King David was celebrated throughout most of history, but in today's society he'd be considered quite negatively. He left King Saul's court, raised a foreign army of Philistines, and used them to take over the kingship. He then, among other things, found a married woman he fancied, sent her husband off to war with instructions to the commanding general to place that man in the hottest part of the front. When the man was killed, David took his widow as a mistress.
Permalink | Report

Quite unfortunately its Prophet muhammad who got negative attention this 21st century .
Though nobody now know exactly what he meant by jihad to current world . Many connotating it with mass violence and murder . I think its Prophet mohammad who got negative attention unknowingly by kafirs (non-muslims) .
Permalink | Report

A lot of celebrated people of the past would not stand up to modern scrutiny; but, probably the very worst of the people that are inexplicably considered among the best was Martin Luther. His evil was compounded by not being a youthful folly or personal weakness; but, rather a jealous hatred that he developed toward the Jewish people when they declined to join his reformed Christian church. At the outset of his career he sympathized with Jews, feeling that the church was so corrupt it was natural that Jews would go their own way. But when he had built his own church he became outraged that Jews wanted to remain Jews and Luther's writings became filled with venom, fanaticism, and lies. His was the idea that Jews should all be killed if they would not convert. His were the ideas that eventually led to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Yet even today historians do not hold him to account and they skip over his evil writings because of his role in founding the powerful Protestant Christian faiths.
Source(s):
http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm provides a summary

Permalink | Report

William Wallace.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/images/independence/scr/wallacewindow.jpg

In today's society, meaning the United States, Wallace would be seen as a terrorist. He would have been hunted down, and executed, much as he was by the English. The story of Braveheart, from the film, depicts Wallace as the Hero, as he was seen by the Scottish. And many histories from the point of view of the Scots portray him in the same fashion. English histories are somewhat different.

In today's world, he would be seen as an outlaw, a warlord, a terrorist. For he would be on the uprising side of things. The Rebellion side of things. And as an enemy of current governments, and the current way of life, Wallace would indeed be the bad guy.

Don't believe me? Write the same kind of story only instead of Wallace, name him something Arabic, Russian, Korean...
Source(s):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/independence/features_independ...

Permalink | Report

Whoa, difficult question, Jeff - one that got me thinking (always a dangerous thing on a Monday morning, btw!).

I couldn't come up with one to top Columbus (King David was an interesting idea, too), so I hunted for a list of influential people. I found a site that took the list from Michael Hart's book of the 100 Most Influential people, and matched them up with their religious affiliations and synopsized what their influence was.

Other than the obvious attention-grabber of listing Muhammad as the most influential (this was in 1978, revised in '92), what made me take note was that 5 of the 6 most influential (according to Hart) were founders/proselytizers of religions (Newton was the other).

To me, this says that some or all of these religion-shapers may become the answers to your question. Muhammad, in particular, for obvious reasons - the intense glare of the spotlight being shone on him and the extreme wing of his religion's practitioners. I don't think Jesus will lose any of his luster to his adherents, although some elements of his followers will (continue to) receive negative attention.

Religion, in general, may "attract (greater) negative attention" in the years to come. But, your question leads me back to saying Muhammad - especially if we include the first 8 years of the century and not just the remainder.
Source(s):
http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html

Permalink | Report

Not sure if this is going far back enough, but he was celebrated when he was alive, some people still celebrate his existence today, but he has also been greatly despised since back then as well..
So I'm going to have to go with the most obvious answer...atleast in my mind..Hitler, Führer of Germany...The pain and suffering her caused still is effecting many many people. My grandmother included, just hearing her horror stories makes my stomach turn. I remember in middle school a lady who travels and tells her stories came in...and us 8th graders got the raw story...people threw up...people cried...it was horrible and it was just in remembering...

For example in Austria they have a stone in remembrance of those who were lost...it reads
"FÜR FRIEDEN FREIHEIT
UND DEMOKRATIE
NIE WIEDER FASCHISMUS
MILLIONEN TOTE MAHNEN"
Which roughly means Peace, Freedom, Democracy, No Fascism and Reminding those millions are dead.
However those who do admire him, such as Shiv Shena Hindu party founder and chief Bal Thackeray greatly admired him.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Legacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Thackeray#Accusation_of_admiration_of_Hitl...

Permalink | Report

Oh havent there been some wonderful answers to this question, mainly being that "most of them" (as stated by philipi) would not stand up to scrutiny in this century.

However, I feel I have to answer a question with a question as it could get very complicated for my question to be answered here. Therefore my question is placed on Mahalo at http://www.mahalo.com/answers/today-in-history/who-today-can-stand-up-to-scrutiny-when-judged-alongside-the-great-names-in-history
Permalink | Report

I think the answer "all of them" is probably the most accurate. While our societal views may be changing, many of those who are celebrated historically are those who also attracted plenty of negative attention in their time as well. It has been noted time and time again (sometimes to the extent that many claims are unbelievable) that those who have contributed the most to our society have had some kind of mental illness or disorder.

While this may or may not be true, there are countless historical, artistic, literary, and scientific influences who certainly had habits and characteristics that seemed to stray from the norm. It is said that George Washington was so bad with money that he even had to borrow money to attend his own inaugural ceremony. Abraham Lincoln was noted as having a nervous breakdown prior to being elected, and had lost the presidential election numerous times before finally winning.

Isaac Newton dropped out of high school and was rumored to have problems with authority. Many modern-day psychologists believe that Newton in fact had Asperger's Syndrome.

Einstein could not speak fluently at the age of nine and reportedly attended his induction ceremony as an American barefooted. He also owed thousands of dollars in back child-support to his ex-wife as he put off payments for years promising that he would pay it once he won the Nobel Prize. After his first wife left, he married his first cousin.

Napoleon Bonaparte was afraid of cats and exhibited numerous social deficits in his interactions with others.

Perhaps the greatest and most note-worthy of all celebrated historical figures, namely Beethoven, Mozart, Van Gogh, Einstein, and Benjamin Franklin tend to exhibit characteristics of numerous disorders, everything from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder to mood disorders and neurological conditions such as Asperger's by modern psychiatric standards.

While, historically we regard many of these figures to be "geniuses" or elevate them to terms of greatness, the reality is that in their time, they were regarded as everyday average people with unusual traits and bizarre ideals or talents. Recognition for greatness always comes after the fact, regrettably, most often after a person has passed but left a memorable imprint on society as we know it.
Source(s):
http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/article_0060.shtml

Permalink | Report

The obvious answer that no one has hit on is Jesus. In the words of Kris Kristofferson in "Jesus was a Capricorn":

Jesus was a Capricorn, he ate organic food
He believed in love and peace and never wore no shoes
Long hair, beard and sandals, and a funky bunch of friends
Reckon we'd just nail him up if he'd come down again.

Jesus was a rebel in his time. Throughout the years, many have come back claiming to be Jesus come again (Jim Jones and David Koresh come to mind), but they were all proved to be insane...or were they?

When Jesus came, there were only pagans. He told them they were wrong, that his father was the only true God, and that all their gods were false gods. This is much what Christians do to Pagans today, is it not?

Jesus was an anarchist. He opposed the Roman government, and their way of doing business, and he was crucified for it. He and his followers were literally "on the run", traveling from place to place, hiding out so that the Romans wouldn't find him.

Of course they finally did, and the rest is history. A dead martyr is much more effective than a living rebel.

Now that 80% of the world claims to be Christian, what if someone like Jesus were to come and tell us once more, we were all wrong, and we were worshipping a false god and that our government was evil? Would we trust him? I doubt it.

First, the Christians would do anything they could to discredit him. Then, the government would either have him committed, jail him, or kill him, much the same as the Roman government did to Jesus.

A modern day example of this is David Icke. Everything he says has been well researched and well documented, yet he is ridiculed and discounted by everyone in government and the Christian religion. Even now that we see many of the things he has predicted coming to pass, we refuse to believe him.

Why hasn't he been killed? Because so far, they have been able to make him look like a nut job, but he isn't, and the worse things get, the more credible he will seem. Then we'll see how long he lives.
Source(s):
http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/

Permalink | Report

This came to mind right away: The seventh President of the United States, Andrew Jackson. As a military leader and governor of Florida, Jackson was responsible for the movement and/or death of thousand of Native American people. He and his administration was also fiercely pro-slavery... or anti-abolition. His goal was to preserve the Southern way of life. We celebrated Andrew Jackson everyday in a BIG way - by having him on the $20 bill.

There is a Facebook group with 455 members call "ANDREW JACKSON WAS AN INDIAN KILLER"
Source(s):
http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Washington-Johnson/Andrew-Jackson-Slavery....

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=20510441228

Permalink | Report

William Mercy Tweed. He was the leader of Tammany Hall in New York. This man was also ellected to US house of representatives. He stole millions from the treasury, used programs that later influenced creating social security and and labor reform. Some would say this is good, though some right now are not to happy with social security system. He also fought to subsidize catholic schools, and keep bibles in all schools.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Tweed

Permalink | Report

Almost all male celebrated historical figures would attract negative attention in the 21st Century.

They treated their women as property, which women legally were until the last 100 years or so. In the US, women didn't get the vote until 1920.

The mind boggles.
Source(s):
http://www.usefultrivia.com/history_trivia/modern_history_trivia_002b.html
http://www.wic.org/misc/history.htm

Permalink | Report

To my opinion, The rulers who were ruling without keeping the positive sense of their towards their citizens will definetly attract the negative attention. This is because those rulers took their seat as their private property to use as they like.
Permalink | Report

As a Dutchman, I want to 'nominate' Piet Pieterszoon Hein (Heyn). He was a dutch naval officer during the Dutch golden age of East India Company. He is generally accepted in The Netherlands as one of the heroes of his time, attacking and raiding the Spanish treasure fleet loaded with silver. But if he lived right now, he would merely be a pirate.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Heyn
http://www.timelineindex.com/content/view/1333

Permalink | Report

I wonder if Jesus Christ would withstand modern criticism. Would anybody really believe he turned water into wine or would that be considered a farcical trick and a great job of pulling off a magic trick?

What about the healings of Jesus Christ would these be considered the fringe faith healings of a evangelistic television preacher? Would they withstand the test of science? Jesus has reportedly brought people back to life, modern science would love to have a chance to investigate that. Do you believe Benny Hinn can heal and has healed the sick and blind?
http://www.bennyhinn.org/television/default.cfm

I will have to bring up the walking on water. This act would in no way withstand the criticism of the cynics of today. I believe this would simply be dismissed as another merry magician hawking his wares for ad money on television.

Lastly the part of Jesus Christ's life that history weighs the heaviest, the Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven. Under modern scrutiny would this be considered a "balloon boy" stunt or possibly an actual extra-terrestrial returning to its ship unrestrained by the limiting laws of life and death we live by here on earth. I most certainly believe if the events of Jesus Christs death, resurrection and ascension were to happen today CNN and Fox News would certainly report the news differently than "This must be the son of God".

Certainly if the events of the life of Jesus Christ were to happen today they would not be interpreted the same as 2000 years ago and most certainly would not be the basis of a new religion as I am sure the lunatic fringe would believe even today.

Jesus would have a show on cable if he were alive today.
Source(s):
http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN160-TRAVELS.htm
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/history/jesus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Permalink | Report

how about some modern people like EMINEM
Permalink | Report

Alexander The Great!
However, does a man deserve to be called 'The Great' who was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of his own men and for the unnecessary wholesale slaughter of native peoples?
How 'great' is a king who prefers constant warfare over consolidating conquered territories and long-term administration?
Who, through his own recklessness, often endangered his own life and the lives of his men?
Whose violent temper on occasion led him to murder his friends and who towards the end of his life was an alcoholic, paranoid, megalomaniac, who believed in his own divinity?
These are questions posed by our standards of today of course, but nevertheless they are legitimate questions given the influence which Alexander has exerted throughout history -an influence which will no doubt continue
Source(s):
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/79255.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97611&page=1&page=1

Permalink | Report

Well a few might be Jesus Christ,Che Guevara,Joseph Stalin,Hitler,Oda Nobunga
Source(s):
knowledge

Permalink | Report

Thomas Jefferson. It's not the illegitimate kids. It's not the interracial kids. It's the fact that he fathered children with what he considered to be a belonging - a slave. That's never going to sit right!
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Children_by_his_slave_Sally_H...

Permalink | Report