As Hitler is to evil, x is to good

[Colibri]

@Johnny_Bravo

However, I did skim the OP and see that he wants a “symbol” for goodness

It’s usually a good idea to read the OP before trying to answer it…

[Thudlow_Boink]

@ITR_champion

Saint Francis of Assisi.

I hope this was meant as an answer to the OP (it’s one that crossed my mind) and not an answer to the poster immediately before you.

[MOIDALIZE]

Hervé Villechaize

[Lightnin]

@Johnny_Bravo

That’s a function of public ignorance rather than a comment on the impactfulness of Borlaug’s work.

However, I did skim the OP and see that he wants a “symbol” for goodness and it’s true that even though Borlaug is credited with saving a billion people from starving to death, most people do not know who he is or what he did.

Norman Borlaug is exactly who I thought of when I saw the OP. It’s a damn shame he isn’t more recognized.

[Mr.Kobayashi]

Thanks for the replies.

@Little_Nemo

Jimmy Carter?

He’s history’s greatest monster!

@Thudlow_Boink

Yes, but as I interpret the OP, he wasn’t asking who genuinely was a good person, so much as someone who is a widely regarded example or symbol of a good person.

Well there are certainly two questions there, who you think fills the role of an ‘anti-Hitler’ in society at large and who fills the role for you personally.

@clairobscur

I think Gandhi is the most commonly cited (even though there are some controversies about him). Maybe Nelson Mandela. MLK is an American thing. Not that he’s unheard of elsewhere, but I don’t see a non American mentioning him as an example of goodness, and more generally outside the specific context of US civil rights.

And many people despise mother Theresa (myself included).

Well, yours truly is a Brit :p. MLK was the first to spring to mind as the antithesis of Hitler’s role in society as an ultimate evil not only for his role in US Civil Rights but rather on a wider level, namely contrasting the violence Hitler is known for against the non-violence MLK is known for, admittedly Gandhi would probably be the better example of this, for some reason I just went to King first, perhaps because he’s more recent.

[TSBG]

I vote Mandela. EVERYONE knows him; he suffered evil patiently, then led his country out of apartheid without taking revenge.

[Little_Nemo]

@Johnny_Bravo

However, I did skim the OP and see that he wants a “symbol” for goodness and it’s true that even though Borlaug is credited with saving a billion people from starving to death, most people do not know who he is or what he did.

I agree. I interpreted the question as looking for somebody who’s known for doing good rather than somebody who’s done the most good. That’s why I suggested Carter and Suu Kyi rather than lesser known possibilities like Raymond Borel, Liu Xiaobo, or Muhammad Yunus.

[Peremensoe]

@Johnny_Bravo

…it’s true that even though Borlaug is credited with saving a billion people from starving to death, most people do not know who he is or what he did.

Also it can be debated whether the Green Revolution is a long-term net good.

[TroutMan]

@Mr.Kobayashi

Well, yours truly is a Brit :p. MLK was the first to spring to mind as the antithesis of Hitler’s role in society as an ultimate evil not only for his role in US Civil Rights but rather on a wider level, namely contrasting the violence Hitler is known for against the non-violence MLK is known for, admittedly Gandhi would probably be the better example of this, for some reason I just went to King first, perhaps because he’s more recent.

MLK is problematic, as noted in yesterday’s SD classic. His flaws shouldn’t detract from his accomplishments and contributions to the civil rights movement, but I’m not sure I’d consider him a symbol of genuine goodness.

I think Mother Theresa is the go-to person in casual speech. Mandela would be my personal choice.

[John_Mace]

@Loach

Both Gandhi and Mother Teresa will get you strong negative reactions by many who have knowledge of their lives. You won’t get that many strong positive reactions about Hitler, The Producers notwithstanding.

Didn’t he like dogs?

[Stoneburg]

@John_Mace

Didn’t he like dogs?

He was also very polite towards women, as far as I have heard.

Actually for those who are more into the macho side of our human culture I guess the fact that he performed bravely in WWI would be a positive. A lot of people think that sort of stuff is very valiant.

He also must have done pretty well as a politician in some areas. He took a broke and beaten country and turned it into a super power. If he had stopped there… Well… I guess you still have the jew-thing and the whole fascism stuff…
I’d go with Jesus. I’m not necessarily a Christian but even I have to admit that it is hard to find a historical figure with a nicer reputation. Healing the sick, speaking up against oppression, turning the other cheek, giving to the poor etc etc. Divinity or no, in the West he is the icon of goodness and niceness. I guess you could go with the Buddha (original one) if you want someone for the East, but Jesus tends to be loved and respected in all the traditions, even Islam recognizes him as a swell dude.

More recently I guess Nelson Mandela would be a great choice. Ghandi is a bit more controversial.

I think it is a bit distasteful to criticize Mother Teresa. She did dedicate her whole life to helping the poorest of the poor. Most people don’t.

[Fuzzy_Dunlop]

What about that little boy who almost got arrested for building a clock? Everyone seemed to like him.

[HowSoonIsThen]

Reltih.

The Rerhuf of Ynamreg.

[Mr.Kobayashi]

@HowSoonIsThen

Reltih.

The Rerhuf of Ynamreg.

I ees tahw ouy did ereht.

[Ranger_Jeff]

@John_Mace

Didn’t he like dogs?

I heard he was heck of a dancer too. And there was a painter. He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon. Two Coats!

[Rigamarole]

Scooby Doo, obviously.

[jjimm]

Despite the various controversies:

Mandela, Gandhi, Mother Teresa.

And if she doesn’t fuck up or get killed, I predict that Malala will be in the running within a few years.

[Manduck]

I think I remember that there was a time when Albert Schweitzer was used as shorthand for a virtuous person, but you don’t hear his name much anymore.

[Don_t_Panic]

@Johnny_Bravo

Goodness and virtue are much more relative than evil. It’s a lot more difficult to get people to agree on what constitutes are “purely good” person than a “purely evil” person.

I dunno. Hitler is something of an oddity, historically. He’s basically a cartoon villain. If we didn’t have Hitler, it would be tricky to find a symbol of evil that fits the bill as well. Maybe Stalin, but it doesn’t have the same punch.

Few people are as one-dimensional as Hitler and the Nazis were. Humans tend to be more complex, and one person’s villain is often someone else’s hero. Maybe Genghis Khan is as bad as Hitler, but if you say that in public, there’s bound to be at least one revisionist historian in the room who will argue with you.

Hitler also has the advantage as a icon of evil for us in that he’s just recent enough for everyone to know what he did, and understand the horror of it, but also just far enough removed historically that he can be mentioned casually without a lot of people being upset, or the conversation turning political. Genghis Khan is too far removed, and Osama bin Laden is too recent. Hitler is just right.

Obviously, future generations will need to find someone else. Even the memory of Hitler will fade, and eventually he’ll get his own revisionist historians.

[Grumman]

@Martian Bigfoot

Mother Teresa?

A religious zealot who farmed suffering to glorify her god.

@Bayard

Maybe Gandhi?

The Zapp Brannigan of peace. When your plan to end the Holocaust is “throw yourself into the grinder until even the Nazi’s are disgusted,” you suck.