Wrong Guy....Idiots

Who says that there has to be an antogonist in a story? If you ask me, most stories flip your vision and make the main character the antagonist. Romeo and Juliet for example. Two main antagonists are Tybalt and Paris. Both trying to, by our standards, break Juliet up with Romeo and make her marry Paris. In my mind that means doing the normal thing for the time. Tybalt is just trying to please his uncle and Paris had already impressed Juliet's parents which we his original goal. During this time period, if you impressed the parents enough, you got the bride. I can only imagine how backstabbed he feels by the Capulets and Montegues. He was guaranteed a bride but hit was taken away by a guy who flaunts love around more than a new pair of Jordan's. Tybalt gets literally stabbed and all because he was sticking up for his family. The same issue occurred with slavery. Kids were born into this life, where owning a slave was a good thing. Being responsible for another human being was considered cool. Sure when we look at it now it's wrong but look me in the eye and tell that with it being 1835 you wouldn't buy a slave for your plantation. It's the same way with these 2. Don't get me wrong, some stories have definate antagonists like the Joker and Lex Luthor. But what I'm saying is it isn't fair to call a character an antagonist just because they differ from the hero. In a story like Romeo and Juliet, the antagonists are in the title. They went against every custom that their family had set. They broke poor Paris' heart and stabbed Tybalt. Romeo stole Juliet from Paris and killed someone! Whether it was out of "love" or not, you can't kill someone like that. Romeo is the bad guy and dumb readers like us are looking in the wrong direction.