Blahhh, this is difficult.

On the one hand, it's absolutely important to have an understanding of your sources but on the other... it doesn't discount the value of the statement itself. (Rather it provides context)

I'm honestly not defending Charlie Chaplin, he was in my opinion a irredeemably awful person. At the same time, it would be both academically and emotionally lazy not to give him credit where it is due.

He did in fact use his considerable influence and privilege to highlight the plight of the jews during a time where they were radically persecuted (literally being slaughtered on the street and sent to extermination camps) and no meaning benefit to himself is something I'd deem worthy of my respect.

History and people are both complex and it's entirely possible to celebrate a bad person's good deed without being considered a "mark"

That's a hard read. A lot of new info for myself. Separating the art from the human is difficult. Would that I be so innocent* as to be able to cast dispersions on another.

*regarding other things, not chaplin in nature.

Pls add Shakespeare. Add Carrol. Add Faulkner. Add Poe. Commit -m "people I despise for some strange reason, not for their work"