Evolution of Tyranny

In a recent interview conducted by The Economist with Madeleine Albright, former American Secretary of State and author, the topic of tyranny came up often. Albright accurately refers to tyrants in accordance with the recognized, modern definition. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines tyrant as, “A cruel and oppressive ruler.”(Merriam-Webster). Abright rightly accuses the Nazi Regime that she escaped from as a child of being tyrannical rulers. This directly clashes with the ancient definition of a tyrant that is longer fitting after the rise of democracy. To be a tyrant before democracy was to be a ruler who attained power by unconventional means and by ignoring a blood line. This definition is no longer fitting because it does not refer to tyrants as the ruthless rulers they are. Adolf Hitler was a sadistic and immoral ruler who is responsible for the murder of millions of innocent people and will go down permanently as a modern tyrant in history. The ancient definition does not apply to Hitler as he began his reign of terror after being named Chancellor of Germany.

While Albright’s use of tyranny differs from the ancient definition, which refers to a tyrant as someone who broke hereditary ranks to become a ruler, it is used correctly in context. Abright uses the modern definition of tyrant as shown in a quotation from her interview by comparing tyrants to bullies, “History is replete with bullies who seemed formidable for a time only to crash by attempting too much or by underestimating the quiet courage of honourable women and men.”(Albright) In the modern democratic era it is an irrefutable argument that tyrants need to be forcefully taken out of power just like the Nazis were. Before the rise of democracy tyrannical rulers might not have been associated with the modern definition if they were fair and honest rulers. In some cases it took unconventional methods to take out an oppressive ruler who was in a position of power because of who their father was. With the modern definition, the previous ruler would be considered a tyrant and the one who unseated them would be a hero.

In conclusion, Albright correctly uses the term tyrant in her interview. The ancient definition is no longer fitting given the atrocities that modern tyrants have committed and the way that they have ruled. The use of the ancient definition gives an ounce of legitimacy to modern tyrants and downplays the villains that they are. The correct definition for a tyrant is the modern one that is recognized today and needs no explanation.

Harrison Goodrich

Words: 429

“On Tyranny, Populism-and How Best to Respond Today.” The Economist. July 30, 2018. Accessed January 25, 2019. https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/30/on-tyranny-populism-and-how-best-to-respond-today.

“Tyrant.” Merriam-Webster. Accessed January 25, 2019. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyrant.


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

Blog #1

Ortega’s Tyranny

Daniel Ortega, the President of Nicaragua, has found himself in the news not nearly as much as he should, given his recent history and his rise to power. The nearly four decades of his rule have been marked with numerous instances of corruption and heinous crimes. James Dyde, in his article titled “Daniel Ortega: Inside the Mind Of a Dictator,” discusses Nicaragua’s oppression under his rule. Dyde even went as far as to call him a “tyrant.” While this description is is fitting given his record, our modern definition of the word differs from its original meaning.

The term originated in Ancient Greece to describe rulers with a certain way of coming to power and a method of ruling. They were classified as illegitimate rulers who stole power from the aristocracy or inherited it unconstitutionally. Some had relations to monarchy while others were foreign nominees. They often aided in transitioning the government from an aristocracy to a democracy. They typically lacked the modern reputation of being cruel and oppressive rulers, as they were commonly preferred over the alternative government.

Surprisingly, Ortega’s rise to president of Nicaragua bears some difference to the typical tyrant of Ancient Greece. He was born in a rural town in Nicaragua during the rule of a harsh dictator. In his teens, he joined a political movement against his reign and was imprisoned for his aggressive . When he was released and his movement succeeded, Ortega became their nominee for President. He took control in 1984 with support from the people and has managed to stay in power close to 40 years later. He is known as a heinous and repressive dictator who is responsible for 400 deaths in just 3 months of 2018 alone. “The only people who still support Daniel Ortega are his “sapos” – the word used to characterize his band of fanatics inside Nicaragua.”  While his support is dwindling, he seeks out and destroys his opposition, leaving no enemies to threaten him. His rule is comparable to most central American dictators and garners him reputation as a feared and unjust ruler.

According to modern interpretation of the word, Dyde correctly attributes “tyrant” to Ortega. His climb to power against a previous ruler, along with his cruelty, oppression, and marginalized support classify him as a tyrant. However, Ortega’s malice towards his people and his small band of advocates differentiate him from the tyrants of Ancient Greece. The evolution of the word that has occurred during the past century can be accredited to the numerous dictators, monarchs, and emperors who have tarnished the word’s original meaning. Ortega resembles a tyrant in a modern context but falls short of meeting the Ancient Greek’s.

Cameron Douglas

Word count: 450

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:

  1. https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/opinions/korea-summit-adam-cathcart-opinion-intl/index.html
  2. 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.

What Can The US Navy Learn From Athens?

Similarly to the Athenian army during the Golden Age of Athens, the United States today is with little doubt the dominant military superpower of our time. As officers in the world’s most capable Navy, the ability to deescalate and think reasonably through challenges is crucial to the overall success of the fleet. When analyzing the Melian Dialogue, there are several important lessons to learn about utilizing benevolence in the face of a clearly weaker opponent.

          According to Thucydides, the Melian Dialogue occurred in 416 BC and involved the empire of Athens and the supposedly neutral island of Melos. For several years, tensions between the Athenians and the Spartans had continued to develop and smaller city-states were caught in the midst. This is exactly what happened to the city of Melos. (1)

When confronted with the difficult decision of whether or not to surrender to Athens, the Melians put forward their leading representatives to argue for their freedom. Leaders from Melos tried to reason that “a pleas for justice and fairness should do some good for a man who has fallen into danger.” (2) This was clearly an example of how the Melians felt that because they were neutral, they shouldn’t be punished considering they had no intentions to help either side. They continued by asking “Won’t this turn the people who are now neutral into your enemies?” (2) Their support was that “Once they’ve seen this, they will expect you to attack them eventually also.” (2) This is an important point, because the Melians were not the only neutral city-state at the time and they argued that Athens would only alienate the others through their actions.

The Melians definitely presented strong arguments, but alas they were not enough to sway the Athenians set on conquering Melos. After the civil debate, one Athenian leader even remarked “You have staked everything on your trust in hope… and you will be ruined in everything.” (2)

There are several important lessons that can be related to our military today. For example, the Athenians were too strong to be defeated by Melos and therefore felt they did not have to compromise or listen to the Melian leaders asking for mercy. This had important implications later on, however, as city-states who were neutral became wary of Athens.

Today, the US is involved in several conflicts in the Middle East. Terrorist groups like ISIS have continued to grow in influence in this region of the world, and their main recruiting tactic is attacking and demonizing the West. (3) For example, ISIS leaders garnered the attention of every major country when they started beheading Western journalists, showing that they were not afraid of the strength of America or anyone else. (3) They also take special care to show the innocent lives that are lost in the crossfire, further advocating to the youth who are still searching for belonging that the United States is the obvious enemy.

As Navy and Marine Corps officers involved in global conflicts, it will be our duty not to be like the ruthless Athenian invaders. Rather, we need to be the guiding hand amidst chaos that minimizes the loss of innocent lives and improves relations so that we do not feed the stereotype of war mongers and breed dissent against Western culture in future generations.

 

Word Count: 550

 

Sources:

  1. https://www.nku.edu/~weirk/ir/melian.html
  2. The Melian Dialogue, Adapted from Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War
  3. https://www.businessinsider.com/isis-is-revolutionizing-international-terrorism-2015-5

Ancient vs Modern Conflicts: Not So Different After All

The saying goes that history repeats itself. Despite our best efforts to learn from the past to prevent future conflict, humans continuously find themselves in a constant cycle of peace, conflict, and war. For every current conflict or event, there is likely a precedent. Take Ancient Greece, for example. In Ancient Greece, the Greek city-states had placed their trust in Athens as the superior navy to take the lead when it came to defeating the Persians. They paid tribute in money or supplies, and allowed Athens to do whatever it took to shut down the Persian Empire. Little did they realize that the true danger was laying right under their noses.  To combat the Persians, the Delian League was implemented with Athens as its head. Once the Persians were defeated, there would be no reason to keep the Delian League intact. However, despite the efforts of various city-states in Greece, the Athenians refused to allow any member to withdraw from the League once the war ended and demanded continual tribute, attacking any city-state who challenged Athens.  It wasn’t unit the Spartans allied with Persia in the final Peloponnesian war that the Athens was brought to her knees.

Centuries later, we a see Germany attempt a similar stunt in its quest to conquer first Europe. Similar to the leaders of Athens, and Pericles in particular, Hitler had a talent for public speaking. He projected an image to the citizens of Germany, and the rest of the world The same way Pericles took complete control of the Athenian assembly and turned what appeared on the surface as a complete democracy into “government of the first” (Thucydides ____), so Hitler was able bring the Nazi’s to power and seize Germany without anyone batting eye. And just like it was up to the Spartans and their ally with Persia to bring down Athens tyranny, so it fell to the United States and the Allied Forces to bring down Germany.]

Looking at how these two empires we see many similarities. First and foremost, both Pericles and Hitler were phenomenal public speakers. In an article on how exactly Hitler came to gain so much power, he is described as being able to “[whip] crowds into frenzies” and “not only the Chancellor of Germany, but a beloved celebrity”. Through there charm both Hitler and Pericles were able to gain favor of the people. When looking at the actions of Athens as a whole, they were able to use the policies in place from the Delian League, such as the demand for tribute, to continue their growth as a city-state and the strongest power in Greece. This power enabled them to establish dominance over other city-states, they did not need permission to act on anything from anyone but themselves. In a slightly similar case, Hitler was able to implement the Enabling, allowing his cabinet to act without consent from parliament, making it much easier for him expand his power over the government. Both nations had a gradual and strategic rise to power, and both nations were taken down by the unified efforts of rivaling nations. On the surface, these two nations seem very different, however, if we strip away all the extra details and look at the core of what these two nations planned to accomplish and how they went about it, we see the repeating cycle of human nature in history.

word count: 564

https://www.livescience.com/54441-how-hitler-rose-to-power.html

 

History in the Fleet

History in the Fleet

 

The Roman Empire was one of the most powerful empires in history. The Romans amassed a great amount of land and wealth thought the empires lifetime, and it all started from the Italian peninsula. The Romans would eventually grow to control the Mediterranean world of Europe, Western Asia, and North Africa. But why were the Romans so successful? The Roman’s success was mostly due to its military success on the battlefield. Roman tactics, training, and discipline gave their armies an advantage over its rivals. An officer in the fleet should look into the past and see what led to military failure and what led to success. By analyzing the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, it is clear to see the importance of always having a well-trained and well equipped military. A newly commissioned officer may not be able to equip the entirety of the military, but a low ranking officer can make it a point to have the most disciplined and well-trained unit. At its peak, the Roman Empire had a superb military, but as the need for a military dwindled due to less conflicts and less conquests, the military readiness of Rome dwindled too. The Romans became weak on the battlefield and so vandals were able to invade the vulnerable empire. “The vandals led a force of eighty thousand men from different Germanic tribes across the Mediterranean and laid siege to the Hippo. Augustine witnessed whole cities sacked.” As safe as it seems, an officer should always act as if it were war time. Helping to keep the military sharp and sturdy is something I can take away from analyzing the Roman Empire. Another key point from the Roman Empire is how its leadership was able to keep it together for so long. The Roman leadership was willing to adopt new structures. The willingness to adopt new structures resulted in a more flexible empire, a stronger empire. A stiff sword will break before a flexible sword. Being flexible about my ideas and culture will be useful for me as an officer. The military is filled with dynamic and intelligent individuals, as an officer I should be able to learn from these outstanding individuals. Being too stubborn to adopt new ideas will lead to a lack of growth in my knowledge and development as a leader overall. The Roman success and failures are a great model to learn from and are very applicable for a future military officer.

Michael Shubert 423

 

 

St. Augustine Denounces Paganism and Urges Romans to Enter The City of God

St. Augustine (413-426)