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.
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.)