Somebody who is usully very loved but they do not deserve to be. The person can be from any country or any period of time. Is it a eligious person? or a country leader?
One of the great ironies, I find in this whole 'I hate Mother Teresa' shebang is that she never set out calling herself a 'saint'. What if she were a just a person - like anyone of us - who had an inspiration and followed on that inspiration? Except, her inspiration - which was perhaps her desire to ease the suffering of human beings around her took place in a public sphere. Obviously, in India then - as it is now - there was much poverty, and in a world of cynicism, where most people habitually pass by the dying on the streets without feeling anything, a person bending down and holding the sufferer and feeding water or embalming him with care does stand out like a black dot on a white sheet. All I am trying to say is all of us do things we like - or at least so is the tendency. So instead of seeing the Teresa juggernaut as rolling towards ill-fashioned, malignant, immoral way towards sainthood and superstardom; why can't we see her as another normal person following her way of life, which was like the rest of us, full of warts as well. Immediately, more than half of the criticism against her falls flat, doesn't it?
Extremization of one's sincere inspiration always comes out in the open sooner or later, and everyone tends to scrutinize that with a magnifying glass, so to say. Take more popular examples from the world around: The more class Federer showed, the more lack of class people sought in him. The more humble Nadal went, the more crap they saw in his 'humility'. Its the same thing, really. It all comes with being 'great'.
The subject of Mother Teresa gives me another idea for this thread. Princess Diana. Now I know she died a terrible death but so do many 'normal' people. There can be no doubt that she is over loved.
Giuseppe Garibaldi is probably one of the most heavily overloved and overpraised people in the last two millennia. Karol Wojtyla is another one, and so is the large majority of every general/head of state/soldier involved in any kind of war, starting from the enormous massacres that Ancient Roman armies did in the whole European region.
You're posting this on the internet. It takes literally five seconds or less to find out. In fact, the time that it took you to type out "(that guy from india, i forgot how to spell his name):shrug:" would have been sufficient to confirm how to spell his name.
It's even been mentioned several times already in this very thread.
I would like to accord my first place to Karl der Große..or Charles the Great.
Today he is regarded not only as the founding father of both French and German monarchies, but also as a Pater Europae (father of Europe)
People tend to forget that Himmler and Heydrich were the real driving force in the extermination of the Jewish people. The organisation of the systematic killings were pretty much set up by Heydrich at the Wannsee Conference.
Fortunately Heydrich was killed early, who knows how many lives were saved.
I recommend watching this lecture topspindoctor, it shows that science can actually have a say on morality and it isn't true that there isn't absolute right or wrong
I fully recommend his book, The Moral Landscape, which sits on my night table right now. He makes such complicated, counter-intuitive and ground-breaking points, I doubt a two-hour conference will suffice.
I have a bit more time now than at my first visit.
Churchill is a bloody ruthless murderer responsible for the death of 1300 French Marine soldiers in harbour of Mers El-Kebir in July 1940 (ultimate Churchillian act: killing your own allies) + Dresden, Hamburg bombings (and others). And a worthless commander (Gallipoli, Singapore, ...).
I don't know who named JFK but powerful call. Agent Orange, that's him.
Nabulione Buonaparte: he's over loved in France but in his rightful place elsewhere just like Robespierre, Clémenceau or Mitterrand. (the bloke stated that in case of a lawsuit between an employee and his boss, the employee would have to prove he's right while the boss could be trusted with his word).
General de Gaulle had his moments of clear-mindedness but compromising with FLN discredits him. I was a Gaullist for some years.
Guevara, nah. Right-wingers have put him in his rightful place for more than 20 years now. Marx would be a better call. Or Nietzsche.
I'd have to add Franklin D Roosevelt, though. Compromission with Vichy.
Churchill is a bloody ruthless murderer responsible for the death of 1300 French Marine soldiers in harbour of Mers El-Kebir in July 1940 (ultimate Churchillian act: killing your own allies)
By then the ''ally'' had signed an armistice and caved in to the Nazis. The French fleet in the hands of the Nazis would have been disastrous to Britain's ruling the waves and eventual goal of liberating France and the rest of Europe. The French were given enough warning and suggestions were made as to how the fleet could be saved.
Apparently French bumbling was to blame for the inability to act. The British ultimatum included the possibility of the fleet moving to American waters and this apparently was already ordered by Darlan for just such a future situation. However, it appears that the text of the ultimatum was not communicated from Gensoul to Darlan and a plan that was already considered suitable to the French was not executed due to these communication lapses.
I agree with everyone who mentioned Che Guevara. Any serious reading on him would uncover him as stupid and pathetic. I also cringe when some young, stupid kid wears a T-shirt with his picture on it.
Ok, I'll go classical: Julius Caesar. What he did to them Gauls beats anything one could accuse Churchill of. Plus, he led the way from republic back into autocracy (not to mean the republic wasn't sadly almost dead before Julius got to power, but...).
Why on earth should it be? What is there to assuming a conciliating and deeply healing attitude after having been abused so much that is not fit for whites, liberal or otherwise? Nobody is perfect nor right in every single thing he or she says, but surely trying to avoid violence in such a hotly charged situation demands respect?
I still think Ghandi takes the cake. I mean think about it, the guy is a freaking genius. He used the cultural strength of the nation to bring down the foes. Passive resistance. Simple boycotting. How many people come up with that? Saves lots of lives in the process.
Mandela's somewhat overrated, but calling him a terrorist is pretty hyperbolic. He was a saboteur, sure, but the organisation he was involved in did not target or harm any civilians whilst he was involved with it.
"Umkhonto we Sizwe (or MK), translated "Spear of the Nation", was the military wing of the ANC. Partly in response to the Sharpeville Massacre of 1960, individual members of the ANC found it necessary to consider violence to combat what passive protest had failed to quell. There was a significant portion of the ANC who therefore turned to violence in order to achieve their goals. A significant portion of ANC leadership agreed that this violence was needed to combat increasing backlash from the government. Some ANC members were upset by the actions of the MK, and refused to accept violence as necessary for the ending of Apartheid, but these individuals became a minority as the militant leaders such as Nelson Mandela gained significant popularity. Many consider their actions to be criminal, but the MK deemed the means justified by the end goal of ending apartheid. Some members of MK committed terrorist acts to achieve their aims, and MK was responsible for the deaths of both civilians and members of the military. In cooperation with the South African Communist Party, MK was founded in 1961.[6]"
From Wikipedia, my emphases.
Whether or not Mandela was a "terrorist" probably doesn't matter. If you don't have the vote, the usual retort available to the powers-that-be - stand for election yourself & see how you do - is unavailable.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mens Tennis Forums
18.5M posts
87.7K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to male tennis players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the ATP, NSMTA, to college Tennis and even everything about equipment. It's all here!