The short guy probably had it right...

EDIT: The captive slaves of the Spartans were called 'Helots' not 'huknos', I was thinking one word and typed another. I fixed it now.

Note: This is probably going to be one of those posts where I know more or less what I want to say, but because the topic is so amorphous, it is hard to really communicate well. There is no thesis statement, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm not even sure I have a point. This post will probably be very stream of consciousness, so please bear with me.

As interesting as history is as a story, the very philosophy behind it is just as fascinating to me. Like all stories, there's usually room for interpretation, but rarely do the interpretations have such far reaching consequences (except in the case of religious texts). Napoleon Bonaparte is credited with saying, "History is a set of lies agreed upon by the victors." There is undoubtedly a grain of truth to this, on both the small and large level. Take Women's history. Now I'm sure a lot of people get aggravated that there are entire classes just focused on Women's history but that's because ours is one of the first generations that has even LOOKED at it. Before, it was assumed they either didn't have one or it would totally match up with Men's. If you were to look at a certain period in history solely from the point of view of men, and then do the same with women, no doubt you would get a different story. It's about what's emphasized, prioritized and outright ignored. Both have truths to them, both have gray areas of belief.

John Stuart Mill, great man though he was, was wrong about history. He said (paraphrased): "These nations[referring to India] have no culture, and therefore, no history. This is true of almost all of the East."
Because their culture did not look like his, he didn't recognize it as civilization. How many times may this have happened, and how many stories may have gotten lost because of it? I think this is a serious flaw in our education system, that we get so focused on American History (which is frequently white-washed past recognition), as if all of history was just setting up for the creation of the United States that we forget there's an entire world outside. And when the rest of the planet is talked about, it is usually in reference to us.

This is another inherent problem with history. For as long as the stories have been passed down, they have usually been used to engender nationalism or pride. It is awfully hard to remain objective when you want to make someone (or large groups of people) believe something about themselves.

But then, no history is wholly objective. The writers are human and therefore have flaws, and the readers are likewise without perfection. I think that's one reason it says in 1 Corinthians 13, "Now we see through a glass darkly, but then, face to face."
There's much we don't understand, it is obscured from us, and I personally am looking forward to seeing it all laid out later (much later, please).

Okay, so far we've shown: History changes depending on who is telling it (who may be focused on some things more than others, and who may simply be ignorant of other aspects), and because there is usually an agenda, it is difficult to say any of it can be taken totally on faith. That doesn't meant we should disregard it or consider it unimportant. It is simply something to be aware of.

Phew, glad we got that all set up. Now to what I actually wish to talk about. ^.^

Like I said, the philosophy is almost as interesting as the actual stories, and like philosophy, history is full of contradictions. Things everyone knows but doesn't always think about. Often, it is just the difference in wording. But words have power, and shape our perceptions and therefore our actions.

Why is it that:

You can be a freedom fighter...or an 'anarchist' rebel?
A crusader...or a terrorist?
A strong, effective leader...or a dictator?
A great general and tactition...or a cruel, inhumane bastard?

What's the difference? Sometimes it is easier to say, but often we are on very shaky ground. Most of the time, the only difference is whose side you're on.

Some context: For Christmas, I received a bunch of books written by the same author, historical fiction about ancient Greece and Rome. Currently I'm reading one about Xenophon, which has been really interesting because it's a period that I'm not really familiar with (though I know about what came before and then what came after). But it got me thinking about how we, in the present, think about people in the past.

A Tale of Two Cities in the Ancient World:

Once upon a time, there were two very powerful city states. They were named Athens and Sparta. Athens was the cultural center of the known world, militarily strong because of her navy (being right near the sea), and a huge trading post. Great minds, philosophical and scientific, flocked to her, and at the time we're looking, she had the first fully functional true democracy, under the leadership of Pericles. Well...true democracy in the sense that all free white men could vote and had a say. However, Athens looked around to its neighbors and literally conquered them through democracy. They became more and more powerful by subjecting other free cities, "for their own good." (Sound familiar anyone?)

Meanwhile, there was Sparta. I personally, consider the brilliance of Sparta in their social system. They had few legal punishments (obviously rape and murder, and stealing was punished, normally because you were stupid enough to get caught), instead they relied on social ostracization. Sparta had once conquered their rival and had taken all the people captive as slaves. 'True Spartans' were called Spartiates, and there were relatively few of these compared to people who just lived in Sparta, and then the helots(or the captive slaves). Now, if you know you're outnumbered by people who would kill you if they could, you would make a military society too. That's why the Spartan war-culture continued so long after they had stopped making war, they had to be always on guard against those within their own borders. And once a year, they got to go crazy and kill as many of the helots as they wanted. Fun people huh?
But back to their social psychology. Spartiate men all lived and ate together in Barracks. It was like The Big Kids table. If you showed cowardice (the highest crime in Spartan Society), you were stripped of your Spartiate status, and could no longer eat or live there. It was a huge disgrace. In this way, the Spartans ruled themselves through internalized values. No one had to be physically punished because they did it themselves. I think that's pretty innovative.

So both cultures had their good and evil, just like any other. Spartans treated their Spartiates very well, regardless of whether they were male or female. Well, women were more respected and got to have a greater say in politics, though they couldn't formally hold office. They were able to participate in Olympics, but this was mostly because healthy women create healthier children so it wasn't really due to any kind of enlightenment. But Sparta was pretty backward when it came to other things. Because they had slaves to do their work, they didn't advance technologically. Their houses were not particularly comfortable (more like mud huts than anything else), and it was once said 'No wonder Spartans are so willing to die on the spear. Better that than to live on their food'. They were strong people in that they adhered ardently to their beliefs, and with the exception of the one country that they more or less accidentally 'won', they had no interest in conquering anyone else.
At the same time, Athens encouraged new levels of higher thinking and we find the beginnings of deductive reasoning, the scientific method and great leaps in science and art. Plus, the formalization of democracy is an important contribution. But the Athenians were pretty full of themselves and felt the need to spread their greatness to others who didn't ask for it.

And so like what so often happens, the true evils of any people comes forth in war. Sparta didn't participate in the first Pelloponnesian War because they didn't like leaving Sparta for fear the slaves would rise up. But the second, which lasted for 27 years, would have tragedies on both sides.

It is during this time that my books starts. Sparta won the Second Pelloponnesian war, and installed a puppet government, known as the Thirty Tyrants. This was a huge leap from true democracy to a strict oligarchy and the Athenians resented it. Spartan philosophy didn't work on such a large scale. It was fine for their city-state, but they couldn't enforce it well on others. For one thing, they liked winning, but they didn't really like conquering.
(Note: This is all based on my personal understanding. I get my information from classes, books and talking with professors because I assume they know what they are talking about. As I've said, history is usually open to interpretation and has often been embellished if not outrightly made up. So I could be wrong on some of these points, especially motivation. Please don't think that I assume everything I say is gospel truth, I am completely open to the idea I could misunderstand these things.)

Man, that was a lot more background than I meant to give. And all from memory too ^.^ Dr.Nuzum (my Prehistory teacher) would be so proud.

So what this has done is made me think about our double standards. Take the movie 300. Obviously, only loosely based on historical fact, and I don't use it as a real reference point, but it DOES speak to our present perception. And a lot of it is right, at least philosophically. Spartans were the best hoplite warriors of the time (hoplites are foot soldiers). And they really did fight off an overwhelming number of Persians to allow for the rest of the army to escape (yeah, covering for someone else running away isn't quite as romantic, but it does show a level of self-sacrifice).
The Queen, Gorgo, was actually a really fascinating figure, someone who greatly interested Herodotus, the father of history. She is the main reason we know about the battle of Thermopylae, as she wrote extensively. Leonidas was a great king, he introduced many reforms and improved the lives of his people (I personally consider that a plus for a ruler). But we have this over-simplified view of the Spartans I think, just as we do of many other peoples and individuals. We, Americans, and probably humans in general, are drawn to people who are the best at physical prowess. Take team names. My school mascot is a Viking. Vikings were smelly, gross and often terrible human beings. Yet, we glorify them. Look at most teams. Heck, the Forks High School team is called the Spartans. No one wants to be called the Athenians because they were known for their mental abilities and despite our great enlightment (/sarcasm) we don't value that nearly as much as the ability to swing an ax into someone's face. It's just as we like winners, no matter how they achieve that rank.

Something I've always wrestled with is how we judge individuals, and if we even have the right. I've talked to a lot of people about it, especially my dad and Dr.Nuzum (who is a historiographer and so usually understands where I'm coming from).
What do we judge? The action, the consequences, the motivation? If they were a total douchebag, but did good things for their country, are they excused? What if they did good things for their country but at the expense of another country? I suppose that's the philosophy of Political Science.

Take three of my favorite subjects: Richard, Coeur de Leon, Alksandr of Macedon (also known as Alexander the Great) and Napoleon Bonaparte.
Richard was one of the ten greatest generals of all time (as far as I know). He inspired much in his men, and his people loved hearing of his victories.
But he also bankrupted his country to fund the Crusades, and obviously his victories came through killing people closer to their own country than he was to his. I highly doubt he really cared about liberating the Holy City. He loved making war, he was good at it, and any excuse would have worked. He was known for raping women and then passing them around to his men for their depravations. In his defense, that was expected of him, though it hardly excuses him morally.

So which column do we put him in? Should we even try? Perhaps we don't have the right, as we weren't there. But then, we have to live in a world shaped by these actions, which gives us some leeway. If Sparta and Athens hadn't more or less destroyed each other, Phillip of Macedon would have had a much more difficult time defeating them and Alexander the Great would likely never have risen and the world would certainly be different.
Alexander unified formerly disparate nations and paved the way for the Roman Empire who for all of its evil, did much for the world, including setting the stage for the birth of Christ. If Alexander had lived past 33, who knows what he could have accomplished, for good or ill? But in his time, he perfected his father's improvements in hoplite warfare and reshaped the map. People became aware of the world around them better. When Rome came, they also built on this, creating the Latin Rule, which made them come to new nation-states as colonizers, not conquerors and is one of the main reasons they were as powerful as they were for as long as they were (an empire that literally lasts 1000 years is not to be sneered at).

More directly than either of these perhaps is Napoleon. Much that is in the world today can be traced to him, including the rise of Nationalism (and come of its consequences, such as Abolitionism and Feminism). The Napoleonic Wars greatly altered Europe and many of the colonies (such as Haiti). Napoleon was definitely egotistical, but he was also a great general and understood psychology to the extent that he perfected nationalism to help keep the French people in line and to this day they have few figures they love as much as him.

I know I'm talking in circles, but that's how I think about these things, there is always a thought and then a counterthought.

Were these great men? Were they good as human beings or are those in authority answerable to a different set of rules? Jimmy Carter was probably one of our most moral presidents but he failed as a ruler pretty hard. Herbert Hoover was one of the most hated, but he didn't really do things wrong, he just didn't do much of anything. Johnson WANTED to do a lot of great things, he had a lot of good intentions, but he's mostly remembered for getting us stuck in Vietnam.

Or look at it another way:
During World War I, we saw the formalized conceptualizing of Total War. One of the components of Total War is the Homefront. Every individual is involved, man, woman, child, with the war machine. And therefore, there are no civilians. It because acceptable to bomb cities, towns...If you destroy their suppliers, if you demoralize their soldiers...you win. The Blitzkrieg, Nagasaki...Terrible atrocities done in the name of victory.

But if it WORKS...it's considered good strategy. The Assyrians ruled through fear because they did terrible things to those who rebelled against them, including babies on spikes. But it worked right? Does that justify it? That's a dramatic example but we can see it other places. It's war right? The rules change. But when the OTHER side does it...it's barbaric, it's evil, and that's why we have to stop them. The double standard continues.

If we do it, we're Liberators. If They do it, they're terrorists. How dare Russia invade democratic Georgia? Oh, we invaded democratic Iraq? Well...that's hardly the same thing.

I'm not ragging on the US, but pointing out a problem with humanity in general. As a species, we tend to suck hardcore when it comes to fighting with each other.

There was a line, at some point, someone must have said 'We should never go past this point. This is the worst we should do, because after this, it becomes morally unnacceptable'.

I think that point was passed a long time ago. Now we can destroy the world 80 times over with nuclear weapons, and even better we have MACHINES to do it. The only benefit is that war is no so horrid, we are discouraged from doing it because of how awful the cost would be. But there's always a button pusher, always someone who considers the ends justifying the means, and our children will have to live with the consequences of those decisions.
Because someone decided that killing each other more efficiently was a good idea. And then someone else, and then someone else...and no one stopped them. And they thought they were doing the right thing.

So how do we judge THEM? If their intentions were, if not pure, at least in the best interest of those they considered important, could we say they were evil? Or just misguided? Einstein said one of his greatest regrets was helping with the Atom bomb. But he had been told that the Germans already had one and the only way to preserve peace was for America to have one too. He was lied to, plain and simple. Does that excuse him?

A lot of good things have happened in our world. So have a lot of evil things. And so many many things we don't know about anymore.

So what's the point? I told you, way at the beginning that I didn't have one. Remember that far back? ;)

We are all actors in history. What we do changes the world, whether we see it not. So take care and consider your decisions because someone else will likely have to live with the consequences.