Whom do you admire?

For discussion of philosophy, religion, spirituality, or any topic that posters wish to approach from a spiritual or religious perspective.
Post Reply
User avatar
Griffon64
Posts: 3724
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 6:02 am

Post by Griffon64 »

Aravar wrote:14. Nelson Mandela - No, I'm afraid a terrorist is a terrorist. Although I do respect his magnanimity since release.
Ouch! :shock:

Even though Nelson Mandela did co-ordinate Umkhonto we Sizwe, he later acknowledged that the ANC also violated human rights with its struggle tactics, even when some within his own party didn't want to acknowledge it.

And that is admirable, from my point of view. Most world leaders do not have the courage, or humility, or perspective, or whatever else you wish to call it, to admit to mistakes made in the past.

If we never forgive the past of others, can we as a human race move forward? I remember making a post about this topic in the Bush thread somewhere. I don't want to retype everything now ;) I'd just say that I strongly disagree with statements of the form of "No, I'm afraid a terrorist is a terrorist". I believe people can change, and I believe that redemption is possible and that forgiveness is best extended to everybody who have shown that they have moved beyond whatever past deeds neccesitated forgiveness ( I'm talking in general now, not about Mandela in particular ). People can and do change.

Anyway, back to the regular scheduled chat about the US, I believe we have at present? :D
User avatar
vison
Best friends forever
Posts: 11961
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:33 pm
Location: Over there.

Post by vison »

Jeez. I didn't realize that the loss of the American colonies was still such a sore point to some folks in Great Britain. :(
Dig deeper.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

If it hadn't happened most of the U.S. West Coast would probably be part of Mexico. You could go to Mexico for the afternoon, vison. I don't know if I'd be there, but if I was, I'd be speaking Spanish. I wonder what Puget Sound would be called instead of Puget Sound?

Mexico might be a world power.

The Germans might have won World War I.

So (zeroing in) LotR might never have been written. :shock:
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
superwizard
Ingólemo
Posts: 866
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:21 am

Post by superwizard »

Primula Baggins wrote:If it hadn't happened most of the U.S. West Coast would probably be part of Mexico. You could go to Mexico for the afternoon, vison. I don't know if I'd be there, but if I was, I'd be speaking Spanish. I wonder what Puget Sound would be called instead of Puget Sound?

Mexico might be a world power.

The Germans might have won World War I.

So (zeroing in) LotR might never have been written. :shock:
Well you sure know you're in a Tolkien Forum when people consider the worst thing that can happen is LOTR not being written :rofl:
Aravar
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:15 pm

Post by Aravar »

Primula Baggins wrote:This truly puzzles me. The what who? Where? Are you talking about fringe racist organizations? There is certainly no mainstream group that does either one. In the years after the war there was a lot of popular fiction sentimentalizing the war, including (as a late example) GONE WITH THE WIND, but no one buys that as an attempt to depict history.
To be honest I think it is the Southern cause which is still senimentalised and glorified even in modern films. In the past 20 years only Glory is unequivocally pro-Union, Gettysburg is IMO generally pro-South, Gods and Generals certainly is pro-South, Ride With the Devil is too.
Griffon64 wrote:
Aravar wrote:14. Nelson Mandela - No, I'm afraid a terrorist is a terrorist. Although I do respect his magnanimity since release.
Ouch! :shock:

Even though Nelson Mandela did co-ordinate Umkhonto we Sizwe, he later acknowledged that the ANC also violated human rights with its struggle tactics, even when some within his own party didn't want to acknowledge it.

And that is admirable, from my point of view. Most world leaders do not have the courage, or humility, or perspective, or whatever else you wish to call it, to admit to mistakes made in the past.

If we never forgive the past of others, can we as a human race move forward? I remember making a post about this topic in the Bush thread somewhere. I don't want to retype everything now ;) I'd just say that I strongly disagree with statements of the form of "No, I'm afraid a terrorist is a terrorist". I believe people can change, and I believe that redemption is possible and that forgiveness is best extended to everybody who have shown that they have moved beyond whatever past deeds neccesitated forgiveness ( I'm talking in general now, not about Mandela in particular ). People can and do change.
That's precisely why I added the caveat about his magnanimity since release. However, it's the conduct that put him in prison and, the conduct of the ANC which is the reason why he would not be in my top 20.
vison wrote:Jeez. I didn't realize that the loss of the American colonies was still such a sore point to some folks in Great Britain. :(
I'm still plotting to return them to the lawful subjugation of the Crown ;) I was thinking of you perhaps, for Governor-General.
ToshoftheWuffingas
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:34 pm

Post by ToshoftheWuffingas »

Don't forget either that although the British government at the time was mildly pro-South for reasons of realpolitik, a settled policy of encouraging independence movements throughout the 19th century and perhaps a little fellow feeling for aristocratic landowners, the Lancashire working class cotton workers starved themselves rather than handle Southern cotton.
As to our attitude to losing the colonies, it is mainly a subject of good natured ribbing. Even at the time many prominent and influential British politicians supported the colonists, both before the insurgency ;) and during it. What we look askance at is the portrayal of British rule as tyranny. Useful for propaganda at the time but however unwelcome it was it could in no way be called a tyranny.
Aravar
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:15 pm

Post by Aravar »

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:Don't forget either that although the British government at the time was mildly pro-South for reasons of realpolitik, a settled policy of encouraging independence movements throughout the 19th century and perhaps a little fellow feeling for aristocratic landowners, the Lancashire working class cotton workers starved themselves rather than handle Southern cotton.
As to our attitude to losing the colonies, it is mainly a subject of good natured ribbing. Even at the time many prominent and influential British politicians supported the colonists, both before the insurgency ;) and during it. What we look askance at is the portrayal of British rule as tyranny. Useful for propaganda at the time but however unwelcome it was it could in no way be called a tyranny.
Hear Hear.

There's a big statue of Abe in Lincoln Square in Manchester which refers to the actions of the mill workers.
User avatar
Inanna
Meetu's little sister
Posts: 17773
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:03 pm

Post by Inanna »

What we look askance at is the portrayal of British rule as tyranny. Useful for propaganda at the time but however unwelcome it was it could in no way be called a tyranny.
It was tyranny in India. NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT!!!
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
User avatar
Alatar
of Vinyamar
Posts: 10662
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Post by Alatar »

And in Ireland.
Image
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

*is ignorant about too many things*

How long ago did the Irish tyranny end?
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
Alatar
of Vinyamar
Posts: 10662
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Post by Alatar »

Well some would claim it still continues, but most people date the beginning of Irish freedom to the declaration of the Rebublic on Easter Sunday 1916. The signing of the treaty didn't happen till 1921.

Historians generally date Irish independence (for the 26 counties) from 1 April 1922 (transfer of executive power under the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, signed between Irish delegates and the British government after the Anglo-Irish War, forming the Irish Free State) and 6 December 1922 (transfer of legislative power) rather than from the 1916 Rising. The Irish Free State existed until 1937 when Bunreacht na hÉireann (the Irish constitution) was introduced, renaming the country "Ireland". At this stage Ireland was a Republic in everything but name. In 1949 the Oireachtas officially declared Ireland to be a Republic.
Image
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
User avatar
vison
Best friends forever
Posts: 11961
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:33 pm
Location: Over there.

Post by vison »

Aravar wrote:I'm still plotting to return them to the lawful subjugation of the Crown I was thinking of you perhaps, for Governor-General.
I shall go to the shops today for some appropriate frocks. Perhaps a hat or two, in the Queen Mother style? Would that be suitable?

For the Official Residence, I think it would be best to divide the area into four: I could have the Chateau Frontenac in Quebec for my Quebec residence. I could have the Chateau Whistler for my Western Residence. The Biltmore Estate would do nicely for the Southern bit, and a wee pied a terre in New York City (perhaps a duplex overlooking Central Park?) would be excessively nifty.

You will note that with the exception of Quebec City I avoid all political centres and the terribly boring sorta crap that goes on there. Since my position is that of a stately and majestic figure representing the English Crown, I think it is best that I remain above the fray.

Awaiting with bated breath your announcement from the Seat of Power, I remain your humble servant and yrs. truly, etc., etc.

PS: I wonder if my husband would wear a uniform all over gold braid? If he won't, well, off with his head and I'll find one who will. =:)
Dig deeper.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

How's he gonna like being a Prince Consort?

Or perhaps you can simply fob off a dukedom on him. There should be plenty of duchies with all of North America to draw on.

I look forward to your progress through Portland. I shall wave loyally and hope you wave back.

(Another plus I just thought of: all those poor Hollywood people with British honors mouldering away will finally be able to use them.)
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
Angbasdil
The man, the myth, the monkey.
Posts: 606
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:37 am
Location: Woodstock GA

Post by Angbasdil »

Well, I hate to get all on-topic and stuff, but I haven't had a chance to comment since I asked vison to expound back on page one, and it would be rude of me not to respond. So I hope it's not a huge faux pas if I address the original topic of this thread.;)

I understand why some have problems with Mother Theresa's position on certain issues. I have the same problems on pretty much the same issues. But I very much respect and admire how she put what she did believe into practice at great personal cost. Yes, I admire how Bill Gates has poured so much of his personal fortune into helping the impoverished, but how much has that cost him really? He's still got acoupla bazillion dollars left. He could give away 95% of his money and still have more money than all of us here put together. Mother Theresa, in contrast, lived in poverty, as one of the people she was helping. Although I disagree with many of her beliefs, I admire her as someone who lived what she believed. And that belief of service and self-sacrifice just happens to be the part of our Christian faith that I think is the most important and the most often ignored. So, for me, the good far outweighs the bad.

Of course, you can pick at anyone and find something wrong with them. That's because they're all human and therefore imperfect. that's why we Christians are not supposed to put our faith in people, but in God. People eventually screw up . It's inevitable.
So I guess my list of people I admire would start with Jesus and then there's this great big dropoff down to number 2. :D

Also on the list, in no particular order:

Mother Theresa
FDR
Billy Graham
MLK
Lech Walesa
That Chinese dude who stood in front of the tank in Tienimen Square
M. Scott Peck
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46574
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Thanks for getting things back on course, Ang. I for one appreciate it.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
axordil
Pleasantly Twisted
Posts: 8999
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
Contact:

Post by axordil »

Ang--

Well, do we "grade" on the curve then? It's quite likely that Bill Gates' work will help more people in a year than Mother Teresa's did in her lifetime. Does the fact that he doesn't have to list lice as dependents on his income taxes mean that somehow doesn't count?

Not to mention the fact that someone living out their beliefs is very attractive...so long as we buy into the beliefs. I can think of any number of people in history who lived and died for beliefs that we now judge ill-advised at best. They were just as sincere as MT...just not very nice. Since there are aspects of MT's beliefs I find reprehensible, her living for them doesn't do much for me, I'm afraid.

I'm not knocking ya. I'm just pointing out that there are any number of grounds for admiring people, and some end up being mutually exclusive. I don't think less of people because they don't agree with me. Well, if I like them. ;)

There's a local minister in St. Louis who spends most of his life feeding and housing the homeless and the poor, AND who lobbies the city, state and Feds to do effective things about helping them get out of their current condition. Now THAT's an admirable combination.
User avatar
Angbasdil
The man, the myth, the monkey.
Posts: 606
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:37 am
Location: Woodstock GA

Post by Angbasdil »

As a pragmatist, I have to agree that Gates' work has had a larger impact on the world than MT's. But that's not the question at hand, is it? "Admiration" is largely an emotional response. And someone who lives in poverty to help the impoverished is just more inspirational than someone who spends a couple of decades ruthlessly squashing any and all economic competitors so that he can completely rule his industry, becoming the wealthiest person ever in the process, and then decides to spend a few billions (which he'll never miss) to help the less fortunate.
If we were grading effectiveness Gates would win hands down. But is he more admirable? Not to me. Maybe I'm biased from years of seeing Microsoft as the Evil Empire, but it feels like he's hit his midlife crisis, figured out that he's not immortal, and now he's trying to buy back a portion of his soul. :D
Not to mention the fact that someone living out their beliefs is very attractive...so long as we buy into the beliefs. I can think of any number of people in history who lived and died for beliefs that we now judge ill-advised at best. They were just as sincere as MT...just not very nice. Since there are aspects of MT's beliefs I find reprehensible, her living for them doesn't do much for me, I'm afraid.
I have absolutely no problem admitting that I only admire people who live out their beliefs when those beliefs are also my own. I'm sure Hitler was living out his beliefs, as were a lot of the Crusaders, the genocidal Manifest Destiny people in our American history, and a lot of the neocons currently in power in DC today. History is full of megalomaniacs who sincerely believed they were destined to rule the world and sincerely put that belief into action. So yeah, I filter all of that through my own personal belief system.
As for MT, it's that whole helping the poor thing that keeps coming back around for me. It often feels that my faith has been hijacked by people who want everyone to think that Christianity is about voting Republican, outlawing abortion and discriminating against gays. But the most important thing in that great big book they wave around is all that stuff about loving your neighbor and helping those less fortunate. Somehow, these self-proclaimed spokespeople never get around to talking about that.
MT didn't just talk about it, she lived it. So I personally can overlook the other.
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

Working hard to accomplish an admirable goal is an admirable trait. Though I personally have nothing against Bill Gates, he didn't work hard for a particularly admirable goal. Mother Teresa did.

It reminds me of that Bible story where Jesus sees some rich guys showing off by giving huge quantaties as offering, and then this dirt poor widow (I think) gives pretty much everything she has as an offering. Jesus calls out the rich dudes and praises the poor widow.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
Lurker
Crazy Canuck
Posts: 1013
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:50 am
Location: Land of Beer and Hockey

Post by Lurker »

Ang said it best that nobody's perfect, we're only human.

Mother Teresa led by example.
Do we measure poverty by material things? Why is it that the happiest people in the world could be found in a remote region of Mongolia. They're living in poverty by our standards, heck, the families living in that area might even have a dozen children each, who makes their living through farming root crop and herding sheep, living in bamboo houses etc.... Living in poverty is not bad in my opinion, just as long as your needs in life are being met and you are happy.
Primula Baggins wrote:Lurker, just because a reprehensible belief was a common one does not make it any less reprehensible. Ford's contributions to disseminating anti-Semitic literature in the United States could have contributed to weakening our response to the Holocaust and indirectly to the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent people.
I agree that just because a reprehensible belief is a common one doesn't make it less reprehensible. Then I ask you this? How many US presidents own slaves? Owning slaves is a human rights violation nowadays and yet even now people admire those Presidents who owns them back when it was allowed. Same thing with Ford, we can't entirely blame him for contributing to the weakening of the response to the Holocaust, cause even the people in their own homes back then were racists, if that literature wasn't accepted in those days people won't be buying his newspaper. Even smart people can be stupid sometimes you know. Plus the fact, I remember a prof in business school saying that he allowed that literature to be published because the "white" businessmen where in direct/indirect competition with the Jewish businessmen back then.

(Again, I'm not anti-semetic, just stating a few facts.)
As for the other issue, where women control their child-bearing, most have fewer children. The children have a better chance of being nourished well and educated. The women themselves also have more opportunities to become educated and to contribute to the support of their families (and support themselves when they're widowed). None of this is a bad thing. Westerners are not imposing mandatory contraception on the Third World; in fact, current U.S. policy is basically undermining the effort to even offer it.
Yes, I agree with you but if you go to countries like India, the Middle East etc... it's difficult to "market" birth control pills when what you are selling violates their religion and culture. Even the Catholic Church has been educating families with regards to natural birth control in this particular countries, yet people don't seem to buy that. Plus the fact, most of these people live in farming communities where children are needed to help in the farms. It's not like here in North America where you hire ranch hands, there it's a family thing.
Oh, and overpopulation is a problem. Technology lets us squeeze more and more out of the planet, but for what kind of life? The carrying capacity of the Earth is not infinite. It's not even that far away.
No, overpopulation is not a problem if people are not greedy. It ties in with what we are doing to our enviroment. In fact, China and India are becoming one of the sought after outsourcing countries in the world because of their population. People is what makes a nation sucessful.
“Lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.” - Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832)
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46574
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Lurker, I'm trying to find words to respond to your defense of Henry Ford, but I'm afraid I am failing miserably. I'll just say that I find it amazing that any thinking person would find him admirable, and leave it at that. The man was probably the biggest anti-Semite in the history of America, and he was rewarded for his "intellectual" and financial contributions to the Nazis by being given, in 1938, Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle. Ford was the first American and the fourth person in the world to receive this medal, which was the highest decoration that could be given to any non-German citizen. Benito Mussolini, another of Hitler's financiers, had been decorated with the same honor earlier that year.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Post Reply