Why is Hitler (man of Holocast) more popular then Mahatma Gandhi (Man of Piece)? Just look around channels (Discovery, History, National Geographic), there are so many shows on Hitler and absolutely none for Mahatma Gandhi. Are we fascinated with the evil more? Can anyone give reason or any suggestion how can Mahatma Gandhi become more popular?
2006-09-15 05:01:39 · 18 answers · asked by R 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Popular would be a poor choice of word for a man who over-ran and occupied more than half of Europe, turned Genocide into a unprecedented industrial nightmare and whose impact on the World will never be forgotten. Gandhi on the other hand was a really nice Guy, but he never really set the World alight did he?
We all have an affinity to look tor-wards our Dark-side even though we know it to be wrong and its this fascination that unfortunately keeps Hitler ahead of Gandhi in the media limelight,The only way to reverse this trend would be to darken Gandhi's character by letting his Halo slip. A bit drastic just to be more popular though!
2006-09-15 12:15:26 · answer #1 · answered by Stephen 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He should be because Hitler came close to rule the whole bworld, Germany who had no money at the end of world war 1, in just 20 years became a superpower. After the war 2 Britain had no resources/strength to rule india, so they had to leave, and Gandhi got the credit for it. Gandhi was a great guy, selfless and one of a kind, but he did not actually freed India.
2006-09-15 08:35:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is nothing sensational about watching some half naked old man calmly march to the sea to make salt. Ghandi Ji was a well educated man of colour, from a middle class family, who requires a sense of faith, virtue and the wisdom of compassion to even believe that he saw the man we say he was!
Hitler is sex and drugs and rock & roll by comparaison. The poor boy made corpral,ie. the lowest possible officer, wrote a lament while in jail for being part of a conspiracy, that captivated the Germans who were suffering in large part due to the reperations imposed after the first WW. Then Camelot, he rose in public office put German back to work, gave the West the finger,got rid of the immigrant problem by terminating jews, expoused the Czars lust for empire, and slep with a cute little blond near half his age. If you could pick five years from the life of either man who would you prefer to be!
People are intrigued by the self-serving and sensational, nice guys finish last, and violence, haunting, and horror are always a youthful and sadistic courisity.
Forest Gump was a best seller but I'd put money on it if you discover Scilence of the Lambs sold more dvds!
2006-09-15 10:16:23 · answer #3 · answered by namazanyc 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some of mankind are fascinated by evil and dream of being as personally powerful as Hitler. Otherwise we can understand Gandhi if we can't copy him but the evil of Hitler and his actions we can't understand. Hitler is a scab on our collective psyche that we just can't leave alone.What is amazing is the countries in the east where they have had there own monsters as rulers are interested in Hitler. We can't seem to leave this blot on our humanity alone
2006-09-15 20:36:13 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I understand Mahatma Ji. he's a responsive baby-kisser. his concepts were in accordance to non secular intense thinkings. He had some non secular preparation or perhaps might want to had some non secular meditational fulfillment too. yet Ganghiji might want to not be equated with Jesus or Buddha. Jesus and Buddha are of diverse fields. Their teachings were empowered by employing non secular spirit. yet teachings of Ganghiji develop into empowered by employing non secular findings. both Gandhiji and Jesus were assassinated. Jesus resurrected yet Gandhiji for the perfect time in basic terms might want to prayed to the LORD as 'Ha Ram' . even if Buddha on the top of his existence were given 'Nirvan'.
2016-11-27 00:34:55 · answer #5 · answered by nevius 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitler was potrayed as the bad guy by the same people who censored Gandhi.
2006-09-15 22:30:07 · answer #6 · answered by SHIH TZU SAYS 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People are more interested in violence.....not as interested in peace and when there is violence people want to be in the middle of everything. They want attention and if its peaceful they dont get much attention. Violence is a way to get attention. Hitler killed millions of people and that is a problem, Gandhi did not killed anyone so not many people are interested in him.
2006-09-15 05:08:10 · answer #7 · answered by meanhoney_2008 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because he harmed more people than Gandhi helped people. Unfortunately, being a bad guy makes you more infamous than someone who is considered a hero.
2006-09-15 05:47:16 · answer #8 · answered by chrstnwrtr 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, bad news just makes better headlines...people love to watch crashes, fires, and explosions, as long as they are happening to someone else. The guy that just goes through life peacefully will never make the headlines...or the "film at 11:00"
2006-09-15 05:06:29 · answer #9 · answered by Joe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think more popular is the correct phrase, I think is better known for being a notorious monster
2006-09-15 05:17:17 · answer #10 · answered by eeeeeeeeclipse 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋