Greatest Historical Heroes of All Time

[Peanut]

I think it should be mentioned that by today's standards, a lot of people from the past would be considered racist. Probably even Abraham Lincoln and, as I recall, George Washington was one of the several founding fathers who was very conflicted about the slave problem and, I think, put something in his will that set his slaves free upon his death. Now, obviously one has to wonder why he didn't do it before his death. Though none of this helps Martin Luther, he was just racist and nothing more.

[Nate]

Yeah Martin Luther was a pretty terrible person, to be sure.

I'd also like to mention Rosa Parks. She may not have been the first black woman to refuse to give up her seat on a bus, but she was definitely the most significant.

[Midori]

Yeah Martin Luther was a pretty terrible person, to be sure.

You do realize how controversial a statement this is, right? Considering whole denominations are based on some of his ideas, it's bound to raise a few furs. Please be more careful when you say things like this. Provoking people into fights is not a good thing to do, and if you succeed at it (or keep trying) we may have to issue a strike. Got it?

[Fish and Chips]

Couple people have mentioned George Washington in passing, though no one's actually talked about what it is that makes him a heroic character.

Around the time of his impending presidency, General George Washington was the commander in chief of the colonial forces in America, forces recently successful in pushing back the British and securing independence for the colonies. It's no exaggeration to say George Washington was popular, both among his troops and citizens of the newly established United States of America; people love a war hero.

What you might not have known is just how popular George Washington was. Someone might mention that he was the first (and only) president in our history to be elected unanimously, but I don't know how many people realize there were men under Washington's command who were ready to make him King George I of America, and citizens among his many admirers who would have welcomed this new monarchy. It would have been the easiest thing for Washington to forcibly seize control of the fledgling country, and few people would have seriously begrudged him taking the opportunity.

And yet, Washington refused. He refused because he believed democracy should take its course, ignoring the temptation of easy ambition. It was even reluctantly that he served a second term in office, despite proving to be a reliable and capable administrator; I don't need to remind anyone he flatly rejected the offer of a third term.

Ladies and gentlemen, here was a hero.

[Nate]

It's like 5:30 AM and I may regret making this post, but oh well. Also please note I'm not arguing with you, because I will do what you say, but I also feel the need to defend myself.

You do realize how controversial a statement this is, right? Considering whole denominations are based on some of his ideas, it's bound to raise a few furs.

I don't think it's controversial at all. Have you read the stuff Martin Luther said about Jews? Advocating burning down synagogues and slaughtering Jews in violent and hideous ways IS terrible. Anyone who says it isn't terrible, I don't ever want to know that person because they are a horrible person.

Now. With that said, Martin Luther had great ideas. He was a smart guy, and I actually agree with him on a lot of stuff...his hatred for Revelation for example, I'm right there with him on that one.

I should mention that a person can be a terrible person, and still be really smart, and still have great ideas. It's my fault for wording it poorly. I didn't mean to dismiss Martin Luther entirely. I'm sorry for expressing my thoughts badly. That's a failing of me, and again, I apologize. But I do stand behind what I said. Again, being a terrible person does not prevent you from doing great things, or being correct.

And Martin Luther definitely did fantastic things. Wonderful things. And he was definitely a bright guy. But we must keep in mind that we can separate the things a person does from what kind of person they were...it's like what Sting said in his opening post. Whether you like Reagan or hate his guts, you do have to admit that his telling Gorbachev "Tear down this wall!" was a great thing...it was incredible, and very inspiring, even if you hate the man's politics and think he's a bad person.

So I don't deny Luther did good things. He was, however, no matter how much good he did, a terrible person. Which doesn't make him non-Christian, and doesn't say a thing about his ideas. But it is the truth, and he absolutely cannot be a hero with the things he said about the Jewish people, and the actions he advocated.

And that's all I have to say in my defense. Now as I said, I will defer to your authority as a mod, and refrain from making those statements in the future.

[Midori]

Okay, that makes sense. I haven't studied a lot of history so I believe what you and Peanut say. I didn't want to reject your opinions, I just wanted to avoid a fight, so thanks for your cooperation.

With all this posting I haven't given a hero yet, have I? Has anybody mention Ada Lovelace yet? If she were a man she'd be called the father of computer programming. She programmed computers even before computers existed.

[Yamamaya]

George Washington was the only Founding Father who released his slaves upon his death as far as I know. Thanks for mentioning that FishandChips. It's a sadly little known historical fact. The U.S. came very close to becoming a monarchy.

If you look at slavery in the early years, you'll find that racism wasn't that rampant. Many white indentured servants(which basically was slavery) and black slaves were in the same boat. It wasn't uncommon for white servants and black slaves to marry. Many of them revolted against their masters together.

It was the government that outlawed interracial relationships. And slowly slaves began to replace all the indentured servants.

Martin Luther, from what I know about him, was smart but he was very rash and had a large temper. He used to advocate peace towards the Jews because of the harsh treatment the Catholics had given them. He thought that once the Jews received a different example of Christianity they would quickly convert. So he debated a few of them and his plans backfired. They didn't convert.

So then ole Luther went all rage guy and advocated burning down Synagogues. Yes, Luther was indeed racist. However, I'm not going to dismiss him or his ideas entirely for that reason.

Kudos to Ghandi. The man was a true hero. One of the few people to stand up for peace and justice.

Bartolomé de las Casas. A Spanish priest who stood up for the natives of the Americas in the face of immense Spanish cruelty.

A quote, "Tell me by what right of justice do you hold these Indians in such a cruel and horrible servitude? On what authority have you waged such detestable wars against these people who dealt quietly and peacefully on their own lands? Wars in which you have destroyed such an infinite number of them by homicides and slaughters never heard of before. Why do you keep them so oppressed and exhausted, without giving them enough to eat or curing them of the sicknesses they incur from the excessive labor you give them, and they die, or rather you kill them, in order to extract and acquire gold every day."

[Nate]

Kudos to Ghandi. The man was a true hero. One of the few people to stand up for peace and justice.

Completely agreed, even if I don't agree with all his views. But he's definitely one of the greatest men to have ever lived.

I'd like to mention Buzz Aldrin. Second guy to walk on the moon. The only reason I qualify him as a hero is because some guy who's famous for being a major figure in the moon landing hoax movement confronted Buzz Aldrin and called him a liar, a coward, and a thief. Buzz Aldrin's response was to punch the dude in the face.

[Jingo Jaden]

I do consider Gandhi to be a hero. I do also consider him, however, to be a mixture of cold and calculative as well as unrelentingly naive, if not the latter, then more to the former. This is mainly due to him not seeing the writing on the wall and the end game of his 'and more importantly, the not so non-violent Indian congress party which undermined the British far more than history likes to tell' which resulted in two nuclear powers engaged in a never ending hostility towards each other. Diminishing British influence in a time where the world needed Brittan the most does not add a plus in my book, even if it was indeed heroic.

On the flop side, I consider many more warlike rulers to be indeed heroic in a different sense. Charlemagne, Charles Martel, Constantine, Churchill, Pepin the short, Alfred the Great, Napoleon and Cyrus the great. Most who shaped core foundations of Europe which would have a dramatic influence on what was to become or would be the apply named new world.

Then there are those that advanced human worth. Gandhi goes into this category, as does Maximilian Kolbe, Martin Luther King Jr, Martin Luther, Cyrus the great once again, Martin Luther might become an oxymoron due to his late developments in this sense, but he is among the most influential humans that have ever lived and his heritage to the world brought more good than bad in my book. I am probably leaving a ton of people out of this list, but I am also fairly lazy today.

Yeah, looking at my list, evidently lazy.

[Nate]

I don't think Gandhi was cold and calculative, just really committed to his cause, even if to extreme ends. For example, his advice to the Jewish people during WWII that they should either willingly give themselves up to the Nazis or commit mass suicide. That's...pretty out there, and I don't agree with that. But overall, I think he was pretty solid.

[Jingo Jaden]

I don't think Gandhi was cold and calculative, just really committed to his cause, even if to extreme ends. For example, his advice to the Jewish people during WWII that they should either willingly give themselves up to the Nazis or commit mass suicide. That's...pretty out there, and I don't agree with that. But overall, I think he was pretty solid.

Well, to put it like this. His protests were quite often directed in ways that would strategically damage the British standings in financial terms. The salt tax was one example where he later called off his peaceful protest after negotiations with the English, and the all important salt harvest protest was probably what sealed the deal for India's independence.

I do think Gandhi in nearly every sense is pacifistic. I do believe he thinks good 'in his mind being nothing less than always peaceful' would ultimately triumph over whatever opponents it may have. But there are many points that can be raised against him. Obviously, calling Hitler his dear friend in a couple of letters was only done to try to influence him, but the nazi's also had an invested interest in India's independence and had groups trying to assist in the independence up rise. Although Gandhi said some negative things about the Indian Congress party, he did not do nearly enough to deteriorate them from their violent bid for independence, which, all damage calculated in the end, was probably a much more significant factor to India's independence than Gandhi's protest and popularity. He was against violence in all forms, but overall, much of it was directed in a way that allowed him to achieve his goals.

A second criticism could be said that while he had an invested interest in the Muslim/Hindu relations, and close ties to the one who would later aid in the creation of Pakistan and the coming forced moving of Hindu/Muslim populations. I would severely doubt that he had no indications that this would be the end result as there was bound to be some nationalistic backlash after the semi-secular British Government was out of the equation. Now, he had another starvation protest which was pretty successful after a couple of massacres, but India/Pakistan relations never really got along. So I ask myself, if Gandhi knew what would happen once Brittan was out of the equation, would he still have done the same thing? I doubt I will get an answer to that, after all, he did lead a hunger-protest after a single British officer was killed so there is no doubting his determination and love for individuals not on his own side.

His positions on the Jews are probably the biggest low-point of his overall reasoning. It reminds me of Jim Jones, albeit Jim did it forcefully.

And, in the end, just imagine if it was a Muslim extremist that killed Gandhi and not a Hindu extremist. It would have been, without any reasonable doubt a call for war. Not because he would desire it, but because that's the human reality.

Overall, I admire much about Gandhi and don't completely buy into the image which he is portrayed with in this modern age, but, overall on the most negative, and even though he directly criticized the Nazi Empire, although, was quite quiet on the Nazi groups aiding the independence movement. Gandhi would at the end be one of Nazi Germany's great benefactors. Little was done that damaged them, a great deal was done which damaged Brittan due to his actions. Even if they were directed in a morally reasonable way. The end game, would his peaceful resistance be adopted by the western nations would be an Italian Africa, a Japanese Imperial Asia and a German Europe. Oh, and peaceful protesting really did not work on such autocratic societies.

So yeah. Calculative and/or extremely naive. I don't doubt his intentions, love or sincerity. I just think he was very directed and strategic in the way he formed his legend. He demanded that his followers would suffer, and indeed, if required, die for the cause, so I am not sure where he stands with the idea of collateral.

[Yamamaya]

The British Empire was still little more than an imperialistic giant. To argue that Gandhi should not have resisted against the British due to the importance of England in world events at that time is imo unrealistic to ask of anyone. Try telling that to India. "You've been oppressed and your citizens have been reduced to second class status but you really shouldn't revolt against your imperial masters because we need them right now to fight Nazis."


Gandhi did not force anyone to follow him. He simply told them what would be required of them if they did decide to follow him.

I don't think acting in a strategic way is the same as acting in a cold or calculative way.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Yeah, JM. I'm gonna have to totally disagree with you. Even if he was willingly naive, there is no problem with that.

And I agree with Yamamaya.

On a further note, MLK. His letter from Brimingham Jail is PHENOMENAL. That man is both so charismatic and educated.

Also, Bonhoeffer, Barth, and of course my favorite: Soren Kierkegaard.

[Jingo Jaden]

The British Empire was still little more than an imperialistic giant. To argue that Gandhi should not have resisted against the British due to the importance of England in world events at that time is imo unrealistic to ask of anyone. Try telling that to India. "You've been oppressed and your citizens have been reduced to second class status but you really shouldn't revolt against your imperial masters because we need them right now to fight Nazis."

The result of said revolt could have lead to Japanese Imperial domination over India. Try imagine how much less of a second class the citizens would be treated then. The British Empire was indeed the definition of an Imperialistic Giant, but you know what, they had many, many opportunities to kill Gandhi even during his rise of fame days, where it would not have sparked outrage and he appeared on their radar quite early due to the burning of British Passports. Trust me, due to the caste system it was not heaven before the Brits arrived either as far as rights were concerned. A more typical autocratic society would have shot Gandhi, no questions asked, and it would likely have been the end of the story. The Brits also largely was an adaptive society, which adapted better conditions towards it's possessions over time even with the classes of citizenry. Gandhi did speed this up, and that was a great thing, but the independence element and the Muslim/Hindu divide that followed caused a great more harm than what the semi-secular British government did as far as loss of life is concerned. So no, based on the threat of world domination from autocratic societies, friction likely to cause massive internal damage within said nations and even lead to war.

The most desirable agreement I've could have imagined would be an abolition of the citizen classes as well as the formal caste system which would have reached the negotiation tables before the independence demand itself, but no, Gandhi knew what effects the Indian Congress party had, what the nazi influence had and indeed much of what was going on in the world map. My question is what did he know about the Hindu/Muslim divide in the nation, because, if he knew how great it was, and what effect independence would bring, then there is no way he could ignore the likely results of lifting the British Government which indeed took place.

Gandhi did not force anyone to follow him. He simply told them what would be required of them if they did decide to follow him.

Indeed, and that was never part of my criticism of him. He never forced anyone to do anything, and gave a great deal of power to those that would be his enemies.

I don't think acting in a strategic way is the same as acting in a cold or calculative way.

Not required surely, but there are many factions where Gandhi's name and knowledge has been phased out. I, for one, see this as vital to get an overall view of just what kind of person he was. We all know his dedication and his love for man, but what I don't know is his relation, or his level of anticipation for collateral, as all actions have a reaction. I'd love him to be hopelessly naive rather than cold and calculative, but with all the factors in play, it's probably one or the other.

Now, the end result was neither the best nor the worst as far as I see it, and it's probably really easy for someone like me to bring in all these factors when Gandhi was out doing remarkable things. Heck, my grand father fought in WWII and much of my home nation got sacked near the end-game. The times demanded a Churchill more than they demanded a Gandhi, fortune has it that the former had an overall more impact than the latter, because, if the latter had, intentions aside, I think it is fair to point out that the suffering not only the Indian people, but much of Africa and Europe would get would be boundless in comparison to what it became with the majority of the honor going to Churchill.

I hate playing the devil's advocate with great names in play. I do think it's possible to be thoroughly virtuous, but horribly wrong or even extremely calculative as far as realistic approaches are concerned. It depends on ones relation with collateral once again, and I don't know, all I know is despite much great stuff occurring, a lot of horrible, and risky elements remain un-debated.

[armeck]

it would be cool if one day i was viewed as a hero

[That Dude]

There have been quite a few already said, but I'll recycle some and add some more.

El Cid - This dude led and army and won a war when he was dead! He had them preserve his body and dress it up in his best armor and tie him to a horse and him and his force were so imposing it demoralized the other army.

John Calvin - Instrumental in the reformation, which the reformation laid the foundation for much of what we consider to be great about our culture nowadays.

Nikola Tesla - Freakin' brilliant scientist and inventor, probably one of the smartest people of all time.

Deitrich BonHoeffer - 'Nuff said.

Francis Scheaffer - Probably the greatest christian thinker of the last century.

Miyomoto Musashi - One of the greatest swordsmen of all time.

Jonathan Edwards - Great theologian and pastor, also said by many to be the greatest philosopher America has ever produced.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon - Known as the "prince of preachers" one of the most influential and great christian figures in all of history.

St Augustine - Some have said he is the greatest theologian of all time. His works on theology and philosophy still shape modern thought and our considered to be some of the most important works of all time by christians and secularists alike.

There are quite a few more, but I can't think of many more right now...

[armeck]

george washington carver, because he invented peanut butter