Tyranny in the Islamic State

In ancient Greece, political institutions were seen as a means of ensuring a society based in a religious and ethical code [2]. In this context, a tyrant was simply an individual who assumed political power through a means other than hereditary claim. Many of these individuals, solved the strasis, or civil strife, that plagued the city-state they took charge of. It was often this state of strasis itself that formed the crucible for tyranny and the eventual foundation of democracy to be built. A democracy was deemed “good” if the system ensured the advantage of all citizens— a standard of political success coined by Aristotle [2].

Today, tyranny is a term with a definitively negative connotation to it, synonymous with oppression, militancy, and cruelty. Tyranny in the modern context as the antithesis of democracy is a far cry from its beginnings over two millennia ago with Peisistratus as the first Greek tyrant in 546 BCE. In the modern context, the rise of political Islam can be seen as a potent example of the perversion of democracy. Through his article “The Crisis of Political Islam,” Chief Foreign-Affairs Correspondent of The Wall Street Journal, Yarislav Trofimov, provides a comprehensive synthesis of the conflict between democracy and the “theocratic tyranny” characteristic of political Islam. This conflict is prevalent not only in the Middle East but also in other predominantly Muslim regions, such as Indonesia and West Africa [1].

Trofimov traces the usage of democracy as a “vehicle” for the instillation of an Islamic state and explores instances of religiously motivated violence when democracy fails as a successful means of furthering political Islam. He describes the corruption of democracy by political Islam as “tyranny,” citing instanced such as the Assad regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the dictatorial regime of Syria. In regards to the modern definition of “tyranny,” one rooted in the all too frequent instances of militarisitic and “religiously motivated” seizures of government described by Trofimov, this article uses the term “tyranny” correctly. However, this does not fall in line with the description of tyranny as a means of solving strasis as it was interpreted in ancient Greece.

Despite great differences in the outcomes of political tyranny between ancient Greece and modern Islamic states, both have commonalities in their philosophical approach to governing. Interestingly, both Muslim and ancient Greek governments are rooted deeply in religious doctrine, as opposed to the secular approach of many modern democracies. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, religion was a major component of the civic identity of Greeks in the ancient world, particularly in relation to the individual deities as the patron of each polis.

This usage of philosophical beliefs as a foundation for political beliefs is mirrored by the integration of the Quran into national law, with extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood going so far as to say “The Quran is our constitution” [1]. This ideology extends past the death of Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, the founding fathers of the Muslim Brootherhood nearly fifty years ago; the Islamic Republic of Iran established in the wake of the 1979 revolution directly states in its constitution that all laws “must be based on Islamic criteria,” the determination of which is left up to the religious authorities of the state to decide [1]. Through this, the differences in the outcomes of the illegitimate seizure of power through tyranny between Greece and the Islamic political machine can be seen despite their common thread of religiously motivated law.

Julia Lotterer

Word Count: 568

Sources:

[1] Trofimov, Yaroslav. “The Crisis of Political Islam,” The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-crisis-of-political-islam-1469223880

[2] Lane, Melissa. “Ancient Political Philosophy,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/ancient-political.

The Real Spartans

January 28, 2019 | Blog #1

In the 21st century, producers and authors have interpreted and created media based on the city-states of ancient Greece. An example of such a work was a film released a little more than a decade ago, 300. It portrayed the Spartan stand at the pass of Thermopylae. Ultimately, some Greeks fled while the rest were killed by the armies of vengeful Persian King Xerxes. This film provoked a considerable amount of controversy, yet drew awareness to the actual history of the Persian Wars.

300 was a film made first to awe and impress, second to inform. There are several historical inaccuracies, though the producers allege them to be deliberate. On the other hand, there are some historical accuracies, such as women being regarded as equals in Spartan society.

This blog post will examine discrepancies between what was represented in the movie and what indeed transpired based on historical records from Persian and Greek historians. Herodotus will be one of the principal primary sources on the Greek faction. His book, Histories, narrates the Persian Wars and is considered to be a biased source representing the Greeks.

In the actual Battle of Thermopylae, Spartan estimates according to Herodotus were closer to 7,000 rather than 300. What was correctly depicted by the movie was that it was a clear Greek defeat that led to succeeding battles on land and sea.

A striking attribute of the movie was the slow-motion, CGI fight scenes that occupied much of the screen time. Spartan soldiers in the movie fight with a spear and sword almost stark naked, but genuine Spartan warriors had chest plates and leather skirts. Moreover, there were little to no records on the actual combative arts used by Spartans aside from reports of formations and tactics. The action directed by combat choreographer Damon Caro was a combination of several weapon techniques with Filipino martial arts as the foundation, seen through the usage of weapons in the fights that ensued during the span of the film.

A. G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture Paul Cartledge at Cambridge University taught filmmakers on the articulation of Greek names and said that his published trade on Sparta was “made good use.” Furthermore, Cartledge asserted that 300 accurately depicts the Spartan heroic code and influence of women in Spartan culture. He, however, was reluctant to praise the entire “‘West’ (goodies) vs ‘East’ (baddies)” complex.

In addition to the idea of the Spartans being great and Persians being wicked, we notice an encounter between King Xerxes and Leonidas. In the movie, Xerxes towers over the Spartan hero, but in real life, he (Xerxes) had a beard and was much smaller. This interpretation brings forth the review of the discrepancies between Greek and Persian values. For instance, the Persians valued items of substance and worth as well as domination over others, while the Greeks valued loyalty and freedom. These are demonstrated when Leonidas rejects King Xerxes’ offer of wealth and power over rivals by stating “the idea of kneeling […] would be hard for [him].”

All-in-all, 300 was filmed to retell the Battle of Thermopylae. Replicating imagery from the original comic book, 300 gives itself the name of historical fantasy. With the inclusion of fictitious characters and exotic creatures, the historical inaccuracy of the film draws away the legitimacy of some details included, but the fact that this movie was created to entertain allows viewers to distinguish between the truth and imagination. Despite the controversy enveloping the release of the film, we can appreciate the fact that common myths were debunked and the real history behind ancient Greece was recognized and enjoyed even more by the ordinary viewer.

— Cameron Guan

Word Count: 591

Sources:

Histories by Herodotus (c. 440 BC)

USA TODAY interview of Paul Cartledge, author of Thermopylae: The Battle that Changed the World; Link: https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2007-03-05-300-history_N.htm

Trujillo: A Modern ‘Tyrant’

In his article, “A Museum of Repression Aims to Shock the Conscience”, Randal Archibold secedes that Rafael Trujillo, formal dictator of the Dominican Republic in the 20th century, has earned his place in “tyranny hall of fame” as determined by historians. Archibold cites ‘El Jefe’s’ crimes against common humanity during over 30 years of dictator rule, disclosing details of horrible suffering, widespread use of torture, and repressive authority which have ingrained upon the hearts of those who endured the Trujillo era bloodstained memories. Trujillo, the ‘Feasting Goat’, was undoubtedly a nefarious, corrupt ruler, capitalizing on the anguish of his citizens, and by common understanding of the word ‘tyrant’, would absolutely fall under such a category. However, while Trujillo represents modern understanding of the word ‘tyrant’, his rein does not coincide with ancient conceptions of tyranny.

The pejorative connotation of ‘tyranny’ conceptually has not always been true. Trujillo was oppressive, corrupt and in place of power, fulfilling modern definitions and schemas of a tyrant. Correctly fulfilling the modern definition nonetheless does not fulfill ancient perceptions of the accepted exemplification of a tyrant. Historians have identified ‘tyrants’ of thousands of years ago, yet these ancients tyrants are not comparable with the tyranny of ‘El Jefe’. Ancient tyrants did not bear such misgivings about their rein as do modern tyrants. This primarily could be a consequence in the amount of innocent blood spilt in order to acquiesce power. Ancient tyrants were at some points appointed their positions; modern tyrants illegitimately abduct power from others. The purpose of such regime types in ancient and modern history differ as well. Ancient tyrants were expected to improve the standard of living of the populus, which had slipped due to, as often believed, decaying morality of previous rulers. Modern tyrants are self-serving, claiming to represent the people as means to make profit. Another pointed difference of ancient and modern tyrants is the level of violence evoked and practiced by the regime. As ancient tyrants were appointed willingly by the populus, their rein had little need for the use of violence and faced little violence in return. Modern tyrants typically gain power with blood on their hands, and must use violence to maintain repression of any insurgency.

One might argue that modern and ancient tyrants do have some similarities, therefore allowing Trujillo the same tyrannical legacy as that of ancient rulers. An argument could be made that suggested that both modern and ancient tyrants exercise an unlimited degree of power within their respective states, and therefore, are the same. However, this argument falls short if one were to consider the legitimacy of such power as deemed by the people and outside states. In ancient times, it was accepted that tyrants possessed such powers. In modern times, the opposite is true.

Therefore, Archibold’s conclusion that Rafael Trujillo belongs in the category of tyrants maintains insofar that the author is referring the modern day paradigm of a ‘tyrant’. Archibold’s conclusion becomes inaccurate if one were to consider ancient standards of a tyrant.

-Meagan Stevenson

Word Count: 506

Work Cited

The Fall of Democracy into Tyranny

In Venezuela, President Maduro was an elected leader who was corrupted into a tyrant. While President Maduro was originally elected and just recently re-elected to another six year term, many are condemning his most recent election as a fraud and calling his government illegitimate. By both the pre-democratic and post-rise of democracy definitions of tyranny, President Maduro is undoubtedly a tyrant. In regards to pre-democracy tyranny, he is not a king nor does he have any divine right to be in power. He has seized power from the people and is no longer an elected leader. Now looking at the post-rise of democracy definition of tyranny, President Maduro is the exact image that supporters of democracy fear. He was an elected leader who used his power to consolidate more power to himself from the legislature of his country, and then used all the power he has gained to remain in power; he has not only watched his people suffer but has also contributed to their suffering as well. Inflation and poverty have been on the rise in Venezuela as a result of President Maduro’s nonexistent policies and basic services. According to Aaron Kliegman with the Washington Free Beacon, “It is all too common to find dying infants and helpless patients in hospitals… and most Venezuelans are struggling to buy enough food to feed themselves and their families… with countless Venezuelans starving” (Kliegman). President Maduro is also becoming more aggressive in his attempt to remain in power, often resorting to violence to silence his opponents and protesters who speak out against him. He has become exactly what the modern democratic world would call a tyrant and, without any justification or legal right to his power, he is a tyrant in the eyes of the pre-democratic world as well.

In addition to this, an NPR article written on January 23, 2019 stated that Juan Guaido, the Venezuelan opposition leader and the elected head of Venezuela’s National Assembly, has declared himself as Venezuela’s interim president amidst the growing unrest in the country, and this declaration was meet with cheers from the Venezuelan people. Many North and South American countries have declared that they do not recognize President Maduro’s government and have announced their support of Juan Guaido, leading President Maduro to announce that all diplomatic personnel had 72 hours to leave Venezuela (Cheslow). Protests are erupting across the country with Caracas local Carlos Gonzalez exclaiming, “This government, they destroy our democracy, and I want our democracy back… I want our rights back. It’s all I want” (Cheslow). In effect, there are now two tyrants vying for control of Venezuela: President Maduro representing the more sinister version modern democracy has come to know and Interim President Guaido representing the pre-democracy version that sought power through unconventional means in order to help his people. In ancient Greece, a tyrant almost needed the approval of the people in order for them to rise to power while today a tyrant rules in spite of his people. While the people of Venezuela demand change, President Maduro has refused to cede his power leading the people to support the naming of Juan Guaido, the elected leader of the Venezuelan National Assembly, as interim president of Venezuela. It is a war of tyranny, modern versus ancient, one fighting for democracy and one fighting against it, and we must wait and see which one wins out as Venezuela continues to spiral into chaos.

Ethan Fessler

Word Count: 515

Works Cited:

Cheslow, Daniella, et al. “Venezuelan Opposition Leader Guaidó Declares Himself President, With U.S. Backing.” NPR, NPR, 23 Jan. 2019, www.npr.org/2019/01/23/687643405/anti-maduro-protesters-march-in-cities-across-venezuela.

Kliegman, Aaron. “Venezuela’s Tyrant Gets Six More Years.” Washington Free Beacon, Washington Free Beacon, 10 Jan. 2019, freebeacon.com/blog/venezuelas-tyrant-gets-six-more-years/.

Tyranny and Today

Few ancient civilizations have impacted the Western World to the extent that Ancient Greece has: from ethics to Hollywood to government, the Ancient Greeks have influenced culture to a degree no other ancient civilization matches. Yet, this is not to say the West today is a mirror image of Greece; on the contrary, many differences have arisen or expanded — from semantics to morals — most evident in the definition of the word “tyrant,” with the apparent change in definition illuminating not only a change in terminology but a change in values.

Today, when “tyrant” is used, negative connotations, as well as denotations, arise. However, the Greek origins of the word do not necessitate these pessimistic implications. Perhaps arising out of overuse, the word “tyrant” refers to oppressive dictators, such as Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, a despot the Washington Free Beacon refers to with the word “tyrant” in their article titled “Venezuela’s Tyrant Gets Six More Years”¹. Surely the Greek definitions of the word cannot have been too distant from our current usage, but the Ancient Greek historian Herodotus proves this notion wrong in his recountings of one of Greece’s first and most famous tyrants: Pisistratus. “…there was an influx of men from the country demes who found the rule of a tyrant more pleasant than freedom.”², Herodotus narrates. Though “tyrant” in today’s, modern context is (over)used correctly, in its original state in Ancient Greece, our usage of the word would be incorrect.

Dictionary.com defines “tyrant” as “a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly.” By this definition, the aforementioned article on Venezuela perfectly fits our definition of a tyrant. However, Venezuela’s tyrant is a complete antonym to the Greek perception of the same word. This change in definition likely came about, or rather was reinforced, during the European Enlightenment. James Madison himself stated that “The truth was that all men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” When monarchies with absolute power in their countries became oppressive and untrustworthy, Enlightenment thinkers saw the power itself as the means of corruption, not the powerful. This aversion to potentially benevolent power began to work its way into our society to the point where the Greek word for a benefactor with “tyrannical” power became a reference to some of the evilest people in our history. This utter reversal of word definition completely epitomizes a culmination in the disparity between the past values of the West versus today’s.

—Gregory Mathias

Word Count: 412

¹Kliegman, Aaron. 2019. “Venezuela’s Tyrant Gets Six More Years”. Washington Free Beacon. Accessed January 25 2019. https://freebeacon.com/blog/venezuelas-tyrant-gets-six-more-years/.

²Herodotus. Herodotus : The Histories. London, Eng. ; New York :Penguin Books, 1996.

³“Frank Miller 300 Movie Vs. 300 Spartans History – Battle Of Thermopylae”. 2019. Historyvshollywood.Com. Accessed January 25 2019. http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/300spartans.php.

⁴“Avalon Project – Madison Debates – July 11”. 2019. Avalon.Law.Yale.Edu. Accessed January 28 2019. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_711.asp.

Glittering Tyranny

In a recent article in the Washington Post, columnist David Von Drehle argued that the tourist’s view of China may seem exotic, intriguing, and exciting, but behind all that modern flash, “the ruling Communist Party remains as brutal and totalitarian as ever,” (Von Drehle 1). Von Drehle’s argument centered on the current political and economic tensions in the province of Xinjiang, where approximately one million people are currently being held in concentration camps, with more camps currently undergoing construction (1). This abusive use of power by the Chinese communist party to oppress these minorities is a clear example of modern tyranny.

The mass incarceration was carried out by party secretary Chen Quanguo and sparked the rapid expansion of these camps. With Chen in power, actions typically associated with the Islamic religion became detainable offenses in Xinjiang, whether it be buying a tent or choosing not to smoke cigarettes (1). Using satellite imagery, the BBC actually gauged the growth of one camp, as it nearly “quadrupled in size between April and October,” (1). Government officials defended such sites via a “state-approved social media,” through which they described the camps as “hospitals” or “schools” for those inflicted with the illness of “religious extremism and violent terrorist ideology,” (1). Von Drehle also wrote that the prisoners’ daily activities are restricted to “learning Mandarin, absorbing propaganda, and renouncing the faith of their forebears,” (1). Some prisoners may be released in due time should they convince their captors they have properly converted to the communist party, while others will remain incarcerated as hostages or lures to their families in other parts of the country (1). Actions such as these are clear violations of human rights by a government abusing its power to oppress and strip the rights from a small minority.

Besides just wishing to invoke communist party sympathies in these individuals, Beijing recently announced that it will be unveiling a new transportation program consisting of connected ports and roads known as the Belt and Road Initiaive, a new “modern silk road” that will cut through the very heart of the territory from which Chen has been taking prisoners (2). It seems the land occupied by the Muslim groups was needed for Beijing’s new project, and the communist party was all too eager to remove the obstacle.

The tyranny Von Drehle describes in modern China differs from that of the Ancient Greeks, but it is tyranny nonetheless. The Greeks described tyranny as the rule of a single figure, oftentimes one selected to solve a specific problem. The modern Chinese government may not fit this definition exactly, as the entirety of the communist party is responsible for the nation’s oppressive conditions, but it is tyranny all the same. The modern definition of tyranny has changed from that of the Greeks, as tyrants have, in more recent history, been defined as such by “resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power,” (Merriam-Webster). Hitler did this in Germany, Franco did it in Spain, and Castro did it in Cuba. Each of these men is considered a tyrant by modern standards. The fact that a ruling party in China has abused its power to strip away the rights of so many and lock them in concentration camps to be indoctrinated with the beliefs of the party, simply because they were in the way of a progressive new project or held a certain religious belief is most certainly a modern example of tyranny. Von Drehle states that while China may not appear tyrannical at first glance, upon closer inspection, “even the most expensive wristwatch, the most glittering of bracelets and rings, cannot disguise the fist of tyranny,” (2).

-Nathan Forrest

Word count: 523

“China’s Glittering Glamour Disguises a Fist of Tyranny: Talk of a ‘Vocational Education and Training Program’ in Chinese Camps Echoes Language Used to Defend the Reservations and ‘Indian Schools’ for Native Americans.” Washington Post (online) [Washington D.C.], 26 Oct. 2018. The Washington Post, http://search.proquest.com/docview/2125564799/citation/331A26685E9C4C0EPQ/1?accountid=14748. Accessed 28 Jan. 2019.

“Tyrant.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster’s Student Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyrant. Accessed 28 Jan. 2019.

Trump a tyrant? Maybe not…

About six months ago, CNN published an article about how President Trump was seemingly leading the U.S. down the path of tyranny. It’s argued that the checks and balances put in place guard against tyranny are failing under Trump’s reign. He “alter[s] policies and practices long established by law and treaty” ( Sachs, Jeffrey “Trump Is Taking US down the Path to Tyranny.” ) without regard to the checks and balances in the system. This shows that he’s doing what he thinks is best and not what might be best for the people. Without conference, Trump has taken matters into his own hands by meeting with Vladimir Putin, keeping information from the meeting secret, and then inviting him to Washington. To some, this would seem that Trump is a tyrant because he is blatantly disregarding the government system set in place. He runs the country with his best interest in mind over the people.

In today’s world, tyranny is seen as occurring when a ruler takes matters into their own hands. They single-handedly make decisions for their nation. Often times, they are viewed as having taken over their nation by force while keeping a tight grip on them to prevent rebellion from occurring. Modern definition would suggest that Trump is not a true tyrant. For one, he didn’t take over the government by force, he was voted into his position by the people. If anyone is to blame for his rise to presidency, it is the people because they were the ones who gave him his power. Additionally, he hasn’t forced any legislation on the country to quell people who disagree with his view points. He has made unpopular decisions without council that have isolated the U.S. further, but nothing that would suggest he is trying to take over everything.

According to the ancient world, a tyrant was someone outside of the hereditary monarchy who took over. By this definition, Trump is a tyrant. The U.S. is not in possession of a monarchy and hasn’t been since the colonial era. Due to this, it is not really possible to have a ruler that is in the hereditary monarchy. For example, Peisistratus was the first tyrant of Athens in Greece. He was not part of the monarchy, but was responsible for the unification of Attica and helping improve Athenian society.

Trump would be considered a tyrant purely because he is outside of the monarchy. By this definition though, all of the presidents were tyrants. The modern definition of tyrant has strayed too much from its original use. No longer do they stand for the good of a nation. Instead, they represent a nation’s downfall. In no uncertain terms, it can be concluded that Trump is not a modern day tyrant.

Sachs, Jeffrey. “Trump Is Taking US down the Path to Tyranny.” CNN, Cable News Network, 24 July 2018, http://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/opinions/trump-is-taking-us-down-the-path-to-tyranny-sachs/index.html.

-Moira Camacho

Word count: 436

Of Tyrants Old and New

To the ancient Greeks, a tyrant was simply a ruler who rose to power in a fashion outside the political standard. Be it by force or cunning, a tyrant was not intended to be a ruler and became so by their own ambitions. Now, ancient Greek tyrants were by no means cruel or harmful; in their time, the term had no negative connotation. The original Greek tyrant, Peisistratus, was actually both successful and popular. The term contextually implied a non-hereditary monarch and could be applied to both benevolent and malevolent autocrats. In modern times, however, the term has taken on new meaning, being used to characterize autocratic leaders who rule with a heavy hand, especially those who also seized power illegitimately. To be a tyrant today is to be cruel and unyielding, as well as to harm the prosperity of a country. Since the time of the ancient Greeks, the term “tyrant” has evolved to take on a negative connotation that change how it is used in context.

Evidence of the modern sense of “tyrant” can be seen both in the news and in art. Twentieth century poet W.H. Auden penned a poem titled “Epitaph on a Tyrant,” in which he comments on the nature of a tyrant. According to Auden, “when [the tyrant] cried the little children died in the streets” (Auden 6). This is the final line of the poem and is juxtaposed with the tyrant laughing in the previous line. Thus, the implication of Auden’s poem, as far as defining a tyrant, is that tyrants are unpredictable and often cruel. After all, no sensible or kind ruler would kill children in the streets.

The modern connotation of being a tyrant is likely due to the preeminence of democracy in the world. A tyrant is the antithesis to the type of ruler democratic nations promote. Therefore, democratic nations would be inclined to brand an extra-constitutional ruler as a tyrant (with the implication of it being a bad thing). Over time this would lead to the corruption of the term “tyrant” and its association with leaders scorned by democratic nations.

Recently, there has been much discussion around the current president of the United States relating to tyranny. In an article penned six months ago, Columbia Professor Jeffrey Sachs argues that President Trump’s heavy reliance on executive authority (and its backing by the courts) has set the United States “far down the path to tyranny” (Sachs). This argument, however, relies upon the modern sense of tyranny. By that definition, the term is used correctly in context. Sachs’ argument that President Trump has exceeded the bounds of executive authority would indeed make him a modern tyrant. In a democratic society, an autocratic ruler is dangerous and has potential to damage the state of the nation This is because such a ruler, having no checks or balances on their power, cannot be guaranteed to represent the interests of the people. However, should one consider a tyrant in its original meaning, the term is used incorrectly in context. Nothing in Sachs’ argument seeks to establish an illegitimate rise to power.

Thus, to the ancient Greeks, overstepping the bounds of executive authority would not qualify President Trump as a tyrant. Like most of the presidents preceding him, he was elected by the people of the United States. He may not have won the popular vote, but he nonetheless legitimately came to power within the bounds of our Constitution. If the election was illegitimate, or if he had enacted a military coup, that would qualify him as a tyrant, but being a duly elected president would not.

Tom Vilinskis

Word Count: 583

Sources:

Auden, W. H. “The Unknown Citizen.” Poets.org, Academy of American Poets, 17 July 2014, http://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/epitaph-tyrant.

Sachs, Jeffrey. “Trump Is Taking US down the Path to Tyranny.” CNN, Cable News Network, 24 July 2018, http://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/opinions/trump-is-taking-us-down-the-path-to-tyranny-sachs/index.html.

Tyrants and Graves

In a recent New York Times article, the author Ilham Ahmed discusses the world of chaos and oppression in Syria due to the tyrannical Assad regime. Ahmed is part of the Syrian Democratic Council that works to resist the Assad regime through peaceful protests and fair elections. He states that the Syrian regime has portrayed itself as a secular government and even as a republican system today. However, Ahmed argues that this is far from reality; in actuality, the regime has “established its power by using violence against its opponents and anyone who disagrees with it.” Men and women across Syria, including those in Ahmed’s coalition, continue to protest in the streets, calling for change and a democratic government. Ahmed’s final statement relays the need for Syrians to cling to hope and democracy, since, to do “otherwise is to resign oneself to a world of nothing but tyrants and graves.”

In this article, Ahmed uses the term “tyrant” to discuss the workings and power of the Assad regime. In class and in ancient Greece, the given definition of a tyrant is someone who comes to power in a way other than by hereditary means and without legal right. In modern day, the term has evolved to convey a cruel and absolute ruler; examples that support this particular definition include Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro. I believe that the term is used correctly in the context of the article, as the Assad regime is characteristically known for practicing a harsh dictatorship and this fits the modern definition. Despite the Syrian people’s consistent call for change, the Assad regime continues to rule with an iron fist.

The definition of tyrant has changed with time as described above, and Ahmed’s assignment of the Assad regime as tyrannical also fits ancient definitions. Hafez al-Assad, the former president of Syria, used his influence as minister of defense to seize the presidency through a coup. The role was passed onto his son Bashar al-Assad, the current ruler of the regime. While Bashar al-Assad achieved power through hereditary means, which is technically acceptable by the ancient definition, the Assad line came to power by way of tyranny. This takeover by the Assad family can be compared to those of famous ancient tyrants Peisistratus and Cleisthenes, who seized control and reorganized the state of Athens. The only problem with Ahmed’s application of tyrant in terms of the ancient definition is his continual use of the term with a negative connotation, rather than to describe an illegitimate leader. For example, in his final quote above, he associates tyranny with destruction and death, which fits solely the modern definition of the term.

Overall, I believe the author uses the term correctly within the article and his description of the regime as tyrannical helps display the distress and oppression the Syrian people face every day. Ahmed utilizes tyrant in both the ancient and modern senses of the word, for he uses the ancient definition to describe the background and takeover of the regime and the modern to illustrate their cruelty. The mix of both definitions helps the reader gain a clearer background and image of the current crisis in Syria.

Lauren McDonnell

Word Count: 532

Sources: Ahmed, Ilham. “A World of Tyrants and Graves.” New York Times, 16 Sep 2018. Web. 22 Jan. 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/16/opinion/politics/syria-democracy-survival.html

Modern Tyranny

Recently, on January eighth, Newsweek published an online article with the title “TRUMP WANTS TO MAKE HIMSELF ‘A KING AND A TYRANT’ BY USURPING CONGRESS” (Newsweek). Ironically, as we learned in class, it is not possible to be both a King and Tyrant, given that a tyrant is a ruler who is outside a monarchy, or kingship. However, in modern times tyrant has developed a far more sinister meaning, typically used to describe someone who has absolute power and control. This is again not an accurate description of the President because while he does have a great deal of power, it is not absolute and the government’s system of checks and balances ensures that the face of America is never someone who has gained too much control or power. Another trait of a historical tyrant is that they are often not elected officials, but rather someone who rises to power while seizing control. While you may not have voted for President Trump, he was elected and had power given to him by the American people rather than having to forcefully seize it. However, President Trump could be considered a tyrant when viewed through a historic lens.

One commonality between the tyrants of ancient times and those of modern times is that they typically see a common issue which they are able to use to get support of the public. In ancient Greece, one of the world’s first tyrants was created when Athens was in a stasis as the laborers and farmers had accrued large debts which they were not able to repay back to the wealthy. The wealthy, having expected to be repaid through goods and services where no longer willing to loan money, as they feared they would not receive repayment from the farmers. Solon implemented a plan called Seisactheia which greatly changed the culture through several policies such as: debt forgiveness, written laws, and political offices by election. While President Trump did not run on the exact same platform as Solon, he still gained support from the public in a similar manner, behind the idea that the America people desired drastic change. One of the President’s main campaigning points was the idea of “draining the swamp” or getting rid of those in offices they shouldn’t be in. Another draw to President Trump that the public saw was that he was not a politician by profession but rather a businessman and that in itself would be a change to the presidency which is what many Americans, like the Athenians of ancient Greece, were seeking in a new ruler. For Athenians, the confidence that they had in Solon helped him to secure leadership, just as the hope Americans found in Trump helped him secure a Presidency.

-Brett Eckert

Word count: 418