Tell me more ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 7 down vote favorite
1

Founders of nations are often known as the "Father of the Nation". These people are charismatic leaders who have gone through hardship in creating a nation for the independence of their country, and in many cases have a Cult of Personality

It is possible that founders of nations become de facto dictators by using their personality-cult. This allows them to implement various controversial decisions which ultimately trigger public dissatisfaction.

Is there any country where the founder of the nation is no longer respected? If so, why are they no longer respected?

share|improve this question
Do you mean founders of the state? For most nations their founders even if they existed are long forgotten in the ages. – Anixx Apr 22 '12 at 2:38
This is an example that the topic is not forgotten. And also, the topic is controversial. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8112099.stm – BROY Apr 22 '12 at 5:20
1  
It's an interesting question which perhaps cannot be answered objectively: E.g. what about Mao's role in contemporary China? Is he still respected? Yes-and-no, I would say. – Drux Jan 2 at 7:33

4 Answers

up vote 2 down vote

Russia's Boris Yeltsin is widely disrespected in Russia.

According to the questionnaire conducted by the request of IA Regnum in Voronezh in January 2012, 56% of the participants consider that he brought more harm than good. About 31% assessed that there was about equal amount of harm and benefit, and only 9% said that he brought more benefit than evil. Only 20% opined that he could be not that bad man in private life.

A questionnare by VTsIOM conducted by the request of state agency RIA NOVOSTI countrywide showed that only 17% of the questioned considered the deeds of Yeltsin positive, which is surpassed only by Gorbachev, whose activity is considered positive by no more than 14%.

share|improve this answer
2  
The "father" of Russia is generally given as Peter, the "founder" as Rurik or Ivan. I don't think Yeltsin qualifies. – choster Jan 3 at 3:45
@choster I never heard that Peter is referred as "father". He was not a founder of dynasty, he is mostly known for introducing Germanic customs and moving the capital. The founder of Muscovy, the predecessor of Russian Empire was Ivan III the Great. Yeltsin was founder of modern Russian state and leader if independence of the USSR. – Anixx Jan 3 at 8:44
Russia was one of the soviet republics. Yeltsin signed the agreement of USSR dissolution. At the moment of signing, he was already a president of Russia. Yeltsin certainly was a leader of political reforms, but I wouldn't call him a "founder" of modern Russia. – default locale Jan 8 at 8:01
And in case we accept political reformators, Hitler makes much better example as a "founder" of Third Reich – default locale Jan 8 at 8:03
1  
@default locale Yeltsin created new independent state. Hitler did not create a new state. If the leaders of independence movements are not counted, then who is counted? – Anixx Jan 8 at 13:15
show 1 more comment
up vote 2 down vote

Perhaps Ataturk is an example. Nowadays, his legacy is very much questioned in Turkey.

share|improve this answer
Legacy of every historical figure may be questioned. I don't think that Ataturk is widely disrespected in Turkey. Could you give some references? – default locale Jan 8 at 7:34
up vote -1 down vote

I don't think William of Normandy is topping many lists of Greatest Englishmen

share|improve this answer
Didn't he conquer the English people? Why would he be a founding father? – Dan the Man Sep 10 '12 at 21:37
Because, arguably, modern English are a result of his mixing old Saxons and his conquering Normans. Yes, I'm reaching :) – DVK Nov 10 '12 at 13:57
Sorry, downvote: William doesn't really count as a founder. – Felix Goldberg Jan 1 at 21:57
@Felix Goldberg who counts then? Is there a definition? – Anixx Jan 1 at 22:23
@Anixx: It's a matter of judgement, but I'd say that to count as a founder one would be expected to do one of the following: (a) settle a new land (b) save a country from invaders (c) lead a successful rebellion (d) unify a divided realm. William did nothing of these. He conquered an already existing monarchy and replaced its dynasty and ruling elite with his own kin. – Felix Goldberg Jan 1 at 23:36
show 2 more comments
up vote 4 down vote

Pedro I of Brazil declared its independence from Portugal and thus can be said to have founded the country as Brazil did not exist as an entity until its colonization by the Portuguese. He however had to abdicate his throne due to his mismanagement of the country.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.