Historical Figures: Saints or Sinners?

Christopher Columbus. Abraham Lincoln. Mohandas Gandhi. All of these men, plus thousands more across time, went into the history books and became immortalized. In history class, we often used to hear of the contributions to the subject these people created, and how their lasting impact is still felt today. But were historical figures really heroes? Were the enemies we learned of, like Genghis Khan and Kaiser Wilhelm, really as bad as they say? The problem with history is that it is always written by the "victor"-the group or groups that emerged in history above all the rest. There's an old saying that goes, "You never hear from the prospective of the prey," an incredibly blatant truth that many either choose to ignore or haven't heard of. Both students and teachers of history must understand that everyone, even those from antiquity, aren't perfect, and that it's only human to have some controversial view that others disagree with. However, when history was first being written down, this type of historical figure bias would completely write away the controversies of a "hero" and only focus on the ones of a "villain". It's important now that we be able to look past these inaccurate accounts of the heroes and villains, and see them for who they really are-people involved in things that would later on become significant.

To begin, we'll need a historical figure. Let's go with the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. Nowadays, people know him as "Honest Abe" and the "Emancipator"; the leader of the US who won the Civil War and helped free the slaves and was martyred for it. He's on the $5 dollar bill and 1¢ coin, and most students learn of him as one of the greatest people of all time. Well, Abe was human, too-he had some viewpoints that would effectively rule him out of sainthood. For instance, if you researched into his background, you'd see that he never mentioned getting rid of slavery until his Presidential run; his stints in the Illinois senate and US House never brought up the American issue to history's knowledge. Even when he ran for office, it was the Republican Party, his ticket, who said their mission was to end slavery; when Lincoln was elected and the Confederacy formed, he stated that if he "could win the (Civil) war without freeing a single slave , (he) would do it." Already you can see that his sainthood seems to come from the fact that he authored the Emancipation Proclamation (freeing slaves in the Confederacy, not in the Union, which the Southerners didn't have to follow) and was assassinated by an actor who desperately wanted the South to rise again.
On the other spectrum, General Robert E. Lee was the leader of the Confederate forces; a man so despised by the Union that Arlington Cemetery was built in his front yard. But did you know he was Lincoln's first choice for Union commander? Lee turned him down and left because his home state, Virginia, entered the Confederacy, and he was loyal to home first. In fact, Washington and Lee University is even named after the man, and most historians acknowledge that he was one of the best military commanders of his time. Yet it's still taught that because he was an enemy that he was also a bad guy.

Can you see where this is going? Some historical figures end up having good and bad traits, but depending on which side is telling the story, either one or the other is fully shown. There were obviously good traits to Lincoln (morality) and bad traits to Lee (slave owner), but because the Union won, its only these traits that are taught in history class. Here are a few more examples of historical figures and what history sometimes fails to tell us.

• Genghis Khan: Interconnected Europe, the Middle East, and Asia while simultaneously diffusing culture.
• Henry Ford: Extremely racist and favored the Nazi Party; received medal from them for helping with German production in the 1930's.
• John F. Kennedy: Philanderer and stubborn; planned to make a so-called "Kennedy Dynasty" of Presidents with his brothers Bobby and Ted.
• Oliver Cromwell: Overthrew the King because he ruled an absolute monarchy; tried making English society more equal and just.
• King George III: He was only doing what seemed justifiable to do to revolting colonies; Britain was broke and taxes were raised to help fix the economy. The US does this today without revolt.
• Adolf Hitler: The only exception to this rule; was an all-around horrible person even though he was an okay painter.

Judging the actions of historical figures is necessary when choosing what to teach or discuss about them; were they heroes or villains at the time, but over time have switched? It's not as easy as choosing the good and going from there, because it leads to inaccuracies in historical fact, and could make an idol out of a devil or vice versa. Basically, it's not black and white-no one is inherently good or inherently bad (except Hitler). When learning about historical figures, try focusing on the whole picture rather than a part.

As singer Billy Joel serenaded, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints."

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep