Vince wrote:Again remember that "History is written by the victors." The victors, not those on the losing side, get to judge who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter. This has been true throughout human history, and no doubt will be continue to be true as long as humans are writing history.
cthia wrote:Terrorists doth never prosper. Not in the narrowest?
Why if they prosper, none dare call them terrorist!
The E wrote:Glad to see you've accepted the standard interpretation of that phrase.
cthia wrote:Au contraire, mon frère. It is a sentiment made in jest, just like John Harrington.
...
Bastardization of history is a staple, but not a delicacy.
tlb wrote:IT'S A TRAP!!
For the love of humanity, do not allow a restart of that terminated thread.
cthia wrote:Why tlb, in as much of an amused southern drawl as I can muster. I don't recall you being a part of that thread.
tlb wrote:No, I was not in the thread; I go back and read threads stopped by Duckk sometimes, to see what the offence was. ... There are many reasons not to comment in more than general terms, including the injunction against injecting current politics for a thread whose name starts "potus says:". As a Northerner residing in Richmond VA, your southern drawl has little effect.
cthia wrote:I am a southern boy, born and raised, that's a fact. Though I don't sound southern. It is one of the first things people comment on. I don't even sound American, hear tell my many foreign friends.
...
For the record, if you feel the offense of that thread was having "POTUS" in the title, you're fooling yourself. .
No, I am not offended; the problem is trying to avoid "Simon Says" jokes in the current climate.
It is amusing and appalling to read the occasional letter to the editor of the local paper complaining that Lincoln was a "war criminal" and should have been sent to prison. As if being assassinated as a tyrant was not enough.
The "War between the States" is a prime counter example to the statement that the victor writes the histories. In the aftermath there were considerable efforts by southern writers to repackage the war as a heroic "Lost Cause", fought to defend "States Rights" against an imperial federal government. This required ignoring the various Proclamations of Succession, which made it clear that what most was being defended was the right to define property in support of the state's "peculiar institution". Still these efforts were generally successful, perhaps culminating in "Gone with the Wind".
PS. Yahoo Answers says that this is the best interpretation:
Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it "treason."
In other words, if somebody commits treason and actually succeeds (overthrows the government and takes over), nobody will dare call the traitor a traitor because he's now the king or dictator and will punish anybody who says his actions were treasonous. So the only kinds of treason you can safely call "treason" are the ones that don't "prosper" (that don't succeed). So, the first line of the rhyme says, this makes it look as if treason never succeeds!
The rhyme was written by John Harrington, an English politician and writer who was about 20 years older than Shakespeare.
Which seems to be what you say, not so?
But that quote might be paired with this one, which has the other interpretation:
Successful and fortunate crime
is called virtue
Seneca, Herc. Furens, ii. 250.
