I guess !’ll go first!

“Most world historic events-great military battles, political revolutions-are self-consciously historic to the participants living through them. They act knowing that their decisions will be chronicled and dissected for decades of centuries to come. But epidemics create a kind of history from below; they can be world changing, but the participants are almost inevitably ordinary folk, following their established routines not thinking for a second about how their actions will be recorded for posterity. And of course, if they do recognize that they are living through a historical crisis, it’s often too late because, like it or not, the primary way that ordinary people create this distinct genre of history is by dying.” (Johnson, 55)

This breathtaking paragraph from chapter 2 page 55 (your page number may be different, Im reading this as an eBook) stopped me in my tracks. This claim is bold, but after a few hours of thought it seems undoubtably true. Which leads me to my question.

Does the fact that the “common person” living through an epidemic is unaware or uncaring of their historical implications show that acts of heroism or innovation were truly for the benefit of humanity as opposed to the development of an individual’s success or legacy?

-John

P.S. Every time the term “rice water” is used I gag a little bit.