I get what you're saying, JK, but I thought that it was the entirety of Mugabe's legacy I was addressing, not just how he ended up, which was pretty ghastly or even evil, if you like. I would try to be just as objective about, say, a Verwoerd legacy or even a Hitler legacy, if the occasion arose. In other words I don't believe my approach is about being politically correct it was more about being historically accurate.HJK 414 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:42 amEddie, No offence intended, but is that not exactly what this time period we live in is all about ?Jack Welles wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:49 am………..
The voice of reason suggests that an objective, rational, balanced assessment would try and reconcile the two. My version of this is necessarily short (it being social media). He started out good and ended up bad. Which is where I came in ...........
Trying to "reason" away in a "balanced view" all those things that need not be excused - and are simply evil and wrong ??
How do we become objective, rational and balanced about things such as S'brenica / Muslim attacks and bombings in Europe / Idi Amin / Mr Mugabe and many others ......
Why do we need to placate our own souls with "political correctness" / or with reasoned argument.
I come from a period when we could call bad and evil exactly that ......
Mugabe was an evil man and the only "good" he did was at the expense of the wealth generated by others.
His electorate was uneducated and believed the spin / and were cajoled into a following that never brought them anything but poverty and grief.
Why do we all have an issue calling a spade a spade ??
Have we all lost the ability to simply name things as they are ? JK
As an aside: there's no chance of offence being taken when reasoned argument is deployed, but thanks for the clarification anyway