New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Adolph (Lucifer Part 3!)
in reply to a message by sambchop
Adolf is indeed an actual part of history, part of one of the blackest pages of history. There is no question about that.
However, you seem to forget that throughout history, Adolf and Adolph have also been borne by nobler and more benign persons than Hitler. People who can be considered as good when compared to Hitler, people who are part of some of the brighter pages of history. Some of them are not simply good, but even holy: there is one saint, a martyr, named Adolf (namely St. Adolf of Osnabrück), while there are two other saints named Adolphus. Other examples of better bearers are the Swedish kings Gustaf II Adolf (1594–1632), Gustaf IV Adolf (1778–1837) and Gustaf VI Adolf (1882–1973), and... Adolph Marx (1888–1961; yes, one of the Marx brothers!).
But for some reason, people forget about the good and only remember the bad, focusing on solely the negative which does not fairly represent the name. Don't people always say that positive is stronger than negative, good is stronger than evil? Then why do we let the evil (in this case, an evil bearer) rule our judgement of a name, rather than the good (in this case, numerous good bearers)? The mere fact that several holy persons bore this name should obliterate the stain that just one evil person made on the name, but we don't allow that to happen. Apparently then, good is not strong enough to obliterate the stain of evil. Kind of hypocritical, as people don't do or don't really believe what they preach then. And because of this, people kind of let evil win in this way. I mean, they allow something that is, by itself, objective and innocent (in this case, a name) to be tainted by evil and to be locked away for good, not recognizing the good parts and not giving it a chance to continue the good it has. This is how people let Hitler win, they give him more attention or "honour" than he deserves by banning this name or putting it into exile... they still let themselves be influenced by him in this way, while he should never have any influence whatsoever on people.
It's understandable that the majority of people think this way, but I think it's ultimately narrow-minded and not objective. Plus the reasoning tends to be more emotional (= illogical) than rational, too (which is again understandable... the atrocities that Hitler committed evoke deep emotions in people). They should rise above that and allow themselves to see the whole picture instead of just part of it, or at the very least acknowledge that the name has been borne by good persons throughout history, some of them saints. They should not blindly state that the name is a name of evil, which is wrong - just the saints already prove that statement to be incorrect.
So yeah, in short, I guess you could say that I feel that the name is unfairly treated and that people should be more objective. This objectivity is perhaps too much to ask for in this day and age, as many of us are children and grandchildren of people that lived through WW II... and through our parents' and grandparents' tales, that black part of history is still too close, making it difficult for most people to look at the names Adolf and Adolph objectively. But I hope that at some point in the future, when there are no survivors of WW II (as well as their immediate descendants) left, people are able to look at Adolf and Adolph more objectively, as old names with a beautiful meaning that were borne by numerous good persons and only one bad person. Hopefully then the name will be used more, causing it to live on and giving it a chance to be borne by more good persons (so that many more new good associations can be made), rather than let it forever disappear into the abyss of obscurity. It has been proven that Adolf and Adolph can be names of good... and let the name continue to be able to prove that.
However, you seem to forget that throughout history, Adolf and Adolph have also been borne by nobler and more benign persons than Hitler. People who can be considered as good when compared to Hitler, people who are part of some of the brighter pages of history. Some of them are not simply good, but even holy: there is one saint, a martyr, named Adolf (namely St. Adolf of Osnabrück), while there are two other saints named Adolphus. Other examples of better bearers are the Swedish kings Gustaf II Adolf (1594–1632), Gustaf IV Adolf (1778–1837) and Gustaf VI Adolf (1882–1973), and... Adolph Marx (1888–1961; yes, one of the Marx brothers!).
But for some reason, people forget about the good and only remember the bad, focusing on solely the negative which does not fairly represent the name. Don't people always say that positive is stronger than negative, good is stronger than evil? Then why do we let the evil (in this case, an evil bearer) rule our judgement of a name, rather than the good (in this case, numerous good bearers)? The mere fact that several holy persons bore this name should obliterate the stain that just one evil person made on the name, but we don't allow that to happen. Apparently then, good is not strong enough to obliterate the stain of evil. Kind of hypocritical, as people don't do or don't really believe what they preach then. And because of this, people kind of let evil win in this way. I mean, they allow something that is, by itself, objective and innocent (in this case, a name) to be tainted by evil and to be locked away for good, not recognizing the good parts and not giving it a chance to continue the good it has. This is how people let Hitler win, they give him more attention or "honour" than he deserves by banning this name or putting it into exile... they still let themselves be influenced by him in this way, while he should never have any influence whatsoever on people.
It's understandable that the majority of people think this way, but I think it's ultimately narrow-minded and not objective. Plus the reasoning tends to be more emotional (= illogical) than rational, too (which is again understandable... the atrocities that Hitler committed evoke deep emotions in people). They should rise above that and allow themselves to see the whole picture instead of just part of it, or at the very least acknowledge that the name has been borne by good persons throughout history, some of them saints. They should not blindly state that the name is a name of evil, which is wrong - just the saints already prove that statement to be incorrect.
So yeah, in short, I guess you could say that I feel that the name is unfairly treated and that people should be more objective. This objectivity is perhaps too much to ask for in this day and age, as many of us are children and grandchildren of people that lived through WW II... and through our parents' and grandparents' tales, that black part of history is still too close, making it difficult for most people to look at the names Adolf and Adolph objectively. But I hope that at some point in the future, when there are no survivors of WW II (as well as their immediate descendants) left, people are able to look at Adolf and Adolph more objectively, as old names with a beautiful meaning that were borne by numerous good persons and only one bad person. Hopefully then the name will be used more, causing it to live on and giving it a chance to be borne by more good persons (so that many more new good associations can be made), rather than let it forever disappear into the abyss of obscurity. It has been proven that Adolf and Adolph can be names of good... and let the name continue to be able to prove that.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
2