Who do you side with in history?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Well, this question presupposes that you are like me and instinctively pick a “side” to be allied with emotionally when you read or watch a show about competing people/factions. For example, when reading about Edison and Westinghouse, I rooted for Edison, and when I watched a History channel show about the Crips and the Bloods (!), I rooted for the Bloods (mainly just because I like the color red more than blue). There was not any particular reason to watch it from one viewpoint of another (and the two gangs were are obviously equally bad), but I just can’t help doing that.

But in the grand scope of history, I’ve noticed that I tend to emotionally ally with the traditional, the nobility, the wealthy, and the elite more than with the struggles of the oppressed and downtrodden. That’s not to say I blindly support them or base my political positions (although I suspect they’re related, like everyone’s) off of that, but it does tend to be my default viewpoint going into things. For example, when reading about the Roman Optimates vs. the Populares, I instinctively sided with the Optimates. When reading about the spread of Protestantism, I instinctively sided with the Catholic Church (even though I am a Deist and come from a Protestant family). I always instinctively side with the empires with regard to Imperialism (even with the American revolution, which I rationally support). When reading about the French Revolution, I actually felt rather sad for the king and the nobility. The same for the Russian Revolution (and I always feel a little saddened when a country gets rid of its monarchy, or does something like what Sark made the news by doing).

Note that I do not actually support most of these things; I just tend to instinctively support them emotionally.

Does anyone else do this, or am I just weird? I’d be particularly interested in responses from people who do the same thing, but for opposite causes.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

2

When the Discovery Channel shows the downfall of the Austro-Hungarian empire or King John vs. the Barons, I always root for the monarchy. I don’t know why, I just do.

3

Yeah, this is what I’m talking about. I can’t really say why either.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

4

I generally root for the underdogs, which of course generally leaves me unsatisfied with the outcome.

And I’m generally pleased when your optimates, noblemen and assorted kings get the comeuppance they richly deserve.
The good guys in Roman history are obviously the Gracchus brothers or Spartacus. Examples of bad guys are Caesar (fortunately, he gets stabbed to death) or Augustus. Anthony gets cut some slack for having been defeated. Of course, it wouldn’t be an issue if the Etruscans had wiped out those pesky Romans to begin with, so avoiding the undeserved defeats of the Carthaginians and Gauls.

5

I can’t say that I particularly root for either side. Or if I do, I’m aware that I’m doing so only in the context of a story as it’s being told for me, and that a compelling story could be made for the other side. After researching it all I might come down on a side, but not before.

American Revolution: America (good), Britain (bad)

The Revolution was founded on the ideas of basic human rights, much more than it was about taxes and economics (though certainly the US economy being poor at the time was a good impetus to start it off.) The Americans preserved rationality through it and acted to create a system that was stable and actually based on the ideas that they had fought for, unlike pretty much every other attempt to achieve the same that has occurred elsewhere in the world (including Communism.)

WWII: America (good), Japan (bad), Germany (bad)

On the side of Germany, I think you could argue that Germany’s abilities and technology at the time were worth more than the rest of the world would give them credit for. Had Hitler not been a madman, Germans could have been the first people to stand on the Moon. Going out and claiming some land that they had some claim to would most likely have gotten them the respect they deserved in the world and have been ultimately a good thing. But they didn’t do this and ultimately there just is no argument to be made for the righteousness of what Germany did do either strategically, socially, or morally during the war.

On the side of Japan, there is some argument to be made that they were trying to protect themselves and the Chinese and whoever from Communism. Certainly the Chinese government was deteriorating and incapable of handling the threat themselves. But the conduct of Japan upon taking control of these regions seems to show that they really viewed it as an excuse to create nations of slave labor. Yes, that might still have been better than Maoist China, but you can’t say they were in the right.

But was the US right to stop Japan? Very hard to say. But there was no way to know that Communism would be as bad as it was, nor that it would even take over the country. There was still hope that the Chinese Emperor could re-establish control and perhaps bow to US influence and begin modernization. So I’d say that with the state of knowledge and intent, though it ended up being the wrong choice, the US was acting fairly honorably.

US Civil War: The North (good), the South (bad)

While slavery was a key issue in the war, and certainly I view slavery as being bad, I’d really say that the purpose of this war was to lay the foundation for the Rule of Representation.

For instance, if you have a nation of 50% democrats and 50% republicans and those people can overwhelmingly be located in particular geographical locales, and one side wins in a vote, everyone has to live with the outcome of the vote. In the American Revolution, we had the right to bugger out of the British Empire because we had no vote. But once you have your say in the vote and you accepted to follow the rules of representation, you have no excuse to throw a hissy fit after you lost a vote and try to splinter off into your own nation.

And that standard holds throughout everything after that point and keeps the nation stable. For instance, if you consider PETA’s terrorist actions, you can unequivocally state that they have no right to be doing that. They have their chance to have their view represented and considered, but if they get voted down, they must live with it. As a precedent, this rule is central to the continued existence and success of the United States and other countries which give their citizenship full representation within the government. The North was entirely in the right in stopping the South from trying to split off.

6

I don’t. Taking sides and seeing things in black and white terms is exactly the sort of thing that got us into innumerable messes in the first place.

I read a lot of history, and what it proves is that neither side ever has a monopoly on good or evil. World War Two provides an excellent example: Hitler vs Stalin - who’s the good guy in that deathmatch? I’m glad the Nazis lost, but I’m not glad the Soviets won.

7

So I guess I’d say that I go for the side who had a particular, noble, goal he wanted to achieve and then actually went ahead and did so without continuing on past that point. Otherwise, I don’t have a side.

I wouldn’t root for either the French populace nor the aristocracy in the French Revolution.

8

G’morning!

Emotionally, and in spirit, I’m drawn to the peacemakers, the lovers, those who live simple lives and find grace and beauty in those things and are grateful. I’ll root for the poet and not the (physical) warrior. I tend to like the Forrest Gumps and Edith Bunkers of the world - and want to help all of the ‘Lost, lonely, and wretched.’

Man was not created to have dominion over man, but only over the animals, and I believe that’s all we’re qualified for - if that, some people treat animals badly too. I don’t like or trust human rulership and don’t believe people belong on pedestals. I’ve never seen anyone live a happy life upon one.

Shalom aleichem - Jesse.

9

I try not to take sides, mostly. The above mentioned Stalin vs. Hitler example illustrates why. History is very rarely as simple as good guys/bad guys.

10

G’morning Scumpup - and amen! We’re all ‘bad guys’ and we know it. That’s why so many remember the line in the movie Unforgiven when Clint Eastwood’s character says 'We’ve ALL got it coming.'