good, just not too bad.
|
Grrr..
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 16:07 |
great topic!
for the Netherlands:
The entire Orange-Nassau (royal) family.
For some reason it's often said they've been popular for centuries,
which is not true. When they were stadhouder (1588-1795) there often
was no new one elected when one died because noone liked them, and they
were even kicked out of the country two times (1785 and 1795). After
1815 they were kings/queens and even more unpopular. Belgium declared
independence in 1830 because king William III was very oppressive
towards them and William III was an notorious exhibitionist. In the
late 19th a large PR offensive was started, but until WWII Catholics
and socialists (together about 60% of the population) generally
disliked them. Nowadays 80% of the population likes them, but they are
in fact really annoying, arrogant people that can virtually break every
law they want withouth any problems.
Another one is Pim Fortuyn, but that goes without saying.
Furthermore there are some genocidal colonial people like Jan
Pieterszoon Coen and Lt. Gen. Van Heutz, and Piet Heyn who was less
more than a pirate.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 16:19 |
whoah, hundreds! but the worst: Bismarck, Hindenburg and Adenauer.
|
|
J.M.Finegold
Baron
Joined: 11-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 17:19 |
He's okay. He sent apollo 11 to moon, greatly lowering Solviet
morals. He also saved the nuclear fallout crisis with cuba (well, it
was his administration but still he gets the credit for it). Most of
the world today is democratic because of his and his administration's
support in Cold War. Not a bad leader IMHO.
|
As Cuban dictator Fidel Castro said later to McNamara who was on a trip
in the 80s or 90s, "Had Kruschev told me to press the button, I would
have pressed the button." The policies of JFK and his
administration concerning Cuba could have begun the Third World War,
which would have ended in nuclear disaster. JFK just got very,
very, lucky that the Kruschev backed out because he was the only man
with some sense left in him.
JFK also escalated the advisors sent to Vietnam, thus setting the stage
for LBJs ultimate decisions to put five hundred thousand men in the
forsaken country.
JFK, in my opinion, was not a saint, and he didn't survive long enough into his presidency to show me different.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 18:08 |
Abraham Lincoln. I don't know why he's worshipped- jsut because he
"emancipated" the slaves. But know that that emancipation took effect
only on south when he issued it. He didn't do it for the slaves, but
for he's own good. And he wasn't even popular in his administration.
He's Gettysburg Adress wasn't immortalized until much later. |
I think Lincoln was an excellent president. If it weren't for Lincoln's
leadership, the north would have been disorganized and inefficective in
the war. He maintained political stability by successfully using brute
force. The slaves were only emancipated in the south because he did not
want to upset the border states. If he lost the border states, the war
was unwinnable.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 18:46 |
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
I think Lincoln was an excellent president. If it weren't for Lincoln's leadership, the north would have been disorganized and inefficective in the war. |
without Lincoln, there would have been no secessiona nd thus no war at all...
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 20:23 |
On the subject of American hero's. Benjamin Franklin, it was two centuries he was deified in the US, in the late 19th when the British secret service made public it's files from the the American War of Independance they showed he was employed as a British spy throughout the war, but never found out by the US. US government has known of this fact for over a century but still promotes the myth of him in their education system.
Edited by Paul
|
|
|
Murph
Consul
Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 319
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 20:27 |
Originally posted by Temujin
without Lincoln, there would have been no secessiona nd thus no war at all... |
it would have happened eventually, it had been building up for half a century
Paul, are you serious about Benjamin Franklin, I've never heard that at all
(i guess the American press is keeping quiet about that one)
Edited by Murph
|
|
cavalry4ever
AE Moderator
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 20:39 |
Originally posted by Paul
On the subject of American hero's. Benjamin Franklin,
it was two centuries he was deified in the US, in the late 19th when
the British secret service made public it's files from the the American
War of Independance they showed he was employed as a British spy
throughout the war, but never found out by the US. US government
has known of this fact for over a century but still promotes the myth
of him in their education system. |
This is BS. You are mixing him with his son, which was royalist and died in England.
There were two key people to American Independence: George Washington
and Benjamin Franklin. George would not achieve his victory without
Ben's skillful diplomacy.
Edited by cavalry4ever
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 20:40 |
I'd have to say Lincoln was an excellent President. He was very much responsible for keeping morale and cohesion in the North up, and successfully prosecuting the war. Other presidents would have failed where he succeeded. And he did pave the way for the passage of the 13th Amendment, which abolished. I don't get where you say he emancipated the slaves for personal gain, because throughout his career he was an Abolitionist.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Christscrusader
Baron
Joined: 13-Nov-2004
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 481
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 20:53 |
Originally posted by Temujin
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
I think Lincoln was an excellent president. If it weren't for Lincoln's leadership, the north would have been disorganized and inefficective in the war. |
without Lincoln, there would have been no secessiona nd thus no war at all...
|
The problems and differences would still be there, do you think they will just go away? Prehaps if there was a weaker president in power, he would of let them split up, prehaps causing more split ups, and becoming a "Europe" with the states as nations. Then, there would be no great country as America is today.
|
Heaven helps those, who help themselves.
-Jc
|
|
cattus
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 21:32 |
Every poll or ranking of US presidents in my lifetime that i have seen in the States has consistantly named A.Lincoln as #1.
|
|
Murph
Consul
Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 319
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 21:50 |
its true lincoln kept the union together...through a war that was
ineptly run and operated. it should have been an easy victory for
the North, but Lincoln did not do the best job running the war.
granted his generals were of inferior quality to those of the south, he
is still the commander in chief and responsible for the military.
it took 4 years to defeat an undermanned, undersupplied army. he
freed the slaves so that Europe would not side with the south. so
all he really did during his term in office was wage an inneffective
war against the south, free the slaves in the Confederacy, start the draft, commited several blatant unconstitional actions, and, put into place every American's favorite thing...income tax.
as a rule, any leader who is assasinated for his cause is seen as a
martyr and his stance among his people is instantly elevated to
astonomical levels. this is the case in the presidencies of JFK
and Abraham Lincoln...(the other ones who were assasinated werent seen
as dying for a cause, so thats why this didnt happen to them)
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jan-2005 at 07:56 |
Originally posted by Murph
its true lincoln kept the union together...through a war that was ineptly run and operated. it should have been an easy victory for the North, but Lincoln did not do the best job running the war. granted his generals were of inferior quality to those of the south, he is still the commander in chief and responsible for the military. it took 4 years to defeat an undermanned, undersupplied army. he freed the slaves so that Europe would not side with the south. so all he really did during his term in office was wage an inneffective war against the south, free the slaves in the Confederacy, start the draft, commited several blatant unconstitional actions, and, put into place every American's favorite thing...income tax.
as a rule, any leader who is assasinated for his cause is seen as a martyr and his stance among his people is instantly elevated to astonomical levels. this is the case in the presidencies of JFK and Abraham Lincoln...(the other ones who were assasinated werent seen as dying for a cause, so thats why this didnt happen to them) |
It was ineffective because the North had crappy generals and the South had fabulous ones. Lincoln was a good leader because he had the guts to fire the bad generals until some good ones could be found. Sure he started the draft, but he had too.
And I can't even believe you dislike him for unconstitutional acts, that's so narrow-minded. How could he have successfully prosecuted the war without them. Imprisoning a few people indefinitely to save this country is a just trade-off. It would be irresponsible of him to let the country fall apart because he was too much of a stickler to imprison rebel sympathizers. Making leaders follow every single law and principle and respect every single right when the existence of something far greater than any law or person is at stake is like getting angry at firemen who are trying to save your house because they didn't take their shoes off and set them by the door.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jan-2005 at 12:24 |
Originally posted by Catt
Every poll or ranking of US presidents in my lifetime that i have seen in the States has consistantly named A.Lincoln as #1. |
you also get ismarck at number one statesmen ina poll here, and Hitler if he had won the war. so go figure...
the unfification of Germany was uninvitable as well, but Prussia declined a peaceful democratic unfification early on, isntead they forced every other state udner the Prussian crwon, ebcause Prussia would not have full power in a peacefully unified Germany. of course there would have been a liberation of salves sometime, but through war? furthermore, it's clear that the slaves were not the reason fo the war, the norht just wnated to break the economical pwer of the south (which were the slaves). and remember, the salves were no slaves anymore after the war, btu they were still second rate people until much later.
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jan-2005 at 16:13 |
I would disagree, Lincoln always stated that he would accept slavery remaining in the South as long as it did not spread. And keep in mind, it was the South which seceeded, they started the war, and they also fired on Fort Sumter.
I would also disagree that it could have been abolished without war. Perhaps by 1910 or something, but the South was adamant about it, they would not give up their slaves without a fight.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jan-2005 at 16:30 |
techincally it was the Russians that declared war first in WW1...
|
|