Yeah, this is definitely the case IME. It's easy to read these stories and go away thinking "WTF." But it's important to remember that these stories come from oral societies, which means 90% of the communication is lost since it's only written on paper. But that communication can be reconstructed by a charitable mind.
For example, in the first story in Grimm's Fairy Tales (at least the version I read), there's a mouse and a cat that are friends. The cat and mouse find some delicious food and they hide it somewhere far away from their house. The cat then proceeds to go "visiting relatives" (in reality he is eating up the delicious food) and the mouse is gullible and believes the cat. After a while the mouse discovers the cat ate up all the food and angrily accuses the cat of being deceitful. The cat then proceeds to eat the mouse. The end.
I think this is a profound story on not ignoring the fact that the cat is the natural predator and the mouse is the natural prey in the relationship. The mouse has convinced itself that this time will be different. This has relevance for e.g. not dismissing signs of abuse.
But it's so easy to read that story and be like, "Well, I guess the point is that gullible people get screwed, so don't be gullible." Or even, "It's a dog-eat-dog world." It's a good story to tell a friend who's trying to rationalize being passive in an abusive relationship.
To me that story reads like thinly veiled political commentary. Peasants and feudal lords/nobility/local government working towards a common goal (e.g. paying taxes to fund defense against bandits, building grain stores for times of famine, etc). A person in power misappropriates the funds for personal gain, and any peasant who complains loses their head.
Telling a story about a mouse and a cat allowed you to keep your head, and the situation was probably common enough for the fable to become widely known before it was picked up by the Bothers Grimm.
It's not that different from Gulliver's Travels complaining about pointless religious wars under the guise of talking about far-away islands of tiny humans, or Star Trek criticizing the Vietnam War under the guise of talking about a primitive planet light-years away centuries in the future.
My thoughts were this might also be on the World politics level. E.g. a case where a stronger country during wartime will co operate with weaker country, and then slowly infiltrate because it's easier than to do full on invasion.
Then finally when weaker country starts to complain they will completely take over. The stronger country in theory could at any time swallow the weaker, it's just that it might be more beneficial for stronger country to do it in a slower, methodical, deceiving manner, until it can. Or when it actually needs to.
In this case it seems to me it was strategic behavior by the cat to not immediately eat the mouse, but instead consume the fat first. Eating the mouse was a fallback in this scenario.
But overall this specific scenario happens on so many levels of relationships including, but not limited to interpersonal, business, country level, World level, etc.
The main key points in my view are that it is a cat, and cat always will want to eat the mouse in what you would think is pscyhopathic mannerism if it was between people, but it's most easily explainable on level of countries. Because ultimately countries as entities have to act in psychopathic ways with each other, because territories, resources are all clearly limited.
Due to the complexity of World politics you have to co operate with your enemies as well. Both sides are lying to each other, keeping secrets, but at the same time co operating, because they have to or they otherwise will fall behind other countries.
I hate to break it to you but this is ahistorical, as this story is several hundred years old the peasants at that time had no concerns for world politics nor were they concerned by whom they were governed, the circumstances for them wouldn't change
It's the second story. The first is the "frog prince".
> The cat then proceeds to eat the mouse.
Even the english Wikipedia article does not mention the most important part:
When she beholds the empty pot, enlightenment dawns on the mouse: "First 'Top-off,' " she murmurs, "then 'Half-gone,' and then ..." The cat warns her to say no more, but the mouse persists. The cat pounces on the mouse and eats her up.
Yeah dang I just read the original version and the moral is a double whammy of don't fool yourself into being deceived/oppressed by a predator, but if you do, don't ever call them out on it!
Wait, isn't the mouse screwed from the beginning though?
One read I get is that the cat is making friends with the mouse so that, specifically in the lean times, it'll be able to eat his "friend", while also not sacrificing any hard-earned payoff in the good times.
I think there are two ways to think about stories like this: that they are Wisdom, or that they are tools for those who are wise. I prefer to think of them in the second way. The stereotypical Bible-thumping Christian thinks of the Bible as Wisdom. That is, it doesn't require much critical thinking or wisdom to apply. The Bible says X, therefore X is true in every situation and you should apply it to everything.
But I think in an oral culture it was more likely that these were tools for thinking. E.g. if your wise friend tells you this story (which you've heard before) and says, "I think in this area you're being the cat in the relationship," then that has some weight. But when a random priest says, "You're the cat in this area of the relationship," their priestly authority doesn't mean they are the voice of God and they are speaking infallible truth into your life. Your wise friend has more weight because you know from experience that they are wise and because they know you.
Basically, the story is a tool that is only useful to those who are wise. The story is worthless in the hands of a fool.
The problem I see in the current culture is that most people view the ancient texts through translations that seem almost illiterate compared to the original language.
I will take your word that some religions don't study the Bible. The study I went through was pretty in depth and I still have revelations 40+ years after the initial studying.
The difference between oral tradition and the written word is that the written word takes discipline. Some of the early religions have strict rules on capturing the text of the documents. The fidelity between contents of the Dead Sea scrolls and the current Torah is impressive.
The oral tradition is a secondary collection of contemporary stories that become the living dialog of the evolving culture.
Some religions contain both oral and written tradition. The written word is stagnant and the cultural understanding is always evolving. I understand the divide you are describing but I know a culture that has managed to maintain both.
> It's a good story to tell a friend who's trying to rationalize being passive in an abusive relationship.
Uhmm ... so they should be passive or they will get killed? I guess that was not the point you were trying to make? Like, warn them, that if they don't play their cards right, it will end bad, like for the mouse?
Well, not OPENLY confronting your abusive lord was a pretty good advise. Cutting your losses and leaving when nobody was looking, or, some "happy little accident" if there was no way to leave would have been the clever choice.
For example, in the first story in Grimm's Fairy Tales (at least the version I read), there's a mouse and a cat that are friends. The cat and mouse find some delicious food and they hide it somewhere far away from their house. The cat then proceeds to go "visiting relatives" (in reality he is eating up the delicious food) and the mouse is gullible and believes the cat. After a while the mouse discovers the cat ate up all the food and angrily accuses the cat of being deceitful. The cat then proceeds to eat the mouse. The end.
I think this is a profound story on not ignoring the fact that the cat is the natural predator and the mouse is the natural prey in the relationship. The mouse has convinced itself that this time will be different. This has relevance for e.g. not dismissing signs of abuse.
But it's so easy to read that story and be like, "Well, I guess the point is that gullible people get screwed, so don't be gullible." Or even, "It's a dog-eat-dog world." It's a good story to tell a friend who's trying to rationalize being passive in an abusive relationship.