Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AloofCommencement t1_j6mcj66 wrote

Reply to comment by Jason_CO in TIL that between 1895 and 1908 the population of the Belgian Congo declined by between 2 and 13 million due to colonial brutality and diseases caused by colonialism. by hetkleinezusje

A redeeming quality isn't something that completely negates all negative actions. It's merely a point in the "Good" column.

What made you think that the commenter was trying to convey that a love of animals counts as redemption for what he did? Even without a definition it's pretty easy to pick up the point being made.

9

Jason_CO t1_j6n947w wrote

I got the point, I just think a different word would have served better.

1

1945BestYear t1_j6miv7x wrote

I would've defined "redeeming" as specifically not being a mere point in the good column, there has to be a relationship between it and the person's bad qualities. If you redeem a debt, you are paying it back, you are "making it good", it's not as if the debt you owe is redeemed if other people are also indebted to you.

If you want to see any quality in Hitler that could barely, arguably be categorized as "redeeming" in the light of his monstrous crimes, then it would be that he had a, very limited and specific, idea of "the German People" that he thought he was leading to a better future in a world he considered to be one of unending racial conflict. That's something at least, "As big as I am, the People is even bigger than me", we can agree that Hitler was wrong and also say that he subscribed to propositions that at least make it understandable why he'd consider himself a selfless hero. Leopold didn't even have that, he owned the Congo as his personal estate, legally the Belgian people and government had nothing to do with it, and he was under no obligation to enrich them or anybody else for it, it literally just existed only to make Leopold, already the constitutional monarch of a nation, even more rich and powerful.

−1

AloofCommencement t1_j6mmgo3 wrote

There seem to be mixed opinions on what redeeming qualities are, and even this page contradicts itself by following its definition with usage examples that do not completely redeem a person. The examples show insufficiently redeeming qualities still being redeeming qualities, and I think whether or not that counts is what it comes down to.

I've always understood redeeming qualities to be positive traits, not necessarily ones that completely redeem. Things that shift the balance, if only the tiniest amount, from "bad" to "good". In this context, Adolf Hitler vs Leopold as people is the subject so I would think any positive attribute counts.

To circle back round to the original point of why I commented, we're talking about a race to the bottom where the usual contender for "Worst person ever" has slightly more in his favour than Leopold: the lesser known but in /u/Yardsale420's opinion arguably worse person. I would absolutely include your point of better intent, too. At least he thought he was doing something for the greater good in his twisted mind. Replies ignored everything and cherrypicked "Dogs mean Hitler was an upstanding citizen on balance", which is a gross misrepresentation even if you disagree with a definition.

5

1945BestYear t1_j6mphql wrote

Yeah, that's fair. "Redeem" is just one of those words you have to lock down a very specific and explained meaning if you're going to use it in an argument. Under the meaning that I use, I think it's defensible to consider Leopold the worse person, he did things that earn him the infamy of the world just because he wanted money and land over which he could rule as a true despot. Under your meaning, which admits that any positive qualities of either could be counted just to merely register against their evil, I don't know enough about Leopold as a person to measure against the slightly more that I know about Hitler as a person. I'm sure Leopold would have to have had something, maybe he liked playing with his grandchildren, or he washed his hands after going to the toilet, or maybe he was just charming and interesting in conversation (apparently Hitler, for all his regarded charisma on the speaker's podium, was usually kinda awkward and even dull if you had to talk to him, people who met him who weren't committed Nazis seemed to often find him disappointing next to his reputation).

3

AloofCommencement t1_j6mrx8o wrote

That's a good point. Really it's a comparison of public profiles, and that's not exactly the gold standard of usable information. I imagine a certain amount is also gleaned from Mein Kampf, and an elected figure is inherently more public than royalty. Hitler put himself on display, and I imagine Leopold wasn't quite so interested in that.

I didn't know that about Hitler being awkward and dull, that's interesting.

3