ORIGINAL: warspite1
I don't understand your point here at all, sorry. I called Saville a sick, evil disgusting excuse for a human being. Where have I implied that Hitler was not? The fact that the majority of people would not have found his actions acceptable is not disputed.
Sorry I really don't understand.
Sorry, I'm not meaning to imply that you thought other wise about Hitler.
I guess I was trying to raise the issue of how we judge somebodies actions and whether the passing of time should really be a consideration.
In his day, Savile was considered worthy enough by some (not me by the way) to be honoured and recognised for his (for want of a better term) contributions to society by having a statue and other commemorations put up. If his crimes had not been revealed on his death, these would have remained and Savile would have become a 'historical' figure (maybe not to anything like the degree of others we are talking about, but that is beside the point). What if in 50 years time it was only then found that he was the sick individual that he was? I am pretty sure the monuments would be removed - I'd certainly hope so. The people of the day would still be making a moral judgement.
Although the deeds of some that are being discussed here are not in anyway comparable to Savile, I find it hard to think that they can still be considered some how less because of the culture of the day. Slavery might have been OK for many of those in the immediate society around the slavers, but I can't imagine the slaves ever thought it acceptable or indeed the majority of people outside of that society.
History does not in any way lessen the wrong.