Self Defense/Were elite warrior classes such as Samurai scumbags in reality?
Heavily related to this last question I made.
And this post you made.
As well as this statement.
"Having looked into the actual history and social constructs around the samurai, I'm not particularly impressed with the idealization of those rat bastards by many people today. However, this is one thing I did find rather useful in their perspective. That is actively encouraging the paradox between horror and beauty as a way to function. Yes, people dying in a horrible way and living with treachery, danger and hardship sucks. But then consciously taking the time out to see beauty, to find wonder and peace."
Because its a topic so complex, so I'll use primarily Samurai. The reason I asked the question about peasant farmers is because in addition to the changing narrative now common in academia about peasants actually being the heroes who united Japan) rather than the Samurai. The current narrative is going as far as criticizing traditional Japanese literature (poetry in particular) for praising the Samurais as the embodiment of Confucian virtues who defended the helpless and weak (who've been crying from being raped,plundered, and murdered) from bandits, demons, and other evil men roaming medieval Japan. Instead now the narratives are painting all Samurai as brutal vicious thugs who did as they please with townswomen and taxed the peasants so much they were suffering in routine starvation. No longer are the
Indeed not just the Samurai, but now the narrative on pretty much every warrior castes and professionals from the knights to Roman Legions to the Kshatriya caste are now being painted in a negative light as thugs who ran a racket protection. Not only that, but the current narrative in academia is so vicious on defending this narrative about warrior castes and soldiers as evil rat bastards in order to "prevent" the tragic mistake of ever letting a fighting class from preying on civilians of society. Every classics praising such castes from the Song of Roland to the numerous Vedas are now seen as worthless works written so a few nobles could pat themselves on the back.
I am curious whats your take on this? You frequently quote "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf" and on top of that you also criticize the self-righteous civilians have in their expectation that a cop or soldier's life as canon fodder.
I mean despite you calling the Samurai rat bastards and criticizing the modern romanticization by martial artists, you also admit they were the paradox of horror and beauty as a way to function despite living in a terrible world full of violence and war. Implying you don't outright criticize all Samurai as evil men (as the current academic narrative).
Any extreme is bad
Or in this case, wrong. As a social class that lasted for over a 1,000 years in many countries, knights were no more virtuous bastions of chivalry than they were sociopathic rapists and robbers. Trying to reduce people to white hats or black hats ignores actual history and turns it into a narrative (promoting your own values and judgements about how the world is).
While that doesn't sound bad a quote I actually do use -- you got the Kipling quote I use wrong -- is from DS-9 "Oh no. We Ferengi aren't against oppression. We just want to be the one's doing it."
A whole lot of people claiming to be the victims of oppression/ saying a group was oppressive are in the final analysis, no better, just as corrupt and after they come into power, even more brutal, oppressive and violent than the regimes they replaced. Take a look a the French Revolution/Terror, Russia/Lenin/Stalin and China/Mao's Cultural Revolution.
I have a big problem with what's going on in Academia with Critical Theory and Cultural Marxism so strongly influencing both what is being taught AS history and the changes in academia. Here let me give another quote I actually use as a warning (Read the whole thing instead of just the popular first line:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Now critical theory folks would have you believe the 'State' is only government or the one percenters, but this unfortunately applies to many large scale movements/organizations/institutions/ ideologies. It's especially true for grabbing power -- like the Nazis (who were another example of what happens when the poor, oppressed and disfranchised come into power.
Real history is cruel and brutal... because given certain stimuli, humans are cruel and brutal. Most people decrying that aren't really any better, but telling themselves they are is how they think they'll get power (or they give themselves permission to be cruel and brutal).
*The actual quote I do use is Orwell speaking of Kipling: He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them.
That's been machoized into the rough men quote by wanna be warriors. I like the original because the feeding is, on a day to day basis, more important than the guarding