What would it take for the Goliath to be the hero and David to be the pessimist? Not just in fictional narrative depictions but throught history too. The only scenario I can think of that kinda fits the mold was 9/11. Where America may not of been the hero or “good guy” but the underdog Taliban was unanimously viewed as the “bad guys.” I’m not super knowledgeable when it comes to global geopolitical relations so I’m all ears for any scenarios that prove otherwise and would love to hear them.
Edit: I am loving all the responses and its a great conversation, I just wish I phrased the title differently so it wasn’t getting downvoted. I didn’t mean for it to come accross like I didn’t think it ever happened.
The reason stories exist of the underdog winning, is because the underdogs lose almost all the time.
Think of how common a story it is that a Walmart being built in a small town basically shutters all the local businesses.
Also, David basically brought a gun to a knife fight against Goliath. Seems like Goliath should have been considered the underdog :3
Also, David basically brought a gun to a knife fight against Goliath. Seems like Goliath should have been considered the underdog :3
Its been suggested that the combat could have been a ritualistic slaughter. Much like the Gladiator Ring was ritualized slaughter, to appease the masses.
IE: David vs Goliath, if it were to ever have happened in true history, would have always been written down like the story. The concept of “true history” wasn’t invented until centuries after that particular story. The purpose of writing in the Bronze Age was to build shared culture and shared stories.
Don‘t you call a „bad“ underdog in other words? Just like gangster, criminal, activist, terrorist, …
Shit that’s a fucking good one. This is the type of responses I was hoping for.
“Low-life” and “scumbag” are kind of the shitty versions of underdogs.
By the end of ww2, the nazis were the underdogs.
Melon Husk used to be the underdog of carmaker you know.
I’m a little conflicted about Telon Cusk. I don’t think the EV auto industry would be as far advanced today if not for his efforts; I think we’d have gotten here eventually, but maybe a decade or two later.
Same with the space industry. I wish that, instead, NASA would have been well-funded and space would have remained a science-first (with hidden military objectives; that was unavoidable) effort, but Tusk stepping in and pushing created a new space race where governments had failed.
He created neither Tesla nor SpaceX, nor was he the technical mind behind them; but his pumping money into them and his grandstanding did a lot to motivate other players in those industries.
Does that good outweigh his fundamental evil nature? Probably not. But he has been instrumental in some good advancements.
Confirmation Bias!
These make GREAT stories! These are the historical moments that get passed down.
So, we’ve got the tale of America breaking free from the British Empire, but you know what stories you haven’t heard? All the times the British Empire took over and kept the land it stole from underdogs. You don’t get called an Empire without multiple successful takeovers.
I think I forgot exactly what you were asking as I was typing, so this doesn’t exactly fit the question.
So I thought about the confirmation bias affect and feel like it wasn’t overly relevant anymore even though it has been in the past. I do not doubt there were stories of the hero conquering savages but as we see it now those depictions are largely understood as the conquering nation being the bad guy.
If anything confirmation bias in today’s history books happens through omiting of unfavorable shit governments do.
I think there’s a big element of selective memory here. We love hearing about underdog stories, because they’re such a good show of courage, selflessness, and other great virtues. This means we are more likely to remember the parts of history where the underdog is the good guy.
On the other hand, I think you do have a point. Those who have the hardest fight to make the change they want, are the most likely to do it for selfless reasons. It makes much more sense to put yourself at risk if you aren’t fighting for yourself. So while wrong but well-meaning underdogs seem possible to me, actually bad people who just want to be on top aren’t likely to take the underdog route.
So I just had this realization that I think is what you are describing and I have genuinely never noticed it until the comment I replied to in the screenshot from this earlier in this thread. (I’m on mobile and don’t know how to link comments so I just screenshotted it. If you can’t read it then just look at the comments a couple below yours.)
Pretty much any criminal gang scenario.
Take crypto coins for example. By using crypto coins and anonymizers you are avoiding the Goliath of the FBI and other monetary controls.
But you are supporting literal human trafficking and slavery, sanctions avoidance and ultimately benefiting Russia, North Korea and Iran.
I don’t understand the purpose of the link to a list of serial killers. Assuming this is your way of saying a serial killer is an under dog and bad person, do you care to explain why a serial killer is an under dog? They’re killing 1 person at a time usually and they are usually going to kill the person using a tool or weapon while the other person is unarmed and unknowing to what is happening. Or am I missing something?
They’re up against the entirety of police forces, the judicial system, and looked down upon by most of society. Quite the underdog, no?
Jesus just describing how they can be considered underdogs sounds like a statement of support for them. That’s so wild and have never noticed this affect before your comment. Even knowing the purpose of your comment was to show how the underdog is the bad guy.
Most of them also had terrible, traumatic childhood experiences that helped shape them and enabled them to accomplish their various feats, which most of us could never dream of doing.
I dont get what you are trying to say, what is the relevance to the discussion of underdogs vs Goliaths and their being viewed as an optimist or pessimist? Also what’s up with the asterisks? I can’t tell if you are implying the trauma makes them underdogs or if their feats make them the giants.
I do think that coming from a background of severe abuse makes you more of an underdog, in general. It’s certainly not setting you up for success. I’m not praising or condoning their heinous acts, at all. It’s awful, unthinkable stuff, which is why I said:
which most of us could never dream of doing.
The asterisks were to emphasize that most people could never even think of doing this stuff–it’s not even an easy thing to discuss.
Got it and totally agree.
I’m still learning how to use markdowns for text so I didn’t know if it was a markdown of a format lemmy on sync app didn’t recognize or maybe it was missing a part of the markdown.
