The most overrated figures in history

[Kudistos Megistos]

http://www.ricestandard.org/the-most-overrated-figures-in-history/

I found this article interesting,although I would have taken MLK off the list and put Joan of Arc on it.

And lol at the stupid responses; one presumes that they are closet racists who think that accusing others of racism will help them deal with their own guilt (a la closet homosexuals).

[Covarr]

#2: Jesus
Never mind that there exists no credible evidence to suggest that this person ever lived

I can't take the writer of this seriously. I can completely understand not believing that Jesus is a deity. I can understand not believing that he performed miracles. But most historians agree that he existed. Research fail on this article's part.

I honestly DO think MLK belongs on the list. Not that he didn't accomplish much, but frankly Abraham Lincoln did WAY more for black people in the US than King, and it saddens me that his accomplishments are frequently ignored in favor of King.

[pyrozen]

LIST FAIL!

sorry kudisto, but any shmoe can compile a list of influencial people, wikipedia them, then bash on their accomplishments. This is basically what would happend if TMZ could travel back in time and make fun of these folks.

lee

[Kudistos Megistos]

The list fails because it's easy to make? I don't understand

Also, things like this are important. A lot of those figures are revered (and I do mean revered, as in treated like a god) by people who have little idea exactly what they respect them for doing. People like Nelson Mandela have become immune from public criticism and people say that they're great just to avoid the consequences of iconoclasm. It's important that we examine why we respect people, and it's also very important to challenge received opinion and taboos. Besides the religious figures, these people tend to get very little criticism and it is seen as some kind of sin by society to question them. That is very bad.

Any list that forces people to think about who and what they respect and why they do it is good, and anything that challenges taboos is good as well.

[Opine]

protip: "Overrated" is an overrated criticism. In fact it's just a judgement, no different from calling a game "good" or "bad".

I read a book once called Lies My Teacher Told Me. It was pretty similar to this. It went through many figures of American history (Helen Keller, Lincoln, etc) as well as different periods & events (reconstruction, labor & social classes) and talked about the stuff that's misrepresented or completed overlooked in school. It was pretty interesting.

[The Seer of Shadows]

I like what he has to say about Confucius.

But, what he said about Ghandi...

... he had a truly remarkable capacity for devising vacuous yet seemingly profound one-liners, most of which have been reducing the minds of dim Western youth to slush ever since.

Maybe I just live a very sheltered life or something, but I don't think I've met anyone who can quote anything from this guy.

[Kudistos Megistos]

Heh, I did say that, didn't I

But that was in the context of video games. In the context of historical figures, the word "overrated" does have meaning. It's easier to objectively judge the effects that people have had on the world and therefore possible to say that some people get more praise than they deserve. There are also serious consequences to overrating people, especially living ones, because a lot of people base their political, social and religious beliefs on what these demi-gods have said and written; nothing serious can happen from thinking a video game is better than it is.

So yeah, the situation is different

I read a book once called Lies My Teacher Told Me. It was pretty similar to this. It went through many figures of American history (Helen Keller, Lincoln, etc) as well as different periods & events (reconstruction, laber & social classes) and talked about the stuff that's misrepresented or completed overlooked in school. It was pretty interesting.

I often wonder what happens in history lessons over there. The less well educated Americans on the internet give me the impression that they are little more than propaganda designed to invoke patriotism.

I've also heard that in some red states people want to teach kids that the founding fathers wanted America to be founded on the ideals of Christianity, even though most of them were fierce secularists and the US was one of the most irreligious countries in the western world at the time.

If anyone wants to know, history teachers in Britain spend more time talking about Germany between 1919 and 1945 than the whole of British history put together. They also talk a little about the Tudors and of colonialism and the slave trade (in my experience at least; it is possible that my history teacher was a little left-leaning, but I think a lot of British schools avoid shying away from the bad things the British empire did).

But, what he said about Ghandi...

... he had a truly remarkable capacity for devising vacuous yet seemingly profound one-liners, most of which have been reducing the minds of dim Western youth to slush ever since.

Maybe I just live a very sheltered life or something, but I don't think I've met anyone who can quote anything from this guy.

Maybe his quotes are so well known that we've forgotten that he was the one who said them

[The Seer of Shadows]

But, what he said about Ghandi...

... he had a truly remarkable capacity for devising vacuous yet seemingly profound one-liners, most of which have been reducing the minds of dim Western youth to slush ever since.

Maybe I just live a very sheltered life or something, but I don't think I've met anyone who can quote anything from this guy.

Maybe his quotes are so well known that we've forgotten that he was the one who said them

One day, I'll write a paper attempting to prove that Ghandi came up with "it's over nine THOUSAND!!!!"

[Opine]

I often wonder what happens in history lessons over there. The less well educated Americans on the internet give me the impression that they are little more than propaganda designed to invoke patriotism.

^ This. In fact, on the website of the book I mentioned it says this "James Loewen spent two years at the Smithsonian Institute surveying twelve leading high school textbooks of American History. What he found was an embarrassing amalgam of bland optimism, blind patriotism, and misinformation pure and simple."

I do remember when I got to college, I learned some interesting things in my history class. I remember thinking, "Why didn't they tell me about all this intrigue and drama in high school? I probably would have had an easier time remembering all those dates, if I had known about all the interesting things that happened."

I've also heard that in some red states people want to teach kids that the founding fathers wanted America to be founded on the ideals of Christianity, even though most of them were fierce secularists and the US was one of the most irreligious countries in the western world at the time.

I hadn't heard that. But I can't be too surprised. I mean, I always hear talk about not wanting to teach evolution, or wanting to teach the bible in school in certain states.

On a tangent, I actually think that religion should be taught in school, just not the way people always talk about it. In my senior year of high school I had a "World Religion" course. Each chapter in our book was devoted to a different religion. It was really interesting to me. And I really think most people would benefit from exposure to the different religions. It might help increase tolerance of differing religions. And maybe then less people would have the idea that muslims are violent heathens or whatever the misconception of the year happens to be.

[Kudistos Megistos]

On a tangent, I actually think that religion should be taught in school, just not the way people always talk about it. In my senior year of high school I had a "World Religion" course. Each chapter in our book was devoted to a different religion. It was really interesting to me. And I really think most people would benefit from exposure to the different religions. It might help increase tolerance of differing religions. And maybe then less people would have the idea that muslims are violent heathens or whatever the misconception of the year happens to be.

This is how religion classes in my school worked. It looks like British schools are a lot more PC than American ones (which has both pluses and minuses, since both sides of the political spectrum have their own dogma and malicious lies). My school wasn't even in a politically progressive area either; I wonder what schools in middle class areas of north London were like...

[nfitc1]

On a tangent, I actually think that religion should be taught in school, just not the way people always talk about it. In my senior year of high school I had a "World Religion" course. Each chapter in our book was devoted to a different religion. It was really interesting to me. And I really think most people would benefit from exposure to the different religions. It might help increase tolerance of differing religions. And maybe then less people would have the idea that muslims are violent heathens or whatever the misconception of the year happens to be.

This is how religion classes in my school worked. It looks like British schools are a lot more PC than American ones (which has both pluses and minuses, since both sides of the political spectrum have their own dogma and malicious lies). My school wasn't even in a politically progressive area either; I wonder what schools in middle class areas of north London were like...

This is a good idea, but I've never seen it done without bias. Most teachers will scoff under their breaths when they teach certain religions. It's VERY important for people to know these things objectively, but no one teaches it that way.

[DLPB_]

I would comment on this list but then I would have lowered myself.    It is obvious the author is on an ego trip and wants to get noticed and/or talked about.  Sad individual.

[Kudistos Megistos]

On a tangent, I actually think that religion should be taught in school, just not the way people always talk about it. In my senior year of high school I had a "World Religion" course. Each chapter in our book was devoted to a different religion. It was really interesting to me. And I really think most people would benefit from exposure to the different religions. It might help increase tolerance of differing religions. And maybe then less people would have the idea that muslims are violent heathens or whatever the misconception of the year happens to be.

This is how religion classes in my school worked. It looks like British schools are a lot more PC than American ones (which has both pluses and minuses, since both sides of the political spectrum have their own dogma and malicious lies). My school wasn't even in a politically progressive area either; I wonder what schools in middle class areas of north London were like...

This is a good idea, but I've never seen it done without bias. Most teachers will scoff under their breaths when they teach certain religions. It's VERY important for people to know these things objectively, but no one teaches it that way.

My last religious studies teacher was an atheist. I think he scoffed at all of the religions equally

The one had I before him was so incompetent and hated children and her job so much that she basically had the same effect.

[Chocobo_Girl]

My last religious studies teacher was an atheist. I think he scoffed at all of the religions equally

I took a class about feminism and it was taught by a gay man. He was a wonderful teacher though and passionate about the subject, despite him being a d00d. =P

[Kudistos Megistos]

My last religious studies teacher was an atheist. I think he scoffed at all of the religions equally

I took a class about feminism and it was taught by a gay man. He was a wonderful teacher though and passionate about the subject, despite him being a d00d. =P

That actually makes sense. Seeing as Western society has made more progress in reducing sexism than in reducing homophobia, it may well be that the re-evaluation of contemporary gender roles is more beneficial to gay men than (straight) women.

[Bosola]

So what? Anyone can find fault with anyone worth admiring. Consider:

Churchill - fucked up at Gallipoli at the cost of thousands of Aznac lives, drunkard who dismissed the vital reforms of the post-45 government as 'Gestapo-like', took credit for a mostly Labour-run Home Front.
Queen Elizabeth - brutal treatment of the Irish, murdered her siblings, engendered sectarian violence for the sake of power
George Orwell - bland and repetitive writer who submitted a list of 'dangerous socialists' to the intelligence services just after writing 1984 (probably the barest display of hypocrisy you can imagine)
Thomas More - tortured protestants

The fact is, most 'extraordinary' people are those who have taken nations through wars, violence or tremendous suffering. These people usually meet terrible circumstance with a similar level of forcefulness and lack of compromise - otherwise, they would never have succeeded. You can't win a war without killing someone; secure a revolution without brutality or win a struggle without the will and strength of opinion to be controversial here and there. If you want to be uncontroversial, and just save the children etc., you still have to make some compromise to vested interests, etc. etc., so you just can't win. That's just the way the world works.

[Kudistos Megistos]

And yet some people seem to be unable to find fault with certain historical figures, which is the point of composing a list of the most overrated.

[dragowulf]

Jesus overrated?  Ummm...why was he murdered again?

Oh, right...

[Kudistos Megistos]

Jesus overrated?  Ummm...why was he murdered again?

Oh, right...

That's right! He was murdered because the Romans were pissed off with him for being so overrated!

That is what you were talking about, right?

[dragowulf]

Jesus overrated?  Ummm...why was he murdered again?

Oh, right...

That's right! He was murdered because the Romans were pissed off with him for being so overrated!

That is what you were talking about, right?

Hit the nail on the head.

[Kudistos Megistos]

Jesus overrated?  Ummm...why was he murdered again?

Oh, right...

That's right! He was murdered because the Romans were pissed off with him for being so overrated!

That is what you were talking about, right?

Hit the nail on the head.

Who? Me? Or the executioner?

[nfitc1]

Jesus overrated?  Ummm...why was he murdered again?

Oh, right...

That's right! He was murdered because the Romans were pissed off with him for being so overrated!

That is what you were talking about, right?

That shows that you don't know Christian history. The Romans didn't care. They feared he would be their new king and conquer them like the Jews thought he was going to. When He didn't show any signs of this they mostly ignored Him. He violated no Roman laws, advocated paying taxes, preached that the Jews should love their enemies, "turn the other cheek", "go the extra mile".
It was the Jews that asked the Romans to execute him for violating THEIR laws. If anything, the Romans overrated Him and the Jews underrated Him.

[dragowulf]

Jesus overrated?  Ummm...why was he murdered again?

Oh, right...

That's right! He was murdered because the Romans were pissed off with him for being so overrated!

That is what you were talking about, right?

That shows that you don't know Christian history. The Romans didn't care. They feared he would be their new king and conquer them like the Jews thought he was going to. When He didn't show any signs of this they mostly ignored Him. He violated no Roman laws, advocated paying taxes, preached that the Jews should love their enemies, "turn the other cheek", "go the extra mile".
It was the Jews that asked the Romans to execute him for violating THEIR laws. If anything, the Romans overrated Him and the Jews underrated Him.

I knew this, but you didn't catch the sarcasm?

Or maybe there was none at all?  Then I'm a fool.

[Kudistos Megistos]

Yes, sarcasm, or something like that

I'm also a little sceptical of Christian history seeing as it's obviously one-sided and written when all of the eye-witnesses were dead. For all we know the Jews who didn't convert were being slandered. For all we know the early Christians were afraid of pissing off the Romans by blaming them for "killing God" and decided to blame a less powerful group of people. The latter is unlikely, seeing as the Bible doesn't seem at great pain to snuggle up to the Romans at other points, but you never know...

[nfitc1]

Yes, sarcasm, or something like that

I'm also a little sceptical of Christian history seeing as it's obviously one-sided and written when all of the eye-witnesses were dead. For all we know the Jews who didn't convert were being slandered. For all we know the early Christians were afraid of pissing off the Romans by blaming them for "killing God" and decided to blame a less powerful group of people. The latter is unlikely, seeing as the Bible doesn't seem at great pain to snuggle up to the Romans at other points, but you never know...

All the early Christian history gets vague after the events in the Bible. No one can even agree what year those occured (There's a range of about 10 years where people debate what year Jesus was born in). It wasn't ever meant to be a history book anyway. The first five books of the New Testament are trying to be, but it's accuracy with dates is questionable seeing as those were written years after the fact. Everything after that starts getting lost in history. None of that really alters my faith in those events. I think God left us with all we need to know, but I'm always wondering what happened to all the books the Council of Trent didn't like.