Mikhail Gorbachev has died

RIP Gorbachev, one of the few genuinely good people in politics.

After he retired from politics, he was featured in several advertisements:

- In 1994 for Apple Computer: https://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/10/07/The-first-advertisem...

- In 1998 for Pizza Hut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorbachev_Pizza_Hut_commercial

- In 2000 for the ÖBB, the Austrian railways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLscz8kEg6c

- In 2007 for Louis Vuitton: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/business/media/05vuitton....

Good ? What about sending tanks against Lithuanians and you know...killing people. How good is this ?

700+ injured and 14 dead doesnt sound like something "genuinely good person" does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania)

> War of Northern Aggression

Rarely if ever I criticize naming conventions, but this definitely does seem the right moment to do so.

If you are to suppose that the Confederate States of America were a legitimate, sovereign government of the Southern states, the term "War of Northern Aggression" makes more sense. They did not threaten to secede from the United States, they did secede from it. The United States taking action to take back control of the southern states could be viewed as "Northern Aggression."

Granted, it is a little odd considering that the Battle of Fort Sumter was initiated by the Confederates, though you could argue that attempting to resupply United States troops in Confederate territory as an act of aggression from the United States.

In either case, the argument seems to be that Gorbachev being responsible for the death of many lives doesn't discredit the notion that he could be a "genuinely good person" since there examples of people that have been responsible for the death of many that are generally viewed favorably, such as Lincoln.

It doesn't really make sense in that context. The Thirteen Colonies seceded from Great Britain, something not in dispute even in the UK. Great Britain sent troops into the United States to oppose the secession. But it's not referred to as "the War of British Aggression".

The only sense that singling out "Northern Aggression" makes sense in is perpetuating the myth that the slaveowners were the real victims.

> It doesn't really make sense in that context. The Thirteen Colonies seceded from Great Britain, something not in dispute even in the UK. Great Britain sent troops into the United States to oppose the secession. But it's not referred to as "the War of British Aggression".

You're making the mistake of assuming that every conflict must follow a strict naming convention when in reality it'd usually be called something different based on who you ask. The annexation of Texas by the United States resulted in what the United States calls the Mexican-American War, while Mexico refers to it as "U.S. Intervention in Mexico." I'd say that the "War of Northern Aggression" would pretty much exclusively used by people that view Southern secession from the United States as legitimate, but that doesn't mean it is used exclusively by your strawmen.

Just because there isn't a strict naming convention doesn't mean there isn't a longstanding convention in English-speaking countries of giving wars boring names based on the participants or theatre, even when it's absolutely unambiguous that the other side was the belligerent. Picking a ludicrously overblown name like "Northern Aggression" for a failed secession makes no sense in that context, but plenty of sense in Lost Cause victimhood narrative.

Which is why it was a name popularised by 1950s segregationists, not the original secessionists who may have rejected the notion that it was a "rebellion" or "civil" war, but talked about wars of "Separation" or "War for Independence" instead.