Modern Tyranny

Tyranny in the ancient and modern context vary significantly though, there are some very interesting and perhaps dangerous similarities. In the article Donald Trump: a Shakespearean tyrant to a T, the author Daniel Swift argues the daunting similarities between the similarities of the current US President and those of Richard III, a tyrannical character described in one of Shakespeare works, Twelfth Night. Swift brings up the observations of Shakespeare expert and Harvard professor Stephen Greenblatt who wrote a book about tyranny in the modern times in comparison with its ancient context. However, he does not mention Donald Trump instead; he alludes to Trumpian words like grab (Swift). To be specific he compares him to Richard III whom he notes is “pathologically narcissistic, supremely arrogant, and born into wealth and a bully” (Swift).

        This likeliness seems to match some of the older connotations of the word. In ancient times, the word might have meant a person who was in fact born into wealth. The only way to really take power in pre-democratic times was to be born into wealth; even more similar to the older connotation of a tyrant is the characteristic of bullying and narcissism. I particularly disagree with the harshness of the word. For example, I cannot agree that the older aggression common to tyranny is prevalent or even possible in modern times. With the existence of strong and prominent democracies, tyranny cannot possibly withhold the level or magnitude of harshness and aggressive action that it once did. No longer is it possible (in theory) to strip the civil rights of man for the convenience of rule or purely to boost the narcissistic ego of man. This is one of the biggest differences between ancient and modern tyranny. In fact, there was a huge shift during the age of enlightenment between what we consider just and what is immoral. Before this time of thought and deliberation on the rights of man in any state, tyrants might have been permitted, lash their power and might on a mere citizen, but luckily in these days the moral compass of the human race has shifted to one that doesn’t tolerate such preposterous claims of divinity and absolute rule. The popularity of some type of democratic republic freezes the momentum of tyranny in its tracks. It is impossible for the meaning of tyranny in its original composition to ever flash its face again without large criticism either inside the state or not.

 

 

Article: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/donald-trump-a-shakespearean-tyrant-to-a-t/

Modern Tyranny

The definition of tyranny has changed with time, and the ancient definition has lost its meaning. Tyrants in modern language have always been associated with terrible people such as Joseph Stalin or Caligula, while in ancient Greece, the meaning of a tyrant was different. These Greeks were not always bad, and they did not always do things that lead to badly functioning societies. In an article from CNN, the writer Adam Cathcart compares Kim Jong Un to a tyrant.  In ancient Greece the term tyrant was used to refer to anyone, good or bad, as someone who gained power in a polis. In my opinion, the word tyrant is used incorrectly in this article as it is exclusively used to describe someone who is a bad leader, or someone who doesn’t care for their subjects. Although the word tyrant doesn’t carry a positive or negative connotation with it in ancient Greece, it is true that the only meaning for it in the modern world is someone who is leading their country in a way that does not listen to their people in any way or has any policies to help their people. When we think of Kim Jung Un, we do not have any feelings of envy or admiration for his leadership style, while in ancient Greece, the word tyrant may be used for a leader that people expect to bring prosperity and happiness to their polis. The article focuses on how Kim Jung Un uses his power oppressively and wrong, while in ancient Greece it initially never carried any of these definitions. The way this article uses the definition of tyranny would not fit with the ancient definition, as it describes Kim as more of a dictator than a tyrant. Also, tyrant was used as a respectable title, while the modern meaning for tyrant has transformed into being exclusively used for a negative meaning. No leaders in the modern world would take kindly to being referred to as a tyrant, or approve of its use in their campaign. In ancient Greece, it was simply a word for an up and coming leader or someone who is already leading a polis. After looking at the article, it is clear that in modern English the words tyrant and dictator have switched roles. In ancient Greece, a more proper word to describe a leader such as Kim Jung Un would be dictator.

A Modern-Day Tyrant

Contrary to the use of the term in present day, Greek tyrants were monarchs who enjoyed an oppressive, one-man rule. The tyrant usually rose to power because of his military ability and support from the lower class but the term simply referenced someone who obtained executive power through unconventional means. Early tyrants arose from the underclasses who were pitted against the aristocrats and hereditary succession. For example, populist coups commonly produced tyrants who observed approval during the initial part of their regime. One of the most fondly remembered Athenian tyrants was Peisistratos. He constructed grand new buildings, improved agriculture, specifically olives, and focused on public works and urban centers. It was Peisistrato’s successors, namely his sons, and the simultaneous growth of Athenian democracy that produced the negative connotation of the title “tyrant” that is used today.

Greg Bailey, in his article, “Our Very Own George III,” likens President Trump to the tyrannical King George III. Throughout the article he includes a multitude of reasons the founding fathers used to support their case for independence from tyrannical British rule. Bailey then explains the similarities between the actions of President Trump and King George III. Among the list of “a long train of abuses and usurpations,” Bailey highlights Trump’s controversial political decisions. Quoting the Declaration of Independence, Bailey argues that President Trump and King George III are one in the same: “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, [who] is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Bailey’s employment of the word “tyrant” is very similar to the Greek use of the term. The pre-democratic definition focuses on an unconventional rise to power. President Trump is not a career politician. His transformation from businessman to politico was anything but conventional. Ancient tyrants also maintained the absolute power of a single ruler. While the American political system does employ a structure of checks and balances, the President has final say over a majority of issues, especially if his political party aligns with the majority in Congress. President Trump’s rise in popularity can, too, be compared to that of a Greek tyrant. While he did not gain political favor from the underclass, he did present a specific vision of America that embodied the politics of hope. He focused on strengthening the country from within, thus attracting the support of those who felt as if they didn’t have a political voice. Overall, Bailey’s definition of “tyrant” aligns with that of the ancient term. Aptly, the characterization is utilized to describe one who has used unconventional means to achieve great power.

 

 

Work Cited

Bailey, Greg. “Our Very Own George III.” History News Network, 2 Sept. 2018,

historynewsnetwork.org/article/169820.

 

WC: 455

Syrian Tragedy

By: MIDN 3/C Eric Wilson, USN

In an article published in April by Fox News, in accordance with The Sun, Bashar al-Assad of Syria and his wife, Asma, are described as “tyrants.” Currently, the country of Syria is in the midst of national turmoil due to a civil war. The two sides of this war consist of the Syrian Arab Republic, led by al-Assad, and various rebel forces that oppose the government. Al-Assad has been constantly criticized over the course of this civil war, which has been underway since 2011, for his accused inhumane treatment of citizens. According to the article, al-Assad and his wife “own an opulent palace estimated to be worth $1 billion in Damascus – less than 10 miles from Eastern Ghouta.” While al-Assad resides in this mansion, he sends orders to mass-slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians of the country he is supposed to be leading. Over 400,000 Syrians have been killed due to this conflict, according to CNN, and over 5.6 million have fled the country. Bashar al-Assad is the textbook-definition of a tyrant who is constantly seeking more power, while subjugating the citizens of “his” country.

In my opinion, the word “tyrant” is used in a very appropriate manner here. In fact, I would use a worse word, if possible, to describe al-Assad. His intentional acts to quiet the oppressed in his country turns the Syrian government, which was established as a republic, into a dictatorship. He carries the stereotypical traits of a tyrant, including corruption, greed, wealth, and a growing desire for more power. These are all modern stereotypes of tyrants that emerged post-democracy in the Aegean. However, I would argue that even al-Assad’s treatment of the nation would be despised in ancient Greece, as well, even before the rise of democracy. He utilizes the military to annihilate entire populations with acts of inhumanity, including chemical weapons. In modern society, chemical weapons are frowned upon in the realm of warfare, due to past crimes against humanity that have occurred. Utilizing these against your own country is an even greater disgrace. The only citizens of Syria who are not subject to al-Assad’s wrath in some way are those within his administration and his closest supporters and donors. This ensures that he stays in power, as any opposition to his reign is addressed, often with non-diplomatic action. Such crimes cannot be defended or explained. By committing these cruel, totalitarian acts, al-Assad is the epitome of the modern stereotypes of tyranny.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/13/syrian-dictator-assad-wife-living-life-luxury-while-county-in-tatters.html

Is this really Sparta?

By: MIDN 3/C Ionatán A. Soule, USN

Zack Snyder’s 300 is truly an epic movie that does a great job of captivating its audience with strong dialogues and dramatic fights. The question, however, arises: is it historically accurate? Like many historical movies that are not documentaries, I would argue that 300 follows the general history, but takes great liberties when it comes to cinematic elements.

Much of the general storyline is accurate. It follows the life of Leonidas I from birth until his death in battle. In the movie, the newborn Leonidas I is inspected by priests over a cliff. If he were deemed unfit, the priests would have thrown him off. Historically, Spartans did do this because they were looking for the strongest newborns, ones that would make the best soldiers or wives. Later in his childhood, Leonidas I is tasked with killing a wolf as a rite of passage. Actually, Spartan teens were tasked with the killing of a slave. To pass the rite of passage, they would have to accomplish the task without being caught. While the director chose to remain somewhat true to history, it is clear that he altered the facts in order to present a more appealing story to the audience.

Similar choices are made throughout the movie. In reality, Spartans wore significant armor to protect themselves in battle. Snyder, however, has them scantily dressed to show off their toned and chiseled bodies. Another character who does not match up with historical evidence is king Xerxes. In the movie, Xerxes’ nine-foot tall frame towers over all other characters accentuating his supposed divine power when in reality he was a normal sized individual.

Despite these inaccuracies, the plotline follows history with surprising accuracy. The Spartans did in fact hold wave after wave of Persians back despite the Oracle at Delphi’s warning. And, ultimately, their defeat was caused by the betrayal of a Shepard who showed the Persians a path around.

I think that such movies as this provide an easily accessible exposure to historical stories but not historical facts. Unfortunately, the liberties that the director took when making certain decisions, while making the movie more visually attractive, detract heavily from history and the known truth of the matter. While the audience may enjoy the movie immensely, the movie will cause uneducated individuals to leave with inaccurate information. This is a problem because it will cause people to believe things that are simply not true.

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.