Talking About Women

I am continuing re-reading a translation of Thucydides book “The Peloponnesian War” about the 27 year war between Athens and Sparta back in the fifth century B.C.

In Book I, Thucydides puts these words in the mouths of Corinthian ambassadors trying to talk the Spartans into taking the side of the oppressed against Athens:

“You don’t see that the best way to peace is to use your strength justly, but show that you have no intention to submit to injustice. For you justice seems to mean that you don’t bother anyone else and never strike back unless someone hurts you first. But this policy cannot be successful ….”

The Corinthians appear to be condemning the same policy that led to Nazi domination of Europe and Imperial Japanese domination of the Eastern Pacific and East Asia in 1930’s-1940’s. The Corinthians are urging the Spartans to take a Preemptive Policy. But it is really too late. In this case back in B.C., the Athenians had already come to dominate and exact tribute from much of the Aegean Greek world.

In his funeral eulogy of the war dead, Pericles says the famous line “Athens is the school of Hellas.” In my translation, Thucydides always calls the nation Hellas and the people Hellenes. “Greek” is from a much later Latin term. Also, he always calls the people of Sparta as Lacadaemonians, sometimes collectively with their allies as Peloponnesians.

In his funeral speech, Pericles says that it is a virtue for women “not to be talked about for either good or bad by men.” The ancient Greeks, at least the Athenians, were not into women’s rights.

In Book II Pericles gives a buck-up speech to the Athenians despairing over the course of the war. He explains why the Athenians are so hated: “ He who is less fortunate will envy us.” Thucydides, an Athenian himself, admires Pericles: “He led them [the Athenians] rather than was led by them….So Athens, in name a democracy, was in fact ruled by her greatest citizen.” And looking to the end of the war, without Pericles’ leadership, he says the Athenians “were at last overthrown, not by their enemies, but by themselves, and their own infighting.” Sounds familiar.

Why Liberals are Almost Always in the Minority

Any community is divided into two kinds of people, those who are more or less happy with the way the community is organized and operates, and those who are not. Those who feel that they benefit and prosper in the community, or feel that they will do so, are happy with it. But there are others who are unhappy. They feel that they do not benefit from the community’s structure, that they cannot. They don’t like it and they want to change it in a way that will benefit them more, where they can thrive.

Those who are happy are called “Conservatives.” They want to preserve and conserve the community structure, organization, and operation pretty much as it is. It is one that they are happy with. They do or expect to prosper in it.

Those who are unhappy are called “Liberals.” Another word, perhaps, “Non-Conservatives” or “Changers” or “Rebels” might be more appropriate. But we appear to be pretty much stuck with “Liberals.” They want to change the structure, because they believe it is an obstacle to them. They are not happy with things the way they are now.

There is a principle that describes what happens. There is basically only one way to be happy with the situation. You like it, it fits you and the way you want to live and work. You are happy with it. However, there are many ways to be unhappy with it. It is not fair to you. Its rules are too restrictive. Resources are denied to you. They are against you. They keep you in the dark, hiding information from you. You are not like them, so they hold that against you. They never give you a chance. They are stupid, not smart like you, and they know it. They are afraid of you, so they keep you down. They lie to you. You are too young, too old, too short, too ugly, too different, something, and they don’t like you. There are all kinds of ways to be unhappy with the community’s system.

This principle is the Anna Karenina Principle explained by Jarod Diamond in his extraordinary book, Guns, Germs, and Steel . The Principle’s name comes from the first words of Leo Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina: “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Rephrased, “There is basically one way to be right, but many ways to be wrong.” But perhaps this is too harsh on Liberals. Maybe, “There is one way to fit in the system, but many ways not to.”

The Anna Karenina Principle applies to politics in this way: A community breaks down into minority segments, each with its own gripe, and one group that is happy. The happy group isn’t exactly homogeneous, but it is more homogeneous than the others are collectively. The happy group will be the largest minority group, perhaps even a majority. This happy group is the Conservatives. Conservatives will therefore be the largest of minorities, or else the majority. Most people will be Conservatives. Generally, this will always be the case.

Now this sounds perhaps a bit self serving. Why couldn’t Liberals be more, even a majority. Because Liberals are unhappy. They want to change the community’s societal structure. If they are the biggest minority or the majority, then they would take charge and change it. Then it wouldn’t be something they wouldn’t like. It would be their way, their structure. Then they would be happy. They wouldn’t want it to change back or different. They would be the Conservatives. They would have become the Conservatives. So the Conservatives would be the largest group. The society might have turned over, but whoever is happy with it are the Conservatives.

Pericles was Not for Peace

I have started re-reading a translation of Thucydides book “The Peloponnesian War” about the 27 year war between Athens and Sparta back in the fifth century B.C.. I read it once before many years ago. There are certain parts I remember very well, others very vague. One thing I had very clear from my earlier reading was how Thucydides described the causes of the war. I have sometimes cited this in discussions with others. I am a little surprised to find that my memory was wrong. I must have been thinking of some other book.

I am part way through Book 2 of “The Peloponnesian War”. The first “Book” (really chapter, but I guess books were smaller back when they were on scrolls) is about the causes and events leading up to the war. They are pretty routine. People wanting to keep what they have, others wanting to have it. People wanting freedom, others wanting to control them. People understanding clearly what the treaty said, others clearly understanding it said something else. And some people just hotheaded.

I remembered that the first part of the Peloponnesian War was called the Archidamian War, but I did not remember why. Now I know. Achidamus was one of the Spartan kings (they had two at a time). What took me by surprise was that Archidamus in Book 1 was the leader of the “let’s not be hasty about this” party in Sparta. He spoke, according to Thucydides, about how the younger men are eager for war because they do not have the experience of the older men. He says that just because the Athenians live a more casual life than the Spartans, not to underestimate how formidable they were. He points out that they had more people, more resources, and plenty of courage. Let’s not rush into this, he said.

This is in contrast to what the Athenian leader Pericles says to his people. He tells them not to back off an inch. He echoes Archidamus by reminding the Athenians that they have the men, they have the ships, and by Athena, they have the courage, too. He tells them that they cannot lose. Victory for Athens is certain. In Book 2 he gives a funeral eulogy for those soldiers fallen so far that is along the lines of we are plenty strong and we can’t dishonor the fallen and our forefathers by letting go of what they sacrificed for.

The liberal Athenians were the aggressive ones while the conservative Spartans were the more reluctant. Perhaps surprising.