There are times in which one has an opinion which is created by misunderstanding motive. There are those who ride the hype, and try to maintain the misconception.

For example:


Way back in 1864, Andrew Johnson replaced Hannibal Hamlin as Abraham Lincoln’s Vice President.    This was to reward him for being the only representative from the South who did not leave the Union.

Andrew Johnson did not leave the Union because he believed in their principles.  He simply hated the Plantocracy.

When Lincoln was assassinated and he became President, no one expected him to be so pro-slavery, so pro-South that he was the first President to face impeachment.


Aung San Suu Kyi created the same kind of misconception.  She was thought to be a humanitarian.  She was given the Nobel Peace Prize.

But Aung San Suu Kyi was just as corrupt and prejudiced and evil as the regime it was thought she opposed.


Robert Mugabe was hailed as a Great Liberator.  He took power in Zimbabwe in 1980 and everyone thought that he would be a great leader.

Over time, he became a brutal dictator who destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy.

He was deposed and one of his clones took over.

At his funeral, the stadium where it was held was virtually empty.   Because the people he oppressed did not see him as a great liberator, but as the brutal dictator he was.

There are many people who can fill this niche.  And also, states.


What do you think?


Written by jaylar

Story MakerYears Of MembershipContent Author


Leave a Reply
  1. I’m not so sure about Aung San Suu Kyi. I reckon that she was “nobbled” by the military high-ups who exercise the real power in Myanmar. She is like a constitutional monarch, in that she is the nominal leader of her country but without any genuine power – a bit like our Queen in the UK.

Leave a Reply