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.

  • wewbull@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • Konis@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        …because that’s his name. It was how people referred to him. It’s not like people are going “He’s Grrrreat!” like Tony the Tiger.

        Is this just a case of “great” having changed meaning subtly? Now it’s a superlative more than anything else, but in this usage I feel it meaning is much more about scale of what they did. Not a judgment on the morality of what they did.

    • tomi000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

    • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      In some countries, it’s so “machismo” that being a descendant of Genghis Khan gets you a consumer’s discount in some establishments.

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      And Julius Caesar is literally known for being hated and brutally murdered by those closest to him because he was such a shit.