So let it be with Caesar?
Is it true that we do not posthumously celebrate philanthropy as much as we denounce/celebrate evil? Hitler versus Mother Teresa? Can you name a late philanthropist for every Jack the ripper, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Husein, Gadaffi, Guy Fawkes and so on? Do we know of any good that any of these men did? They must have done some good, they were human.
All the Yes points:
All the No points:
I can’t find anything good that Hitler did or could have done
“Leader of the Third Reich Adolf Hitler was not only a bloodthirsty tyrant, but suffered from many diseases. About this in the recently released book titled “Was Hitler is sick?” writes historian Heinrich Eberle and physician clinics Charity home in Berlin, Hans-Joachim Neumann.
The authors presented a complete medical history of the man who unleashed World War II and the Holocaust in the name of racist delusional ideas about the superiority of the Aryans, wrote La Repubblica.”- [[http://socyberty.com/history/hitler-was-a-drug-addict-and-suffered-from-many-diseases/#ixzz1e45oS2qR”]]
The man was pretty popular among the Nazis and the Aryan Germans, he couldn’t have been all bad?
[[http://www.google.com.pk/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=hitler+philanthropy]] Not a good word about him.
Maybe Google has blocked Neo Nazi blogs and other such media. [[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1180599/Neo-Nazis-attack-concentration-camp-survivors-memorial-service-345-000-dead.html]]
Proponents of Hitler and whatever good he may have done(I’ll never know) do exist, so it is not forgotten.
All the more disturbing is how acceptable calling people ‘Yids’ is in football and in life. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_(number)]]
Saddam Hussein a Misunderstood Philanthropist?
”Wow Katie! At first it is hard to believe that anyone could see Saddam Hussein in that way. On the other hand, he did build a new town for these people after their town was destroyed, so to them he was certainly a hero. It makes me think of our own tendancies to put entertainment icons up on a pedistal and then feel shocked when we learn of their moral failings”
“I read an article many years ago about this village in Sri Lanka, who named their village after Saddam Hussein. The villagers hung pictures in their living rooms, and named there kids after him. My mind was blown away while reading this article. “-[[http://goo.gl/GRxL4]]
“According to this article, Saddam Hussein donated nearly a half-million dollars to a Detroit Catholic church in 1980 and was awarded with the key to the city. I wonder if they’ve changed the locks”-
“In this video, John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, reveals that Saddam Hussein had been sent by the CIA to assassinate Qassim because they didn’t like very much that Qassim, like Hugo Chavez today, promised the Oil Revenue would have to be returned to the Irakian People.”- [[http://goo.gl/6p0M7]]
But that is not how Saddam is remembered. Generally and ubiquitously he was a Kurdish killing evil dictator hanged for his crimes against humanity. Even though US has labelled the “Kurdistan Workers Party”(The same Kurds that Saddam massacred) terrorists and has no objection to Iran or America attacking Kurds. [[http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=56751]]
An Australian government document on Kurd terror.- [[http://goo.gl/WKvqG]]
The point on the right lands in favor of the left, the good that Saddam did is interred with his bones and his sins live on.
OBL, the philanthropist?
A book has been written banking on the death of the world’s most famous modern terrorist, seeing his actions as an act of philanthropy, working towards a cause that he believed and got other people to believe was good. Certainly, the good is remembered even with the most prominent totems of the diabolical. [[http://www.philanthrocapitalism.net/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-philanthropist/]]
“First of all, Osama bin-Laden had plenty of cash – inheriting a pile from his father’s construction business and growing it through shrewd investments, according to the BBC obituary.
Second, in common with politically-focused philanthropists from George Soros to David Koch, he was a rich man using his fortune to try to bring about his personal vision of a better world. (A vision, lest we forget, that briefly overlapped to a degree with the West’s when he was fighting to eject Soviet forces from Afghanistan in the 1980s.) Bin-Laden’s approach was described as “revolutionary philanthropy” in 2003 by Bruce Hoffman of the RAND Corporation in a fascinating article in The Atlantic , “The Leadership Secrets of Osama bin-Laden”. This included supporting conventional acts of charity, such as providing humanitarian assistance after last year’s floods in Pakistan. And, according to Hoffman, it also included “arms, material, and other assistance in order to further the cause of global jihad.”
Third, as Hoffman pointed out, this “revolutionary philanthropy” was very much results oriented: “Such philanthropy is designed not only to harness the energy of geographically scattered, disparate movements but also to ensure that al Qaeda operatives can, in turn, call on these local groups for logistical services and manpower.”
Even the terroristic killing of thousands of innocent civilians was justified on a “what works” basis, according to Hoffman: because, he believed, “the United States cannot bear the pain or the losses inflicted by terrorist attacks”, “In bin-Laden’s view, terrorism against the United States – and allied Western countries – therefore works.” We can only hope that the killing of bin-Laden will be taken as evidence that, in fact, terrorism does not work.”
What is remembered is that he was a merciless killer, who produced other merciless killers. The questions of course is whether we’re okay with merciless killing. A recent example would be the murder of Osama bin Laden. “Threats to rich countries, like those from bin-Laden, are relentlessly pursued, while the Joseph Konys of this world, whose victims are largely in poor countries, largely provoke UN resolutions that proclaim something must be done without providing the resources to make that happen?”
“Private armies, provided by companies such as Blackwater (now Xe Services), are increasingly used by governments and multilateral agencies; should the likes of Bill Gates make use of their services, too, on behalf of the poor?
These questions have taken us a long way from that merciless killer of civilians, bin-Laden, who in the end did the opposite of the true meaning of philanthropy, which is the love of humanity. Yet it troubles us that we cannot dismiss them all out of hand, though we think they are at best premature as a justification for action. One part of our vision of the world is that it should be governed by states that enjoy a monopoly of violence, and use that monopoly sparingly.”- [[http://www.philanthrocapitalism.net/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-philanthropist/]]
A word from the economic hitman. [[http://goo.gl/DAVmC]]
Either way, once demonized by superpowers, his actions and the mass media, his death leaves him remembered as Evil and whatever good he may have had in him is forgotten or taboo.
We would love to hear what you think – please leave a comment!
The quote itself is pure irony and should never be quoted out of context. Anthony did not believe Brutus was honorable. He did not think Caesar was ambitious. Anyone who reads the entire speech of Anthony will realize that what Shakespeare really meant is that people will be remembered for their good and not for their evil. Caesar will be remembered for the 75 drachmas he left to each citizen and the property he bequeathed to the public and the great conquests he made for Rome. The speech of Anthony which was full of irony, enraged the people to support Anthony and demand the punishment of Brutus.
Caesar himself is the best example for the “nays”. Today, 2,000 years later, few think of Julius Caesar as a tyrant or one who rained terror and suffering on the known world. Caesar is remembered for establishing the greatness of what is Rome – for the good he did which lived long after him.