Tyranny or Oppression?

Tyranny was originally defined by the Greeks as a ruler who held absolute control without permissible limitations of a state under law and did not inherit the power. The original idea of a tyrant was not meant to have a negative connotation. Throughout time, society has developed a false perception of the definition of tyranny. We now see tyranny as a government with a ruler who conducts harsh unconstitutional actions. This misconception came from the history of the cruelty and injustice shaped by these tyrants. The word “tyranny” has evolved over history and is shown in an article titled “The Tyranny of Personality Testing” by J.C. Pan, where the author misuses the word tyranny to describe a non-ethical act rather than the ancient use of “tyranny”.

Pan describes the original and new purposes behind the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test. This personality test was designed for self-awareness so that people could figure out what role they play in society in order to be happy. This allowed people to choose things like their college or occupation based on their strengths and personality. Throughout time, an ethical dilemma developed with the test. Companies started using the test to base whether or not an applicant was fit for the job. This act was seen as discrimination towards personalities. Although the test was initially created for self-knowledge, “up to 70% of Americans have taken a personality test as part of a job application” (Pan). Some companies use this test for positive training in order for workers to develop communication skills and improve their weaknesses. Other companies, on the other hand, use this test as a binary system to determine one’s effectiveness. According to the article, many college students and applicants feel violated when told to take the test.

The author of the article only uses the word tyranny in the article which implies that the negative uses of the MBTI test is an act of tyranny. This use of tyranny only makes sense if you use the modern connotation of the word. People view tyranny as using power for illegitimate purposes like when describing Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler. In the case of the personality test, these companies are using the test in a discriminating sense to hire who would be the best worker based on the test. In reality, a simple test cannot define somebody or their work ethic. This use of the word “tyranny” does not fit with the original use of the word defined by the Ancient Greeks. In this situation, there is not a leader of a state who is ruling. They are only people who use a test to determine whether or not somebody gets a job, and the person with the “power” to hire somebody obviously has limitations of what they are allowed to do. Using this word with the new interpretation of the word is a bit of a stretch too if somebody perceives tyranny as having a ruler that commits harsh actions such as gauging eyes or decapitation. This article proves that there are many perceptions of the word “tyranny” that stray from the original definition.

Pan, J.C. “The Tyranny of Personality Testing.” The New Republic, 11 Sept. 2018, newrepublic.com/article/151098/personality-brokers-book-review-invention-myers-briggs-type-indicator.

-Kevin Semma

Word count: 503

Tyranny Ancient and Modern

Along with the rest of history, the definition of tyranny has changed over the course of time. In modern context, the word tyrant is commonly associated with people who have committed atrocious acts against their people such as the dictator of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. However, the ancient definition of a tyrant was significantly different, and quite often tyrants were widely accepted as rulers by their people; they could be oppressive, but were simply people who rose to power in a specific polis.

The modern use of tyrant is often overused as well as misused, as evident in Adam Cathcart’s article for CNN, Kim Jong Un is a Tyrant. Talk of Peace in Korea Doesn’t Change That. Cathcart does not hesitate to mention the “grain shortages, heavily watched citizens, and twenty-thousand defectors in Seoul” to make his case of the supposed tyrannical role Jong Un plays in North Korea. Without further investigation, Kim Jong Un fits perfectly into the role of a modern tyrant, but he is far from the original meaning of the term.

As previously mentioned, a tyrant in ancient Greece was someone who simply had control over a particular polis, and there was hardly any negative connotation that accompanied the term. For example, the Athenian tyrant, Pisistratus, a well-respected Greek military commander, came to power in Athens on his own accord. However, during his rule he “did not interfere with the existing structure of offices or change the laws; he administered the state constitutionally and organized the state’s affairs properly and well.” In the era prior to the rise of democracy, a ruler like Pisistratus was just about as good as it could get when power was in the hands of a single man, and hardly aligns with whom we view as tyrants today.

The modern context of the term tyrant began to form after the rise of democracy and complete control by one person became undesirable. The term tyrant in a modern context can describe an unruly dictator, which took its roots from the Greeks and their long line of unpopular rulers. When we think of Kim Jong Un, tyrant seems like a perfect term to describe him, however in ancient Greece, this would hardly have been the case. A more fitting term is dictator, which is applicable in both modern times as well as ancient times, even though in a modern context the two terms seem interchangeable. Without a doubt, the definition of tyrant has changed over time; however, it is important to understand the original meaning for a better understanding of its use today.

– Griffin Hamilton

Word Count: 429

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/opinions/korea-summit-adam-cathcart-opinion-intl/index.html
Herodotus on Athenian Tyrants, https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1W4vnT3f3C3F7gw7tLfK0q10KXFs97Ekz

Tyranny: Ancient and Modern

Nicolas Maduro, the controversial president of Venezuela, embodies the modern definition of a tyrant as well as the ancient Greek definition of a tyrant. In society today, the word “tyrant” always has a negative connotation, invoking thoughts of a ruler who violently seizes then abuses his or her absolute power and brings harm to his or her own constituents. The ancient Greeks, however, had a slight different definition of the word “tyrant”. To them, a tyrant was simply an autocratic ruler with complete power. That ruler did not have to abuse his power to be a deemed a tyrant; in fact, a tyrant in that era could be a fantastic ruler. The president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, is considered a modern tyrant. He recently took over the presidency for a second six-year term, but not through a legitimate democratic process. The nation of Venezuela is going through a severe economic collapse with unemployment and poverty rates sky rocketing, and a majority of the country struggles to put food on the table. Violence is prevalent and many citizens are seeking to or have already fled the country. The nation is in a state of emergency. Maduro has taken advantage of this dark time in the nation and staged a “rigged election” with multiple reports of “coercion and fraud” in order to secure his most recent term.[1] Once he usurped the office of president, Maduro began “brutally torturing protesters” and his dissenters while also carrying out causeless killings.¹ He also took measures to decrease the power of the government institutions that opposed him in order to begin rewriting the constitution to give himself even more power.

The author of this article asserts that “Maduro has, in no uncertain terms, become a tyant,” and I completely agree.¹ He definitely complies with the modern definition of a tyrant: a ruler who takes his power by illegitimate means and uses that power for his own good with no regard for his constituents. A rigged election was his flavor of illegitimate means, and his power trip has resulted in the mistreatment of his opposition and just innocent citizens. I also believe that Maduro would fit the ancient definition of a tyrant. He is an autocratic ruler because he has stripped the power away from most government organizations, and he holds the institutions that still retain some power in the palm of his hand. The ancient Greeks would consider this ruler a tyrant, but most definitely in a negative way.

-Andrew Mitchell

Word count: 405

[1] Kliegman, Aaron. “Venezuela’s Tyant Gets Six More Years”. The Washington Free Beacon. January 10, 2019. https://freebeacon.com/blog/venezuelas-tyrant-gets-six-more-years/

How has Tyranny Changed?

The topic of tyranny, in the modern world, carries connotations with words such as oppression, cruelty, and subjugation. When someone hears the word tyrant, they think of the wicked men in recent history: Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Fidel Castro. Men who ruled their country, or beyond, with true evil in their hearts. A striking example of tyranny just a few thousand miles beyond the United States border is the rule of President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. “His failed socialist policies and authoritarian rule have devastated” the country, leaving 90 percent of the population under the poverty line.[1] In 2017, over “73 Venezuelans died a violent death every day,” and the capital, Caracas, is one of the most dangerous cities in the world.[2] Maduro puts his political enemies in prison, has military members and protestors “brutally [tortured],” and his security forces have “carried out hundreds of arbitrary killings.”[3] Yet, Maduro has been elected to serve as President for another six years; through a rigged election, of course.[4] Maduro is a perfect example of a modern tyrant, power hungry and brutal towards anyone who even thinks against him. He has thrown democracy out of the window, caring only for his well-being and the safety of is power. In our age, tyranny is a lack of empathy as a leader. A lack of caring for those who you serve. As a leader, especially of a nation, much more should be given than taken.

In ancient Greece, tyrants were men “with absolute power, sometimes granted through election in times of crisis, sometimes seized through force of arms.”[5] They were men who ruled beyond the democracy, giving orders and controlling the populace as an autocrat or dictator. Their absolute reign allowed them to aid in improving economies and the lives of the citizens in their city-state. Men such as Herodotus, however, describe tyrants much differently. In his work The Histories, Book V, Herodotus described Aetion of Corinth as a terrible tyrant, driving Corinthians into banishment, “[depriving them] of [their] fortune, and a still greater number of their lives.”[6] Herodotus stated “There is nothing in the whole world so unjust, nothing so bloody, as a tyranny.”[7] Prosperity came as they served their people; but love for them was not always the case. Due to the fact that these leaders based their decisions on ideals and thoughts not supported by the democracy held so dear to the Greeks, many of them were villainized.

This bias against anything non-democratic breeds doubt regarding whether Greek tyrants were benevolent or, as we would say today, tyrannical. There are close similarities to the tyrants of old and new; however, they both throw out the idea of democracy and rule in an autocratic government, and, if word from Herodotus is to be taken as truth, they rule harshly and with an iron fist. Though, if information is to be taken from other contexts, Greek tyrants took care of their people, ensuring that they had lives worth living and food on their tables. It is difficult to discern which situation is truth, but it is apparent that the word tyranny has become much viler as time has gone on. As mankind has developed through the ages, tyrants have come and gone – and the definition of the word in our time has become much more abhorrent.

– Cyrus Malek-Madani

Word count: 511

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

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Spodek, chapter 5, 141.

[6] Herodotus, The Histories, Book 5.

[7] Ibid.

*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)

DreamWorks and Moses

Gold and God are the driving factors for most of history, and the religious texts stemming from the Abrahamic religions are frequently used by scholars as a window to the past. One of the most notable figures described by the Book of Exodus is Moses, and his legendary salvation of the Hebrews is still depicted even in modern times (1). An example of this is the 1998 movie The Prince of Egypt (2). In both the movie and the religious text, there are several clear similarities but also a few differences in interpretation.

The Prince of Egypt shares a similar storyline with the Book of Exodus, including some very important plot points and character portrayals that are fairly accurate. The original story through Exodus tells us that Moses was initially hidden from the ravaging Egyptians as a baby, sent down the river by his Hebrew mother, and adopted by the Pharaoh’s daughter. In both interpretations Moses, God convinces him to ask the Pharaoh to free his people, inflicting plague after plague until Pharaoh finally agrees (3).

While both depictions of this event are relatively similar, there are a few deliberate differences in the movie. First, archeology proves that unlike in the movie, Moses’ older “brother” Rameses II could not have actually been the Pharaoh of the Exodus as he would have ruled long after Moses’ lifetime (4). Another important difference is that not all of the plagues mentioned in the Book of Exodus are present in the movie. Most notably missing were the plagues of lice, fiery hail, and boils (5). This is most likely in keeping with the family-friendly version of Moses’ story, but also an attempt to manage the run time. The last difference is less noticeable but definitely more humorous. In the final scene when Moses has “parted the Red Sea” there is a silhouette of a whale shark. This is comically inaccurate as scholars have translated the “Red Sea” in Exodus to mean the “Reed Sea” (6). Instead of a gargantuan water source this was most likely a marsh or small lake- not exactly a fitting home for a whale shark.

In my opinion, The Prince of Egypt is a fun and entertaining film that offers a unique perspective on the story of Moses. Any story and character changes are probably due to the constraints of making a movie that all audiences can appreciate. I believe that this is a far more accurate version of the story than a play or live action movie, simply because the human element of acting and the inherent guessing in “recreating the scene” is removed.

Sources:

Blog Post #1 on Tyranny

Tyrant was originally used in ancient Greece to describe a ruler who gained his power through unconventional methods. As we discussed in class, this didn’t begin with a negative connotation, but it has grown to be connected to greed and violence. In a modern setting, tyrants often fit both definitions, new and old. In his article for the New York Post titled “The World is Descending into Tyranny,” Ralph Peters makes an argument stating that leaders such as Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s Tayyip Erdogan show how the world is trending towards “tyranny.” There is evidence that these leaders have used their power in order to influence and or rig elections so they may remain in power. This closely relates to the original Greek definition. However, since the original word was born before the democracy, it couldn’t be compared to democracy. Now it can, and the contrast between the two can lead to a different interpretation of the word. With democracy as an example, tyranny can appear oppressive and radical.

Putin, Jinping and Erdogan are all examples of enemies of democracy, and by modern definition tyrants. Peters also mentions the leaders of Egypt, Iran, Syria and North Korea. All these countries have something in common—their leaders are staying in power not by the even-handed votes of the people, but by using their high rank and privilege. Peters is claiming these men are tyrants because they either commit genocide, starve their citizens, or just because their leadership is oppressive or radical. Still, these dictators fit the mold of that original Greek definition. It is unclear if Ralph Peters’ definition of tyranny lines up with that of the Ancient Greeks, he doesn’t state his interpretation of the word. Nevertheless, the leaders that he labels as tyrants do fit the Greek definition.

Article discussed

Blog Post #1

The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest surviving pieces of literature to date, and has been the basis of many literary sources in modern times. It has been written in many contexts, including fictional and nonfictional works, however caution must be applied by the reader as historical facts can be stretched and other information added that is not accurate. The Enchantress: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel is a fictional series written by Michael Scott, following a set of twins foretold to either save or destroy the world. This conquest is guided by an immortal human named Nicholas Flamel who seeks other immortal beings to empower the twins with knowledge in the different elements of magic. This process of learning magic is referred to as being ‘Awakened’ and is incredibly dangerous, often times resulting in death. Along the twins’ journey one of these ancient beings they encounter is Gilgamesh, who is introduced as the first and oldest immortal human, having been alive since the beginning of time.

The author describes him as a filthy, scrawny, old man who due to his long life struggles to retain or recall any memories. But due to his extensive knowledge of magic, he is sought after to educate the twins as a final resort. Comparing Scott’s description in The Enchantress to the man portrayed in the beginning of the Epic of Gilgamesh, they appear to be complete opposites. In the Epic he is portrayed as a great king, “this is the shepherd of the city, wise, comely, and resolute… A goddess made him, strong as a savage bull, none can withstand his arms.” This description of Gilgamesh clashes greatly with how he is portrayed in The Enchantress. However later in the Epic, after the death of his best friend he becomes a shadow of himself, so afraid of death that he spends the rest of his days in search of eternal life.

These characteristics can appear to describe two different people, however both are Gilgamesh. The latter is the person that is portrayed in The Enchantress. Aside from memory loss and potential lunacy, the character comparison of The Enchantress is very similar to the Epic. I believe Scott chose to portray Gilgamesh in this light because it included another variable of unknown to the plot. Being that the process of learning the magic could possibly mean death, suspense was only added as the person administering the ‘Awakening’ was a deranged old king. As a young reader having The Enchantress be my first exposure to Gilgamesh, I naively did not question the author’s portrayal. Sadly it would be years later until I would finally be introduced to the error of my view. While the description of Gilgamesh in The Enchantress does a fantastic job of catching the reader’s attention, it errs on the side of exaggeration and is not the way history should be written because of its lack of accuracy.

How to Become an Ancient Greece Expert in Middle School:

When I last studied ancient Greece (in the sixth grade), I remember thinking that I was some sort of expert on the topic based on my extensive knowledge from reading and re-reading all of the “Percy Jackson and the Olympians” books. These books made me feel as though I understood the stories of many ancient Greek figures, including the gods. While they are meant to be fiction, kids can still learn about ancient cultures from Rick Riordan’s books.

In each of the “Percy Jackson and the Olympians” books, the main character, Percy Jackson, a twenty-first century demigod, goes on a quest where he interacts with different gods, monsters, and characters from ancient Greece, and hears their perspectives on their fates. For example, in the fourth book, Percy finds himself in Daedalus’ Labyrinth, and he meets and talks with King Minos. While a tremendous amount of creative license is applied by Riordan as he takes notable figures from Ancient Greece, and places them in the twenty-first-century (Medusa, for example, runs her own stone garden figure shop), the general idea of each character’s story is present, which is what is important.

Riordan’s books are meant for kids in middle-school; they give kids a version of ancient history that they can get excited about, and understand. I showed these books to my younger brother recently, and he just bought a book that goes with the series that has detailed descriptions of Greek gods and monsters. Am I going to use his book to study for this midterm? Probably not. Did the book (and the rest of the books in the series) make my little brother (who hates to even write his own name) excited to write about Ancient Greece when he studied it in sixth grade? Yes, and as such Riordan’s mission for writing these books is accomplished.

Given the audience of the books, I think that Riordan’s way of examining history is perfectly acceptable. He makes his protagonist the same age as his readers, and because of this, they do not learn about ancient Greece through an objective lens. Instead, they learn through the eyes of someone who mispronounces the same names that they, the reader struggles with, and is far from an expert on Ancient Greek culture. This way of examining history allows Rick Riordan’s young readers to learn about history through a story, as opposed to a textbook.

Word Count: 398

Tyranny: An Analyzed Definition

Ben Cracraft

9 September 2018

The West in the Pre-Modern World

Sagstetter

Blog #1

In my opinion, the article, “Why Tyrants Dehumanize the Powerless”, written by Sarah Jones, both correctly and incorrectly uses the term “tyrant” in context throughout the article. The article explains how tyrants, such as the Nazi’s and Donald Trump pursue power by dehumanizing the weak. The ancient definition of tyranny would also not fit when used in this article. Although the article provides historical examples of powerful people seeking the support of their people, the article is partially incorrect in calling these people “tyrants”. The ancient use of the word “tyranny” did not always have a negative connotation. People would often support their ruler and not question their divinity or method of rule[1]. The article, “Why Tyrants Dehumanize the Powerless” states many examples of powerful leaders throughout our history, however, the article does not fully use the term “tyrant” properly.

The article explains how Donald refers to Mexicans crossing the border into America as criminals and rapists. This article does not correctly use the term tyranny in either a modern or a pre-democratic context. In a modern context, the term “tyrant” does not fit when used referencing Trump. A tyrant is someone who’s rule is absolute and is unrestrained by the law or constitution and abuses their power[2]. It could also reference someone who is brutal and oppressive towards their people. Trump has to follow the constitution and is kept in check by our government’s checks and balances. Additionally, the pre-democratic definition is much different. A pre-democratic tyrant would refer to someone who inherited their power illegitimately and rules at the will of the people.

Additionally, this article lists the Nazis as a tyrant. The use of this word is correctly used in both the modern and ancient context. The term tyranny fits a modern context because the Nazi’s were extremely brutal and oppressive towards large portions of its own people. They gained power violently with a great deal of opposition. Additionally, the article uses the term tyranny with the ancient definition correctly because the Nazi’s were a political party with support from many of its people. In conclusion, the article “Why Tyrants Dehumanize the Powerless” uses the term tyrants both correctly and incorrectly in a modern and ancient context.

Works Cited

https://newrepublic.com/article/149232/tyrants-dehumanize-powerless

https://www.britannica.com/topic/tyrant

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/tyrant

[2] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tyranny