Thucydides Roundtable, Book IV: History Is Written by the Losers
zenpundit.com
zenpundit.com
It's not hard to see here the tendency for political leaders to write their memoirs in the aftermath of their defeat. I had always assumed it was a rational play to monetise their name recognition while it was at its highest, but of course the ability to pour a bucket of shit on those who have wronged you must be pretty attractive too.
Not historical but Dante also did this, placing his political nemeses in the lower rungs of hell.
History written by the losers... because those who rule cannot write about it?
I think this article is interesting, but the underlying premise of the article really bothers me.
I can think of several glaring examples of manipulation of history that we are guilty of in America today, despite how we feel about ourselves being "free" and generally too good for that.
Here are some glaring examples off the top of my head:
My observations have been that most people in America believe Japan just attacked Pearl Harbor for no good reason. This story is told in the hollywood movie Pearl Harbor. In the movie, there were just kids playing, good people BBQ'ing, and beach volleyball and then these evil bastards just attacked for no reason. They don't know who Perry was or what we did to Japan before this happened.
I have also heard people say, time and time again, that they believe the atomic bomb "saved lives," so the argument in my high school textbook goes, "more people died in the fire bombings than the atomic bombings." This is perhaps the most outrageous manipulation of history. They don't know American generals were begging to not use the bomb, or to at least not use on a civilian target. They have no idea of the history, of Japan's confusion, of our unwillingness to compromise despite they were saying they would surrender. President Dwight Eisenhower said: "the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Another quote from a US General: "The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all." However, conveniently most Americans now don't believe the atomic bombs were crimes against humanity, nor that the fire bombings of Tokyo were, either! The US General who oversaw the fire bombings of Tokyo himself said they were a war crime.
I think most Americans know that Germany committed horrible mass murder against races of people, but not that their economy was destroyed by through financial schemes (even Keynes, mainstream macroecon's hero, told of this).
It takes very strong character to be able to stand up and say that you made a mistake, and make good on it and make sure it doesn't happen again. I think one of the best ways this will never happen is just erase those mistakes from history, and declaring history written by the losers would be a good way to argue for that.
You are somewhat right, in that there was internal turmoil in the Japanese regime that may have led to a surrender without the nuclear attacks. But the United States did not know that. The behavior of Japanese forces and command during the rest of the war gave us every reason to believe that they were going to fight a fanatical battle to the death. You have to judge people by the information they had at the time that they made the decision.
This is an expression of ignorance on your part, and you're slapping all those innocent victims in the face with your own opinion of what you think happened.
The Japanese already offered conditions of surrender, and we didn't accept it. Give me an example of another Nation State that has ever surrendered under the terms we imposed on Japan. Germany, Italy, no other country had this imposed on them. Given our history of deplorable treatment towards the Japanese, what would you do?
Everyone knew the Japanese were ready to surrender. It was a political decision:
>General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nu...
>The Japanese were so ready to surrender that they waited for the SECOND atomic bomb. /s
This is an especially god damn arrogant comment. Information does not travel as quickly as it does today: the bombings happened 2 1/2 days apart, please consider what you would do in their shoes before you pass judgment. What would you think if someone told you something that the modern world thought impossible?
Read here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nu...
Also, Google the Mokusatsu Incident.
Even if you were right about anything, that would not do anything to explain why murdering millions of innocent civilians by fire bombing and nuclear bombing urban civilian population centers was a good idea.
This is simply false. We demanded UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER against all of the Axis powers, including Germany and Italy.
>Even if you were right about anything, that would not do anything to explain why murdering millions of innocent civilians by fire bombing and nuclear bombing urban civilian population centers was a good idea.
War is a horrible horrible thing. If there is ever another total war between major powers, that's what it would look like. In total war, the entire productive capacity of a nation is directed to the war effort. The distinction between military and civilian infrastructure becomes heavily blurred. E.g. typerwriter factories producing guns. Factories, farms, cities, all become valid targets. The combatants will do anything in service of victory. The "rules of war" are meaningless when world domination is in the cards. War isn't pretty, it's one of the most horrible things that can happen in this world.
And by the way, you are peddling historical revisionism. A settlement that involved Japan holding on to their empire was not an acceptable outcome of the war, and was most certainly not a surrender. See http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/52502 written by a Professor of History at Penn State.
> The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.
Source: https://www.amazon.com/American-Caesar-Douglas-MacArthur-188...
The "unconditional surrender" wording was an official statement, but not a 100% accurate depiction of reality.
>by the way, you are peddling historical revisionism
What I've stated has been based in fact, and I don't appreciate you conveniently ignore the facts I took the time to contribute and calmly having the indignity to type that. You don't actually want a discussion or to know why someone might disagree with you - You're just glued to your world view.
Just keep this in mind. This is a quote published in stripes.com, the US Dept. of Defenses' newspaper:
>"The bomb played a part in Japan’s surrender, but it may not have been necessary, he said."
Oh, and more on your supposed "unconditional surrender" and war crimes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
If I can open a source, point you to the fact, and show you why that's wrong, but you still are latched onto your worldview without engaging in interest in understanding another's point of view, I have nothing left to say.
Agree with your post. WWII is a text-book example of History re-written by the winner. Most people today thinks the US enter the war to put an end to the holocaust, while at that time, nobody knew this was going on.
The US didn't fight WW2 to end the Holocaust but they did fight because they saw Nazi Germany as evil and didn't want it as the super strong ruler of continental Europe.
This was taught in history when I was a boy; regardless Japan was a western ally up to and including WW1. It was Japan's aggressive expansionism that led to conflict with the USA (The greater east Asia co-prosperity sphere, an ironic name if ever there was one). The direct action leading to war was the US oil embargo against Japan. At the time the US was the primary oil producer so cutting off supply essentially guaranteed the Japanese war machine would be unable to continue conquest.
The underlying premise of the strike was not to defeat the USA; Japanese leaders knew that was impossible. The goal was to consolidate their position before the USA could respond then sue for peace.
> I have also heard people say, time and time again, that they believe the atomic bomb "saved lives," ... They don't know American generals were begging to not use the bomb, or to at least not use on a civilian target.
That was some of the scientists involved in the project, not the military.
> They have no idea of the history, of Japan's confusion, of our unwillingness to compromise despite they were saying they would surrender.
When the Emperor broke the stalemate in favor of surrender he recorded his famous address to the Japanese people to be broadcast later. A faction of nationalist soldiers broke into the Royal Household and attempted to seize the recording to prevent it from being broadcast. When that failed they attempted to seize the radio station before the coup was put down.
I would be very careful about arm-chair general-ing 80 years after the fact. As the recent election as proven: sometimes events take strange and unexpected turns. No one knows what would have happened absent the bombs. Maybe the Emperor votes the other way. Maybe a lot more of the military joins the coup. Or maybe Japan surrenders regardless. No one has any clue, not even the people involved.
> I think most Americans know that Germany committed horrible mass murder against races of people, but not that their economy was destroyed by through financial schemes (even Keynes, mainstream macroecon's hero, told of this).
This was also addressed as part of history class here in the USA. In fact we discussed it as a class and came to the conclusion that you only had two options: kill everyone or remove some of the leadership help your enemy rebuild. Trying to punish Germany with crippling reparations was known to be a bad idea at the time, but was pursued because leaders in the UK and France couldn't face up to their own part in causing the war and wanted to be able to say they got <i>something</i> for all the dead.
The same attitude nearly derailed West Germany after WW2. Some idiots in the US Treasury department came over and started tearing down factories with an aim toward converting Germany into an "agrarian society". Smarter people relatively quickly realized how stupid that was and rolled out the Marshall plan instead.
> It takes very strong character to be able to stand up and say that you made a mistake, and make good on it and make sure it doesn't happen again. I think one of the best ways this will never happen is just erase those mistakes from history, and declaring history written by the losers would be a good way to argue for that.
If you want to talk about something in US history that is actually hand-waved away talk about post Civil War reconstruction. The Confederate leaders should have been hanged. The war was about slavery, period. The Articles of Secession explicitly call out that the confederate states are seceding because of slavery... so why does the myth of "state's rights" persist? Because we never punished the leaders and they white-washed history.
In fact you could say that one element of Germany launching WW2 was the same thing: Ludendorff spent his time claiming Germany wasn't really defeated, they were all stabbed in the back and it was all the new democratically-elected government's fault. Emperor Wilhelm ceded power to Reichstag right before the shit hit the fan. It was nonsense - they were in an unwinnable position and knew it. Ludendorff tried to play the Europeans by appealing to US President Woodrow Wilson. He knew the US was on the rise and controlled the purse strings and thought he could brow-beat Wilson into accepting a more favorable peace. When Wilson told him to get stuffed he knew he was fucked.
So if anything there are two cases where letting the losers write a history has proven to have disastrous consequences. That also sets the stage for the Allies attitude in WW2: There was zero chance for the Axis powers to set any terms. The Allies intended to make absolutely certain that no one could ever claim the Axis weren't really defeated, or they were stabbed in the back, or other such nonsense.
>It was Japan's aggressive expansionism that led to conflict with the USA (The greater east Asia co-prosperity sphere, an ironic name if ever there was one). The direct action leading to war was the US oil embargo against Japan.
This is more than I have found most people know. However, I don't agree with your conclusions -- this is overly simplistic interpretation. You don't mention any of our awful history with Japan, for one, but I think the bigger picture is missing. One Japanese official famously said, "The West taught the East the game of poker, and after winning all the chips declared the game immoral thereafter." That's a truly elegant quote in it's explanatory power of what happened.
>Trying to punish Germany with crippling reparations was known to be a bad idea at the time
In my experience we were not taught this in any class in any of my history classes (in the US). Anyways Germany's economy was such that the country was suffering a humanitarian crisis, and it wasn't exactly fair or right that this was happening. So what could they do about it - They couldn't exactly just write a strongly worded letter to better the situation, either. This is why Keynes predicted WWII. Whether this lesson was remembered in the Marshall Plan like you say, at least it was never taught to me in school, and in my experience with talking to other people, it has not been taught to them, either.
>something in US history that is actually hand-waved away talk about post Civil War reconstruction. The Confederate leaders should have been hanged. The war was about slavery, period.
Actually, don't take this the wrong way, but this particular comment is opinionated. The fact is at the very least there is a debate about the origins of the war, whether about State's rights, slavery, or a combination of both and a need to preserve the union. What I don't appreciate is the (ironic) hand-waving my example away when talking about what really should be discussed as an example of hand waving history history away. Anyways, debating the origins of the civil war would derail the thread--and I think any reasonable person can agree that many people did not need to die, whether it be to preserve the union or defend the civil rights of African Americans (England freed their slaves with no war) -- another tragedy of American history that should be learned from to never happen again, not upheld as an example of excellence.
The civil war was about slavery. That the south succeeded due to slavery is fact, you could argue that the north could have left the south go but the south shot first. The only state which would have succeeded over tarrifs is South Carolina.
The confederate constitution banned their states from banning slavery. Also one of the main complaints that led to the succession was that the was that the north was not complying with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was extremely anti-states rights, it forced state officials to help slave catchers and removed jury rights from the suspected slave leading to kidnapping of free born black citizens of the north by slavecatchers.
> Anyways, debating the origins of the civil war would derail the thread--and I think any reasonable person can agree that many people did not need to die, whether it be to preserve the union or defend the civil rights of African Americans (England freed their slaves with no war) -- another tragedy of American history that should be learned from to never happen again, not upheld as an example of excellence.
I'd like to point out that Britain had fewer slaves and much less money tied up in slavery and that Haiti also needed a bloody war to end slavery. Also that Lincoln and other northern anti-slavery politicians tried to end slavery peacefully and slowly but the south refused to go along.
---
Ta-Nehisi Coates is a pretty reasonable person.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/the-civi...
> I think that ground is generally accepted by almost everyone, and for good reasons. Six hundred thousand people died in the Civil War, a shocking figure which doesn't really capture the toll that this sort of violence took on the country at large. And yet when I think about the Civil War I don't feel sad at all. To be honest, I feel positively fucking giddy.
> And I don't think I'm abnormal because of this. Twenty-two thousand people died in the Revolutionary War, and we celebrate that with hot dogs and hamburgers every year. I'm sure that while Jews feel fairly horrible that the Holocaust happened, very few of them consider the fighting it took in order to liberate the death camps, "tragic." The Holocaust is tragic. Ending the Holocaust is not.
...
> It's really simple for me. One group of Americans attempted to raise a country on property in Negroes. Another group of Americans, many of them Negroes themselves, stopped them. As surely as we lack the ability to see tragedy in violently throwing off the yoke of the English, I lack the ability to see tragedy in violently throwing off the yoke of slaveholders.
> For most Americans, the Civil War is a sudden outbreak of a existential violence. But for 250 years, African-Americans lived in slavery--which is to say perpetual existential violence. I don't know what else to call a system that involves the constant threat of your children, your parents, your grandparents, being sold off, never for you to see them again. That is death.
> Malcolm X was fond of saying that that there was no such thing as a "bloodless revolution." I don't know if that's true, but it surely was true of black people. The Civil War is our revolution. It ended slavery, and birthed both modern America, and modern black America.
> That can never be tragic to me.
Why did you redirect this conversation into a debate about the origins of the American Civil War? And now we're arguing about whether 600,000 people dying is sad or not (for the record, I think we can say that we're basically in agreement that 600,000 people dying is sad, while liberating slaves is good)?
It's not about whether it was sad or not.
It's about whether the war was avoidable and whether it was regrettable.
I don't think it was easily avoidable and despite the loss of lives when considering the alternative and what it achieved, slavery->freedom->Tenant Farmers under Jim Crow and the unity of our nation, I can't say it was regrettable.
---
As for the civil war reply even though you mentioned it as an aside and trying not to go there because I saw some things I strongly disagreed with so I responded.
Also the Civil War is a fascinating case of the the Losers writing history. After the war the need to reconcile the (white) north and south led to the end of reconstruction and any effort to enforce civil rights laws as well as a historical view that was pro-southern. Some of it was only taught in the south but much of it gained acceptance in the north.
The war was about states rights not slavery, the confederacy was a noble but doomed effort to maintain a souther way of life. Reconstruction was a corrupt effort to elevate black people above white people.
But after the civil rights era these views started unraveling. Historians now think that it was about slavery. Or rather the south succeeded due to slavery and the south shot first. Reconstruction included a bold effort to give freed slaves civil rights they wouldn't have a chance to get for 100 years and if it was at times bungling and corrupt its not like "regular" southern politics afterwards was better.
And something else that you said got to me.
> and I think any reasonable person can agree that many people did not need to die, whether it be to preserve the union or defend the civil rights of African Americans (England freed their slaves with no war) -- another tragedy of American history that should be learned from to never happen again, not upheld as an example of excellence.
It was excellence. I wouldn't like to fight a civil war again but despite a few faults Lincoln is probably the best president we ever had, he kept the union strong and determined, and won the war and freed the slaves. Yes if there had been a way to do it without violence it would have been preferable (Lincoln himself introduced a compensated emancipation bill for slaves) but due to Southern determination to hold on to slavery (rebelling when a man who promised to lead to the eventual abolition of slavery got elected) it wasn't possible.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about 600,000 dying because the south was deplorable in its unwillingness to give up slavery. The north also had a pattern of subjugating the south which clearly played a part, but I'm not going to get into this tangential debate nor do I even have a firm stance on the state's rights vs slavery debate, but I think it's crazy to ignore the facts, and tend to write opinions. You wrote earlier 'America engaged in some light imperialism.' Stop opining, the fact is America sailed in with a bunch of war ships, said play along with our economic scheme (Mercantilism, what economists call 'economic wafare' and Japan knew that, they saw what happened to China). When they said no, Perry shelled a building, and they said Ok stop, fine. They didn't have a choice, really. Those are the facts. That's what I've been writing. You have been writing a lot of the opinions and I don't appreciate that you did that while saying what I wrote is 'revisionism.' If it is factually wrong, then point to a source and show that. What you've done are mostly write opinions - you did lay down some correct history, but nothing which supported your conclusions. I'd appreciate it next time if you did less opining and stuck to the facts, especially if you wish to write deriding remarks.
Can't edit my other post: You were right about that, sorry
Probably it's more like history is written to support the view of the winners ( a party, social group, or culture), by the losers (individuals) within that view.
Or maybe it's a statistical spread with a certain percentage of history written by winners and others by losers.
Or maybe it is written by both winners and losers, and the writings of the ultimate winners are those that come down to us.
> My observations have been that most people in America believe Japan just attacked Pearl Harbor for no good reason. This story is told in the hollywood movie Pearl Harbor. In the movie, there were just kids playing, good people BBQ'ing, and beach volleyball and then these evil bastards just attacked for no reason. They don't know who Perry was or what we did to Japan before this happened.
Admiral Perry engaged in a bit of light imperialism. Japan was luckily able to understand the threat facing it from the west and resisted heavy imperialism by modernizing. Unfortunately it modeled itself after some of the worst of Western imperialism and decided to go conquer territory. Just because the west was hypocritical doesn't make Japan good or right.
Also more importantly Pearl Harbor wasn't revenge, it was a strategic preemptive strike hoping to keep US out of the war while Japan engaged in bloody imperialism over european/american imperial possessions. It failed.
The whole total war thing (mass bombing) was ugly and arguably a war crime but nukes weren't worse then other bombs. And it's a myth that Japan was willing to surrender at best they were considering negotiating for surrender under conditions (including not demilitarizing, keeping substantial colonies, self punishment of war criminals in addition to keeping the emperor). Even after 2 nukes some argue it was the addition of the soviet invasion of manchuria that got them to surrender, barely.
> I think most Americans know that Germany committed horrible mass murder against races of people, but not that their economy was destroyed by through financial schemes (even Keynes, mainstream macroecon's hero, told of this).
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4hneeq/was_t...
I understand the treaty conditions that were imposed were harsh but the weren't just for punishment, they were intended to help prevent another war. Many people including American President Woodrow Wilson thought the conditions were too harsh. Others thought they were too soft. Either way history showed that the treaty failed to prevent another war.
The conditions weren't harsher then Germany imposed on France in the French-Prussian war or on the soviet union in WW1.
And a good deal of blame for the economy lies on the German government that purposefully tanked the economy trying to get out of the treaty.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/39wikd/to_wh...
> The only way the Treaty of Versailles actually contributed to the downfall of the Weimar Republic is because the Germans used it as a scapegoat, not because it actually was particularly punitive.
> The "Deutsches Reich" (which was the real name of the Weimar Republic) was particularly incensed by three key factors: firstly, the so-called "stab in the back," where it seemed that a nearly triumphant Germany utterly collapsed in a matter of months, ostensibly by speculators (particularly Jews), the idea of German responsibility for the war, which (despite being true) was heavily resented by the average German: and lastly, the rise of Poland out of former German territories. Never mind that the population of those territories was primarily Polish, that the Germans had gone out of their way to antagonize the Poles (in the case of Silesia and Posen), and that the Germans had resurrected the Polish state in the first place (as part of Brest-Litvosk).
> These factors, combined with the arms limitations, meant that a large section of the population, primarily former soldiers and nobility, became extremely reactionary. This was not helped by attempted communist uprisings that were put down brutally by both German troops and paramilitary forces known as Freikorps. Incidentally, the forced disarmament of Germany was a massive boon to the government budget, so any excuse that Germany could not afford the reparations payments (which had already been diluted to a third of the face amount by the Entente powers prior to the signing) is ludicrous.
> These factors led to the German government attempting to sabotage their own economy to renegotiate the reparations. During the period known as Weimar hyperinflation, rather than do something sane like raise taxes or cut spending, the German government chose to print marks and use the marks to buy gold for reparations, thus rapidly inflating the currency and destroying the economy. This coincided with a refusal to properly pay the reparations, prompting French and Belgian troops to move into the industrial Ruhr region to force Germany to satisfy payment. But in response, Germany declared a general strike that further crippled the German economy but in return made the Franco-Belgian occupation unprofitable (and also started another communist uprising). In effect, Germany decided to be the petulant little child that whines that he's hungry and throws his food on the floor because he wants ice cream.
> This did cause the Entente to further renegotiate Germany's reparations, in what became known at the Dawes Plan. And the reactionaries were still upset about it, considering the deal to be treason. Germany still did not consistently make its reparation payments, albeit with slightly more regularity.
I really wanted to ask you where did your whole debate about the civil war origins come from? You starting focusing on that here and then focused solely on that in your remaining posts even despite me saying it would derail the conversation?
Edit: you write 'it was a myth they would surrender.' You can't just substitute reality with your opinion. I gave you quotes from US presidents and top military generals. Everyone knew they were trying to get out of the war. What is true is that Hirohito did everything he could to remain as emperor, which we allowed anyways... I'm just repeating myself now.
There's no point in discussing it further, and no one else is reading this anyways, but seriously answer the question about the civil war.
---
surrender
note while it was not totally an unconditional surrender it was best an unconditional surrender with an apostraphe (*), The Japanese asked for the emperor's position to be retained, the allies didn't give them a straight yes/no answer. The ultimate decision on the part of the emperor was made later during the occupation. Also the emperor was stripped of non-ceremonial power after the war, which Japan had objected to. Note that even at the end after the bombings (and the Soviet invasion of the part of China held by the Japanese) some on the ruling council were arguing for other conditions other then the emperors position such as no occupation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
> Once the Emperor had left, Suzuki pushed the cabinet to accept the Emperor's will, which it did. Early that morning (August 10), the Foreign Ministry sent telegrams to the Allies (by way of the Swiss Federal Political Department and Max Grässli in particular) announcing that Japan would accept the Potsdam Declaration, but would not accept any peace conditions that would "prejudice the prerogatives" of the Emperor. That effectively meant no change in Japan's form of government—that the Emperor of Japan would remain a position of real power.[96]
> The Allied response ... On the status of the Emperor it said:
> From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms. ...The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.
Keep in mind that civilizations on the losing end of a campaign of conquest (or overthrow) tend to have their things destroyed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_codices
https://www.britannica.com/topic/historiography
Also we know of Ashoka from texts in Sanskrit.
The main point of the article stands. Our views of history are shaped by the most literate ancient societies, not the most successful.
The myths spread about this are still around today. The most important one is the primitive red army and its human wave attacks. When in reality the quite often just out generaled as well.
Western history had developed a huge fetisch for German generals like Rommel that is mostly undeserved.
Luckly after the fall of the USSR we were able to find out a lot more about the Soviet side. Equalling out story.
But the main English edition of "Records of the Grand Historian" is Burton Watson's translation, which heavily excerpts the material to focus on the Qin dynasty, rather than including some of the more mythological information about the Zhou.
On a side note, I was surprised at how many names I had never actually read, but were immediately pronounceable in my conscious. I would have to credit Dan Carlin's Hardcore History[0] podcast for this. He has many great series that use these historians as sources quite a bit.
(full disclosure/ source of glowing pride: my friend Katherine is one of the guests )
The have a Netflux style experiance now. I highly recommend it. Its 12h long, so be aware of what your getting into.
https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/ancient-greek-civilizati...
Thucydides wrote with this feeling in mind. He did not write for the here and now of his time, instead he wrote for eternity. He could not care less if nobody read his work, he knew that truth mattered more than the opinions of others no matter how important those people might think they are.
If we look at the contribution to history made by Edward Snowden, is he a loser? I am sure he has lost a lot of relationships with people that see him as a traitor or those that sought to apprehend him. I am sure that the people he meets now don't see him as himself but who they want to see, some type of freedom fighting hero. So he has probably lost a lot in not being able to live the normal life. Financially too, so you could say that he is a loser.
But he told the truth when nobody around him would. He fought back the fear and was prepared to accept consequences for the greater good. Through his deeds and thinking he escaped the narrative about the world that we are all led to believe. He almost certainly learned a lot about the truth along the way. Therefore, in my universe, those that don't have first-hand direct experience of 'the truth' are the real losers, including those that go along with whatever we are told about Syria and other wars fought for resources around the world. I would say that those that believe Western Propaganda excessively have lost their minds. What is a worse thing to lose? Edward Snowden certainly has not lost his mind, the vast majority of people actually have by this metric. Our leaders are true slaves to the lies, even knowing the truth about some of the tales they have told. These people write history and have ghost writers and others that help them project their version of reality. But historians are connoisseurs and prefer genuine fact based history so the fake history written by our leaders cannot last forever, particularly if an alternative truth based narrative exists.
> The exception is Brasidas. Brasidas, brave defender of Methone, and thus “the first man in this war to receive the official honors of Sparta” (2.25). Brasidas, whose strategems almost defeated the Athenians at sea (2.86-87). Brasidas, the daring leading who almost stormed the fort at Pylos (4.12). Brasidas, the savior of Megara (4.70-73). Brasidas, the only Spartan eloquent and wise enough to raise all of Thessaly into revolt (4.84). Brasidas, the general who defeated Thucydides.
I think this is really too reductionist, but also inaccurate. Thucydides did not enlarge Brasidas out of a motive of glorifying himself in his defeat: Brasidas never defeated Thucydides, who in fact arrived too late to assist. Brasidas' record largely speaks for itself. That said, he was exiled because the Athenians blamed him for the defeat - probably unjustly and for political reasons. If anything, his unjust exile was his major motivation, and he in fact spent a lot of time among the Peloponnesians afterward
s/was \(published brutally\)/\1/Did the Mayans employ the same approach when writing their history? If so, your point is a good one.
And since missionaries collected and burned almost the entire corpus of 'degenerate' Mayan literature, we may never know more.
My favorite Herodotus fact is the large fuzzy gold digging ants[0] who dig up gold and attack anyone steals it:
>In this sandy desert are ants, not as big as dogs but bigger than foxes [..]. These ants live underground, digging out the sand in the same way as the ants in Greece, to which they are very similar in shape, and the sand which they carry from the holes is full of gold. [..] So when the Indians come to the place with their sacks, they fill these with the sand and drive back as fast as possible; for the ants at once scent them out, the Persians say, and give chase. They say nothing is equal to them for speed, so that unless the Indians have a headstart while the ants were gathering, not one of them would get away. - Histories, Book 3
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold-digging_ant
[1]: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%...
Additionally, even the crazy-sounding stories are often rooted in some kind of truth: the Wikipedia article about the gold-digging ants claims there is a local tribe that did in fact collect gold dust from marmot burrows.
One item that struck me was that in the Egyptian chapters, he reports that cats (then a curiosity to the Greeks) would leap into fires and burn to death; a footnote in my edition made some comment about the absurdity of his claims about cats and this in particular. But the reason it struck me is because my ex-girlfriend had a cat who exhibited exactly that behavior. It made me wonder if Herodotus mistook a singular anecdote for a generality, or if there was some kind of bizarre instinct in at least some breeds of cats in history that did indeed lead them to do that.
On the other hand, fuzzy ants were one of the reasons I've read Herodotus.
The problem is not so much with Herodotus himself but with the uncritical use of his writings due to his authority. The lesson is not to ignore Herodotus but that even great historians make mistakes or use bad/mistranslated sources.