Might Makes Right
My brother-in-law commented to me last night, "It seems like in Greek Mythology, might makes right - not just that, but if you have the might, you ARE right. So Ulysses is a better person, because he can pull his bow - not that he is able to pull the bow because he is a better person."
"Well," I said, "That's not an unusual concept. The middle ages had lots of writing about that."
And I'm still thinking about it. You see, when people write about chivalric virtue in the middle ages and they talk about "Nobility" and "Franchise" as virtues - they are not talking about the abstract concept of behaving like a noble or a free man - no, they mean BEING noble. You are born noble, congratulations, you have a virtue.
Geoffroi de Charny - my favorite Chivalric author - casually mentions how god CHOSE the nobility, (though then goes on that they were not chosen to be a bunch of oafs, great power comes with great responsibility, yo.) And yes, they were chosen out of the best, the strongest of men.
I've read lots of medieval romances that mention Nature creating, say, the heroine, and using the best dough, not the coarse grain used for most people. You see how this follows? You're better because you're better.
And we can't look down on the medieval mindset because this attitude pervades today. Just watch a few rounds of WWF. The good guy always pins the bad guy in the end - and it is really hard to discern whether he is better because he is good or he is good because he is better. There is no causal relation offered - it's not a part of the narrative.
And I realized, this attitude is at the heart of Conservative thought. Rich people deserve what they have, poor people are flawed somehow and that's why they're poor. It's a comforting thought, isn't it? I have mine, so I must be good. I won't end up poor because I'm good. How very nice. How very wrong.
Though I admit a small sense of smugness realizing, after years of being called an Idealistic Dreamer (TM) for my liberal views, that actually, it's the right that advances policy based on fantasy, this fantasy that might makes right. It explains why they ignore hard evidence like, say, that attacking people doesn't make you safer, it makes you less safe, and taxing the rich more actually doesn't hurt them but taxing the poor more will make even the rich suffer. You look at the facts and you think this stuff is a no-brainer, but it challenges that mythology that is built into us from time out of mind. It assumes that other people react the same as we do, have the same drives ambitions flaws and strengths. "We" are no longer special. Our privileges are no longer earned.
(And yes, I did say I'd post fiction today, but since I got a total of zero comments on that, and near zero on all fiction posts total, I'm guessing there is, in fact, zero interest in such.)
"Well," I said, "That's not an unusual concept. The middle ages had lots of writing about that."
And I'm still thinking about it. You see, when people write about chivalric virtue in the middle ages and they talk about "Nobility" and "Franchise" as virtues - they are not talking about the abstract concept of behaving like a noble or a free man - no, they mean BEING noble. You are born noble, congratulations, you have a virtue.
Geoffroi de Charny - my favorite Chivalric author - casually mentions how god CHOSE the nobility, (though then goes on that they were not chosen to be a bunch of oafs, great power comes with great responsibility, yo.) And yes, they were chosen out of the best, the strongest of men.
I've read lots of medieval romances that mention Nature creating, say, the heroine, and using the best dough, not the coarse grain used for most people. You see how this follows? You're better because you're better.
And we can't look down on the medieval mindset because this attitude pervades today. Just watch a few rounds of WWF. The good guy always pins the bad guy in the end - and it is really hard to discern whether he is better because he is good or he is good because he is better. There is no causal relation offered - it's not a part of the narrative.
And I realized, this attitude is at the heart of Conservative thought. Rich people deserve what they have, poor people are flawed somehow and that's why they're poor. It's a comforting thought, isn't it? I have mine, so I must be good. I won't end up poor because I'm good. How very nice. How very wrong.
Though I admit a small sense of smugness realizing, after years of being called an Idealistic Dreamer (TM) for my liberal views, that actually, it's the right that advances policy based on fantasy, this fantasy that might makes right. It explains why they ignore hard evidence like, say, that attacking people doesn't make you safer, it makes you less safe, and taxing the rich more actually doesn't hurt them but taxing the poor more will make even the rich suffer. You look at the facts and you think this stuff is a no-brainer, but it challenges that mythology that is built into us from time out of mind. It assumes that other people react the same as we do, have the same drives ambitions flaws and strengths. "We" are no longer special. Our privileges are no longer earned.
(And yes, I did say I'd post fiction today, but since I got a total of zero comments on that, and near zero on all fiction posts total, I'm guessing there is, in fact, zero interest in such.)