Author: hh215fall20182002

Blog Post 2: Democracy Ancient and Modern

  1. By now, you realize that Athenian democracy was very different than our modern day, representative democracy (which is actually much closer to the Roman Republican model than the Athenian model). What do you see as the most significant difference OR similarity between the American and the Athenian system? Use at least one example from modern day (20th-21st century) politics and one example from 5th century Athenian politics to illustrate your point. Be sure to use concrete examples—as in, specific outcomes or events that resulted from certain features of government, not generic stuff like, “We have a president and they didn’t.”

Please remember to check the category: Blog Post 2: Democracy Ancient and Modern and include your word count at the bottom of your entry (> 400 words).

Blog Post 2: Athens or America? Which was better?

  1. A hot-button issue in today’s politics is representation. Our founding fathers specifically wanted a representative model of government to avoid what they saw as the mob-rule of the Athenians. In fact, James Madison even said, “the true distinction between [ancient democracies] and the American government lies in the total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter…which leaves a most advantageous superiority in favor of the United States” (Federalist 63). But sometimes elected representatives fail to carry out the policies favored by their constituents. Do you think the representative (American) model of democracy or the direct (Athenian) model is a better way to govern? Why? Use specific examples.

Please remember to check the category “Blog Post 2: Representative vs. Direct Democracy” and include your word count (> 400 words).

*The article reviewed does not necessarily reflect my own opinion nor that of the U.S. Navy. In Andrew Sullivan’s article “America Takes the Next Step Toward Tyranny” from NYMag, he asserts that tyranny has not only gained footing in America, but that the second phase of tyranny has begun. Early in the article, Sullivan discusses the first phase of tyranny as described by Plato. This phase is a period of calm, during which the tyrant cancels debts, redistributes the land, among other things with the purpose of pleasing the people. Sullivan points to President Trumps tax cuts as one such act. This early phase of tyranny closely fits the pre-democratic definition of tyranny because the leader is beneficent and likely popular. Oxford English Dictionary defines “tyrant” several different ways including “(especially in ancient Greece) a ruler who seized absolute power without legal right.” While President Trump does not fit that description, it is important to note that the definition does not mention cruelty by the leader or displeasure from the citizens. As described by the article, the tyrant in the first phase could fit this definition. As Plato’s narrative goes on to the second phase, however, the leader expels from government those who speak against him and replaces them with his allies. This description of a tyranny fits the post-rise of democracy stereotype that tyrannies are good at first but become corrupted. He writes about how President Trump has replaced many high ranking government officials with people who will do what he wants. Aside from this purge that Plato describes in his description of tyranny, he also writes about the need for a tyrant to stir up war in order to validate the need for a leader. Sullivan argues that President Trump does this through rhetoric wars with our allies and trade wars with nations such as China, as well as with increasing our military presence overseas. At the end of the article, he writes that as the President is backed into a corner, he may employ this greatest distraction, war. Oxford English Dictionary also defines “tyrant” as “a cruel and oppressive ruler.” This definition is closer to the second phase tyrant that the article describes, and a more fitting description of how the article uses the word tyrant. nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/america-takes-the-next-step-toward-tyranny.html en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tyrant (Malone)

The Modern Tyrant

In today’s world, the terms “tyrant” and “oppression” usually go hand-in-hand. The modern tyrant is usually defined as a singular ruler of a country/state. Tyrants usually care more about their own wealth than they do about the welfare of the state or the people they rule. The only concern of the modern tyrant is how preserve and expand their power, as well as prevent any revolts or uprisings that could endanger their position. They restrict the rights of the people they rule over, and give them little, if any, freedom. However, when we look back in history, the ancient Greeks paint a very different picture of what a tyrant was.

In ancient Greece, a tyrant was simply someone who took power in an unorthodox way. They did not inherent the position of king or ruler. Contrary to the modern tyrant, the ancient Greeks actually liked their tyrants, generally speaking. Many tyrants brought a new way of doing things. They promoted regrowth among their state, worked to improve the state’s infrastructure, and brought new traditions and celebrations. Eventually, though, this term was used to describe rulers of other countries as a way to promote the democracy of the Greeks. Thus we have the modern tyrant.

In an article from The Federal, author Helen Raleigh brings to light how even with the spread democracy, tyranny is just as prevalent in present day politics as it was in the times of ancient civilization. Raleigh’s article World Tyrants’ Sham Elections Prove Calling Something ‘Democratic’ doesn’t Make it True, uses elections in countries such as Zimbabwe, Cambodia, and Venezuela as examples to prove that just because something appears to be ‘democratic’, doesn’t mean it actually is. Raleigh also goes into detail about how modern day tyrants attain and preserve power during supposed election. According to Raleigh, tactics used during elections include: control over media, destroying the opposition, bribing voters, and one of the most popular tactics used- intimidating voters. If we use today’s definition, Raleigh’s use of the term ‘tyrant’ fits perfectly with current beliefs of what it means to be a tyrant. However, of you ask any ancient Greek they would probably disagree.

Nora Honrath

Troy: Is the Movie Accurate

Though it is impossible to know what is actually true when it comes to ancient history, there are stories and events in which most people can agree on the major storyline. The same is true in the story and the legend of the city of Troy and the war with the Greeks. The movie Troy sticks to the general storyline of the Trojan War as well. The key events as well as the main characters in the war remain the same among the lore and the movie. The differences lie within the smaller details that are still being debated among historians today. The root of the war is claimed to have been started by Paris, the son of the king of Troy for stealing the wife of Menelaus, the king of Sparta. The key events during the war remain the same as well, Hector killing Patroclus, Achilles defeating Hector, the temporary peace between the two armies, and the end of the war by way of the Trojan horse. Although the story remains the same, there are small details within the film that are not historically accurate, if the history is true to begin with. The first inaccuracy is shown through the equipment the two armies use. At the time of the war, chariot warfare was not being used at this time, yet in the movie there is some use of these tactics. The trireme was also not being used at this time, but the Trojans sailed across the sea with a fleet of triremes. The other major difference that can be seen in the movie is the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus. In history, it is known that Achilles and Patroclus are close friends, possibly even lovers. In the movie, however, the directors decided it would be better if they were cousins. The directors did their best to keep the movie as close to known history as possible, but had to make changes in order to make the movie more entertaining. The use of the chariots and triremes could have just been lack of knowledge of the technology at the time. I think the biggest decision that was made was deciding what Achilles and Patroclus relationship would be. Making them related takes away the possibility of them being lovers, which is most likely why the directors did this. That takes away any kind of politics from the movie. Although this movie is close to what we know about the event, it cannot be used as historically accurate because of how much is already unknown about the event to begin with. The movie was made to entertain viewers, and though it can enlighten people about the event it is not a trustworthy source.

 

Jonathan Gabriel

Blog Post 1: Tyranny Ancient and Modern

Given what you now know about how the ancient (pre-democratic) definition of tyranny differs from the modern (post-rise of democracy), find an article published within the last 6 months that deals with the term and evaluate it. In your opinion, is the term “tyrant” used correctly in context? Why or why not? Would this fit the ancient definition of tyranny?

Blog Post 1: Ancient History in Modern Media

Find some modern representation of the ancient world from cultures we’ve studied so far—a movie, video game, novel (preferably one you’ve already read), and evaluate its historical accuracy. What parts are accurate? Inaccurate? Why do you think the authors/creators made the choices that they did when their version differs from history? Do you think this is a valid choice/way of examining history? Think about things like piquing people’s interest, artistic integrity, etc.