Does Robespierre meet your definition of a "good" guy? How about Oliver Cromwell? Guy Fawkes? Chairman Mao? Pol Pot? Lenin? Castro? Aaron Burr?
They were all "good" guys, weren't they?
I think he means "In pop culture" more than he means "in history."
With all due respect, he said, "In the overwhelming majority of our literature and history loyalists are bad guys and rebels are good guys." I'd just like to know whether he thinks Robespierre, Oliver Cromwell, Guy Fawkes, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, Castro, and Aaron Burr are good guys. How about Michael Collins?
If he wants to talk literature, was Henry IV a "good" guy? How about Richard III? Claudius? Macbeth? Cassius? Lucifer? Raskolnikov?
If he wants to talk about science fiction, were the rebels in The Road Must Roll "good" guys? How about the Cylons? The rebels in the Halo stories? Hal? Skynet? The Werewolves in those crappy Underworld movies? Sauron was a usurper, as was The White Witch. Saruman rebelled against the other wizards. There seem to be plenty of "good" rebels in literature, right?
With all due respect, he said, "In the overwhelming majority of our literature and history loyalists are bad guys and rebels are good guys." I'd just like to know whether he thinks Robespierre, Oliver Cromwell, Guy Fawkes, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, Castro, and Aaron Burr are good guys. How about Michael Collins?
If he wants to talk literature, was Henry IV a "good" guy? How about Richard III? Claudius? Macbeth? Cassius? Lucifer? Raskolnikov?
I didn't say that every revolutionary is a good guy. Stop being a cranky old geezer for no reason. I'm not saying that all rebels are good guys, or that the majority or rebels are good guys. I'm saying that if you look at our popular culture and also at the common and popular history as it is taught out of crappy text books in schools, rebels and revolutionaries are more frequently portrayed as good fighting against dictators or kings. Whether those figures were actually good is an entirely different matter.
Allow me to use your Lenin example. Am I a Lenin fan? No, not really. But from my public schooling, when learning about the Bolshevik revolution you would think Lenin was the man going up against the evil and shitty Czar. Communism was bad, but a stupid monarch was worse. Then of course, later on in the curriculum, the people who took down the Berlin Wall were the good guys. In almost every example, it was rebels and revolutionaries who were portrayed as positive figures taking down some other establishment which was worse than the one they were supporting. It's about portrayal, not reality.
It's true that winners write history, but there's one more factor as well. From the zoomed out perspective of a history class a failed revolution means nothing changes. When you teach history like that, you teach about the major turning points. Here was a time when a big change took place. A story about the status quo being maintained is not sexy. A great defender who maintains a status quo against many rebels is not going to look so great in a public school history class, as they will be viewed as someone who repressed the people. The sexy underdog revolutionaries will always get some sympathy for fighting for "the people."
That's why it's surprising to me how someone can be such a fierce loyalist to any government, unless they are a major player who has everything to lose. Revolutions are so much sexier, and it's much easier for them to market themselves as being good guys. They usually don't start to look like bad guys until after they take over and start making mischief. No matter whether people are left, right, up, down, or diagonal-leaning in their politics, there is a nearly universal distrust of governments, even in countries with lots of freedom and justice. Thus, if there is a legitimate revolutionary force emerging in any part of the world, you would imagine that the majority of the people would be rebels or rebel sympathizers, while loyalists will always be a relative minority.
I'm not saying that all rebels are good guys, or that the majority or rebels are good guys.
This is what you said:
In the overwhelming majority of our literature and history loyalists are bad guys and rebels are good guys.
So, "the majority of rebels are good guys" is, in fact, a very fair characterization of what you said.
Allow me to use your Lenin example. Am I a Lenin fan? No, not really. But from my public schooling, when learning about the Bolshevik revolution you would think Lenin was the man going up against the evil and shitty Czar. Communism was bad, but a stupid monarch was worse.
What makes you think Nicholas II was evil and shitty other than the fact that he happened to be the Tsar in 1918? Was he so evil and shitty that he deserved to be shot to death along with his entire family?
You always talk about how you didn't pay attention or take notes in school because you couldn't be bothered. Maybe if you had paid attention, your understanding of many things wouldn't be so superficial. If this is really what you think the revolution boiled down to, you should do a little reading.
Stop being a cranky old geezer for no reason.
Just because I'm challenging you on this statement doesn't mean that I'm being cranky. Many others have challeged you on it. All in all, it was a pretty silly statement.
Thus, if there is a legitimate revolutionary force emerging in any part of the world, you would imagine that the majority of the people would be rebels or rebel sympathizers, while loyalists will always be a relative minority.
Actually, the majority of people just want life to go on and to be left alone. Revolutions make that very inconvenient for them. I'd submit that the majority of the people want their current government to remain in power and for the status quo to be maintained as long as the trains run on time and there is bread in the corner market.
Scott doesn't like it when people question his silly statements.
You're the only one who is seeming to have any trouble with my statements. Obviously you have nothing better to do than sit under the bridge and bother the billy goats. I'm going home now. Enjoy the dank under-bridge areas. Weather is too good here! Ahhh.
Scott doesn't like it when people question his silly statements.
You're the only one who is seeming to have any trouble with my statements.
You need to re-read the comment list. I was not the only one to call you on this.
I'm going home now. Enjoy the dank under-bridge areas. Weather is too good here! Ahhh.
Why do you care about the weather? You're only going to experience it briefly as you travel from work to your apartment, where you'll huddle over your comics and games like Gollum in his cave.
You're the only one who is seeming to have any trouble with my statements.
Well, actually, no. I just didn't bother to say anything, because Joe had it covered. But yeah, you made a really broad statement without bothering to support it.
I mean:
In the overwhelming majority of our literature and history loyalists are bad guys and rebels are good guys.
You didn't say "historical writings" or "history textbooks" or even "historical portrayals." You said "history," which is the actual stuff that happened.
I'm not saying that all rebels are good guys, or that the majority or rebels are good guys.
But in fact, you said just that:
I said overwhelming majority, which is not the same as saying "every" or "all." If history is written by winners, and rebels are almost always good guys, aren't rebels then almost always winners?
So no, Joe is not trolling. You overreached and now you're backpedaling.
Well, there was no real "trust" going per se. It's just that the UN will have to use force.
We really need to start using "I'm being Facetious" blue along with Sarcasm green. Re-reading, you've no reason to suspect that I was being facetious, instead of being utterly serious.
I wonder if some of the Ghadaffi "forces" are really under government control or if they're acting on their own.
It's possible they're acting on their own, but I doubt that is the case.
As I said, it's pure speculation. Although, even if it's not the case, the government should probably claim it's so.
could also be race based tensions. Many stories about African mercenaries are actually Sub-Saharan Africans who are loyal to Ghadaffi due to his anti-racism policies and his affinity for pan-Africanism, which no doubt have far more to do with divide and conquer tactics to keep a hold on power than any progressive impulse. Black Africans were actually afforded more social mobility under Ghadaffi than in other North African countries and as a result they have become targets of the revolutions wrath.
Also, in Scott's defense, rebels are what you call people rising up against enemy governments so by definition all rebels are good guys. If they are fighting a friendly government they are insurgents or terrorists.
Also, in Scott's defense, rebels are what you call people rising up against enemy governments so by definition all rebels are good guys. If they are fighting a friendly government they are insurgents or terrorists.
This is such a silly semantic argument. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. It's just a matter of perspective.
pretty much going play by play as I had predicted, Seeing that his "Cease-fire" Lie failed he went "balls to the walls" and got pounded. The rebels said it was just in time to and that they are doing better now.
Arab League complains that US intervention 'went too far'. The fuck, seriously? We intervene for what, three days and you're bitching? And what exactly did you do to help your Libyan brethr-OH NOTHING?! The fact that this guy has a presidential bid in Egypt is sickening. He's got the stance of 'Let western countries fix all problems, then blame them for everything before the ground cools'. I already fucking hate this guy.
This is a toothless condemnation done for the sake scoring points with Egyptian voters. Anyone who wants to lead based on a public mandate will need to appear skeptical of and untainted by the west. I'd rather a moderate secular guy who publicly spits in the face of the west while dealing with us in private than a frothing religious fanatic. If this guy gets into power, we'll likely never know whether or not he is actually a friend or a foe unless someone releases Wikileaks 2: The Sequel.
'Let western countries fix all problems, then blame them for everything before the ground cools'
As far as Arab popular opinion goes, it was western countries that created all the problems in the first place.
Comments
If he wants to talk literature, was Henry IV a "good" guy? How about Richard III? Claudius? Macbeth? Cassius? Lucifer? Raskolnikov?
If he wants to talk about science fiction, were the rebels in The Road Must Roll "good" guys? How about the Cylons? The rebels in the Halo stories? Hal? Skynet? The Werewolves in those crappy Underworld movies? Sauron was a usurper, as was The White Witch. Saruman rebelled against the other wizards. There seem to be plenty of "good" rebels in literature, right?
Allow me to use your Lenin example. Am I a Lenin fan? No, not really. But from my public schooling, when learning about the Bolshevik revolution you would think Lenin was the man going up against the evil and shitty Czar. Communism was bad, but a stupid monarch was worse. Then of course, later on in the curriculum, the people who took down the Berlin Wall were the good guys. In almost every example, it was rebels and revolutionaries who were portrayed as positive figures taking down some other establishment which was worse than the one they were supporting. It's about portrayal, not reality.
It's true that winners write history, but there's one more factor as well. From the zoomed out perspective of a history class a failed revolution means nothing changes. When you teach history like that, you teach about the major turning points. Here was a time when a big change took place. A story about the status quo being maintained is not sexy. A great defender who maintains a status quo against many rebels is not going to look so great in a public school history class, as they will be viewed as someone who repressed the people. The sexy underdog revolutionaries will always get some sympathy for fighting for "the people."
That's why it's surprising to me how someone can be such a fierce loyalist to any government, unless they are a major player who has everything to lose. Revolutions are so much sexier, and it's much easier for them to market themselves as being good guys. They usually don't start to look like bad guys until after they take over and start making mischief. No matter whether people are left, right, up, down, or diagonal-leaning in their politics, there is a nearly universal distrust of governments, even in countries with lots of freedom and justice. Thus, if there is a legitimate revolutionary force emerging in any part of the world, you would imagine that the majority of the people would be rebels or rebel sympathizers, while loyalists will always be a relative minority.
You always talk about how you didn't pay attention or take notes in school because you couldn't be bothered. Maybe if you had paid attention, your understanding of many things wouldn't be so superficial. If this is really what you think the revolution boiled down to, you should do a little reading. Just because I'm challenging you on this statement doesn't mean that I'm being cranky. Many others have challeged you on it. All in all, it was a pretty silly statement. Actually, the majority of people just want life to go on and to be left alone. Revolutions make that very inconvenient for them. I'd submit that the majority of the people want their current government to remain in power and for the status quo to be maintained as long as the trains run on time and there is bread in the corner market.
As age increases, troll like visage increases and troll like nature also increases! So obvious, how did I not realize?
Scott doesn't like it when people question his silly statements.
I mean: You didn't say "historical writings" or "history textbooks" or even "historical portrayals." You said "history," which is the actual stuff that happened. But in fact, you said just that: So no, Joe is not trolling. You overreached and now you're backpedaling.
It's just that the UN will have to use force.
Also, in Scott's defense, rebels are what you call people rising up against enemy governments so by definition all rebels are good guys. If they are fighting a friendly government they are insurgents or terrorists.
The fuck, seriously? We intervene for what, three days and you're bitching? And what exactly did you do to help your Libyan brethr-OH NOTHING?!
The fact that this guy has a presidential bid in Egypt is sickening. He's got the stance of 'Let western countries fix all problems, then blame them for everything before the ground cools'. I already fucking hate this guy.