Which Historical Figure was Most 'Sugar-Coated' Post Factum?

Mar 2019
922
Kansas
I think Ned Kelly very much comes into this idea
Kelly's legend was well established before he died. Like him or hate him. He did do some things to endear himself to the locals. He also lived in a time when Irish were badly discriminated against by the authorities. It is always possible his family did not suffer the way it was claimed but it can be assured if not, then others certainly did. He did grow up in an atmosphere influenced by the Eureka rebellion, and the Irish were looking for a hero to their cause.
 
May 2011
13,856
Navan, Ireland
Kelly's legend was well established before he died. Like him or hate him. He did do some things to endear himself to the locals. He also lived in a time when Irish were badly discriminated against by the authorities. It is always possible his family did not suffer the way it was claimed but it can be assured if not, then others certainly did. He did grow up in an atmosphere influenced by the Eureka rebellion, and the Irish were looking for a hero to their cause.
And weren't the policeman he murdered also Irish?

He can easily he described as an above average intelligence criminal justifying his actions.
 
Mar 2019
922
Kansas
And weren't the policeman he murdered also Irish?

He can easily he described as an above average intelligence criminal justifying his actions.
The Kelly's were Catholic and the police officers were not. Which at the time in Australia was a significant cause for discrimination.

Arguments about Kelly's justification for his actions date all the way back to the arrest and imprisonment of his mother. In Australia the police were automatically seen as the bad guy well into the 20th Century, regardless of how justified their actions may have been. So the legend was really self generated by the prevailing attitudes in Australia at the time. Pretty much all the bush rangers are looked upon with various levels of hero worship no matter how heinous their actions may have been
 
Oct 2016
1,080
Merryland
IDK,pirates maybe?
Pirates were scum. they often killed whole crews of ships they captured ('dead men tell no tales'), maybe keeping the odd carpenter or sailmaker. untold numbers of merchants and sailors had their lives ruined by them.
maybe it's that I'm ex-Navy and we have an anti-Pirate heritage. and some of my ancestors sailed the Chesapeake, so there's that.
as the Romans said, pirates were 'enemies of mankind'.

+1 for whoever mentioned gangsters. Bonnie and Clyde were homicidal scumbags who got good pub because of the stupid Hollywood movie with Warren and Fay. they were considered heroes by some in the 30s (banks were considered the bad guys so...). J. Edgar pushed his FBI by calling them 'public enemies' and 'public rats' and promoting his top-ten wanted list. (he was one of the first government types to figure how to use mass media to advantage) but they still had some outlaw cachet.
 
May 2011
13,856
Navan, Ireland
The Kelly's were Catholic and the police officers were not. Which at the time in Australia was a significant cause for discrimination.

Arguments about Kelly's justification for his actions date all the way back to the arrest and imprisonment of his mother. In Australia the police were automatically seen as the bad guy well into the 20th Century, regardless of how justified their actions may have been. So the legend was really self generated by the prevailing attitudes in Australia at the time. Pretty much all the bush rangers are looked upon with various levels of hero worship no matter how heinous their actions may have been
Most of his victims seem to have distinctly Irish names.

Newspaper comment on Kelly


Category: | Herald Sun
 
Sep 2014
1,185
Queens, NYC
Responding to Commodus' post 115 on page 12, relating to Richard III, I must point out that Richard did not slander his nephews. He had them declared illegitimate, which is not the same thing as slandering.
Evidence that Richard III had his nephews murdered is completely lacking. In view of the fact that his reign was short; and that his opponent had reason to have brought out any such evidence, and was in a position to do so, Richard's guilt is not established.
For the rest-he was considered a good king and his parliamentary program well thought of.
 
Aug 2012
1,554
Responding to Commodus' post 115 on page 12, relating to Richard III, I must point out that Richard did not slander his nephews. He had them declared illegitimate, which is not the same thing as slandering.
Evidence that Richard III had his nephews murdered is completely lacking. In view of the fact that his reign was short; and that his opponent had reason to have brought out any such evidence, and was in a position to do so, Richard's guilt is not established.
For the rest-he was considered a good king and his parliamentary program well thought of.
To disinherit your own nephews and reduce their social status and publicly question their hereditary rights is pretty much what I'd call slander, though.
And this fantasy that the evidence against Richard is lacking is frankly beneath us all. It's as if people can't square his noble qualities with the ruthlessness of the age, so they concoct these elaborate fictions just to pretend that someone, anyone other than Richard killed those boys. Can't you just accept that he was a brave, honourable man and a decent ruler and also capable of acts of brutality and ruthlessness? I see no contradiction there.
Sorry, I don't mean to snap at you, but this really bugs me.
 
Jul 2016
9,079
USA
Calling Churchill the most sugar coated, or just as bad as Hitler, is nothing but revisionism or (as I like to think of it) historical hipsterism. That is, the belief that holding opinions contrary to the mainstream makes one interesting just for the sake of being different.

Churchill is definitely not the saint that he is commonly made out to be. He was a deeply flawed man; very much so if we judge him by modern standards, and somewhat by contemporary standards. Why is it that people are incapable of saying "I dislike Churchill and think the strength of his character is massively overrated" and feel compelled to jump to insane hyperbole instead? Is it just a need for attention?

But calling him worse than Hitler can only be an attempt to shock. And "most sugar coated" is just as bad when you consider a majority of Russians today have a positive opinion of Stalin who is, by any meaningful metric, one of the top 5 bloodiest dictators of history.
In another thread that poster recommended adopting pedophilia to cut down on underage sex. Say take what he's writing with a large grain of...s**t.
 
In another thread that poster recommended adopting pedophilia to cut down on underage sex. Say take what he's writing with a large grain of...s**t.
Is this that ''another thread''?

Did Islam Condone Pedophilia?

I have to say it was at least fun to read. He also made several...inaccurate posts elsewhere. I'm also surprised he joined less than a month ago and already has 250 posts, makes me wonder how much ''information'' he writes.
 
Feb 2019
472
Pennsylvania, US
Did you even read the quote you posted? He is clearly stating the use of non-lethal gas!
The phrasing of this is somewhat characteristic of how the British express themselves... not the blunt, artless, monosyllabic style of communication favoured by Americans. Google translate British American “It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases” comes out to be “Dun use no bad gas” in American English. :lol:
 

Similar History Discussions