Confucian Applications to the Fleet

As officers in the Fleet, it is our duty to lead Sailors and Marines well. In order to do so we must learn from those who came before us. One civilization in history that we can learn from is the Han Dynasty of China. In particular, I believe important lessons can be taken from the Han Dynasty’s implementation of Confucianism and its emphasis on Li or etiquette. We can also emulate the Han Dynasty emperor’s commitment to traditions and his relationship with heaven and his people.

The Han Dynasty allowed Confucianism to be an official doctrine of their government, which is similar to the influence of John Locke on our government. However, Confucianism can transcend the government and can affect people’s lives and behavior. In Confucianism, there is emphasis on the five relationships between a superior and their subordinate. The relationships include ruler-subject, father-son, elder-younger brother, husband-wife, and friend-friend. Though some of these relationships are outdated, this relationship model does have elements that that could be effectively utilized by the Fleet. For example, I think it is appropriate to add a sixth Confucian relationship for the Fleet, which would be, Officer-Enlisted. Like the other relationships, a hierarchy is understood and built off trust that both are looking out for the best in each other in order to complete the mission. One of the Confucian writings said, “Make it your guiding principle to do your best for others and to be trustworthy in what you say.” In order for our Navy team to be effective there needs to be trust both laterally and horizontally in the chain of command.

Next, there the Confucian emphasis on Li or etiquette, ritual, ceremony, and customs of Confucianism. This emphasis on Li was very important for the emperor who heeded these traditions to keep harmony with the universe, and to avoid “punishment” in the form of a national or natural disaster. Similarly, in the Fleet we have our own traditions that we honor. Examples include morning and evening colors, formations, rendering honors both ashore and at sea, and the crossing the line ceremony. These traditions are important to the make-up of the Navy and Marine Corps. As a future officer it is important to learn about these traditions and to keep passing them on as they help to bond and unify the past with the present and enlisted with the officer corps. While the traditions might seem quaint to the outside world, both Sailors and Han Dynasty emperors understood that these rituals were essential for the cohesion and safety of their team.

The Han Dynasty in China existed in vastly different world from the one today but Confucian emphasis on relationships and Li can still be applied in today’s modern world. As future naval officers, it is important to study and understand the important lessons learned from history and apply them whenever possible to improve our Navy’s capabilities as an effective force.

–Danny Vela

Word Count: 468

What’s good about it?

The Confucian doctrine teaches that there is a natural harmony between man and the universe. This Confucian harmony when applied to a government emphasizes the five relationships of, ruler and subject, father and son, elder brother and younger brother, husband and wife, and friend and friend. The advantages of this application to the Chinese government is that there is now a parallel between the family and the state. A good leader under the Confucian doctrine exemplifies this harmony and leads the nation in a manner consistent with the five relationships. In the Analects of Confucius, it is written that a good leader in government will “Guide them by edicts, keep them in line with punishments, and the common people will stay out of trouble but will have no sense of shame. Guide them by virtue, keep them in line with the rites, and they will, besides having a sense of shame, reform themselves.” By staffing government positions with Confucian scholars, the government will be united behind a single doctrine, which is to promote harmony and lead by example.

As much as the Confucian teachings are about peace and being a good person there are disadvantages to having a government solely comprised of Confucian Scholars. First, there is no diversity of thought amongst the leadership. While common values and goals do ensure a unified, smooth running government, only an elite portion of the population are involved with legislation and representation of all people and all beliefs is not ensure or valued. Next, by employing only government officials who are literate and who performed well on a test, the country misses out on the wisdom and ideas of those who may not have the resources to study for or opportunity to take the exam. In addition, Confucianism builds a pyramid of rule with one leader and a trickle-down delegation of power. In this pyramid built of the five relationships, the roles are set and there is never an opportunity to change in roles. For example, the ruler and the subject will never switch or, the wife never switches roles with her husband. This limits future possibilities for individuals and leaves them stuck in whatever life circumstance into which they were born. Are the subject and the wife supposed to accept their place as a subordinate of their counterpart? Clearly, history has shown that those previously without a voice will eventually demand one.

Academic performance and merit-based assessments also play a role in modern day America just as they did in Confucian governed Chinese dynasties. A college degree, in general, does create more opportunities for economic success. Most universities and colleges require an admissions exam like the SAT or ACT to gain entry, and just as in ancient China a person needed to score well to be considered for acceptance. However, for the most part, a person in modern day America can hold many government positions without anything more than a high school degree. In fact, there is no degree requirement for a Congressman or President, two of the highest, most influential positions in modern day American government, to have a degree or credential. This allows for a more representative government than one comprised entirely of academic scholars. America in its 243-year history has never wavered from the Constitution dictated requirements of age and citizenship to hold office. This commitment to the tenets of the constitution is similar to ancient China’s commitment to Confucianism. Both doctrines promote the three basic human rights of life, liberty, and property, but enforce opposing leadership models for their obtainment.

–Danny Vela

Word Count: 544 Words

“Change is bad”-every society facing a new growing minority that breaks the status quo

History tells us that no matter the period or location people do not like change or the introduction of something new that changes the status quo. Therefore, when a philosophy as drastic and new as Christianity was introduced to the Romans it is no wonder that they viewed it as threat to their status quo and tried to outlaw it. American author Andrew Smith wrote, “People fear what they don’t understand.” In the case of the Romans, a monotheistic cult that refuses to pay homage and make sacrifices to the emperor, even when faced with execution, is scary. Pliny, a Roman governor under Emperor Trajan faced a mental battle when investigating the “crimes” of the Christians. Pliny in a letter to Trajan wrote, “I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent.” Pliny continues in his letter to talk about how the Christians were willing to endure horrible deaths rather than renounce their faith. He describes interrogations where he would give the Christians multiple chances to give in but ultimately, they would choose execution. I also think that in the letter there is palpable confusion and fear from Pliny. The usual approach to putting down a “rebellion” was not working. Pliny writes that even after the interrogations happened the Christians continued to worship. Thus, Pliny halted investigations and wrote to the emperor for guidance on how to deal with this threat to Roman authority.

However, it is not entirely baseless for Romans to view the rise of new religion as threat to their rule as even today we see backlash when a new religion or viewpoint different than the mainstream is introduced. In all countries, there is some level of suspicion and wariness towards those who are different. For example, the Unites States, though it is better than most other countries, has always been reluctant to accept immigrants because they fear the introduction of something that is new. Starting in nineteenth century and through present day there has always been some faction of the U.S. population, both large and small, that has been anti-immigrant resulting in hostile attitudes, bigotry and sometimes violence against them because they were different. Recently the United States has seen a rise in its Muslim population. This has resulted in the surfacing of some Islamophobia. I am not trying to justify the irrational fear that drives Islamophobia; I only want to point out that it is not just a one time in history deal and much of this fear of the different seems to be embedded in our human nature.

While it was not irrational for the Romans to see Christianity as threat to their rule, it appears that they over reacted in their efforts to control it. I think this partly due to fact that their usual tactics for bringing people into line, torture and threat of death, were not working and as a result, fear and panic drove them to escalate their efforts. At first, the Romans persecuted Christians by outlawing Christianity all together. There were cruel punishments like crucifixion and feeding them to lions. Christians were even used as scapegoats for the emperors. Add to this that the Christian population was relatively small and typically consisted of slaves and other poor citizens so they did not pose a real threat. In retrospect, the Romans were not justified in trying to eradicate the Christian cult as their harsh tactics seemed to have had the opposite effect and resulted in its accelerate growth within the empire.

-Danny Vela

Word Count: 566

Alex and Kim Take Charge!

Alexander the Great of Macedonia and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea share similarities in the attested legitimacy of their rule. Alexander the Great faced push back from his people while Kim Jong Un faced push back from the democratic nations across the world. Despite the issues with their regimes, both share the major attribute of inheriting a large military with ambitious plans to use them. Alexander was incredibly successful while Kim Jong Un has not been successful with his ambition to unify Korea through force, but has succeeded in remaining in power of his impoverish nation using of the threat of his nuclear weapons against his enemies.

Alexander the Great was chosen by his father King Philip II of Macedonia and Olympias to be his successor. King Philip had many wives and children but favored Alexander. However, powerful Macedonians did not believe he had a right to the throne as he was only was only half-Macedonian because his mother was a Greek. An example of the resistance Alexander was up against is recounted by Plutarch and took place at Philip II’s wedding to Cleopatra where Attalus called for a real heir to be made. Plutarch wrote, “At this Alexander was exasperated, and with the words, “But what of me, base wretch? Dost thou take me for a bastard?” threw a cup at him. (Plutarch 9.1)” It is evident that from the beginning of his rule, that there were factions of Macedonians that questioned his legitimacy to be the king. Yet he triumphed by eliminating his enemies and expanding his empire through his extraordinary military leadership.

Kim Jong Un had similar path to power. He was the legitimate son of Kim Jong Il, but Kim Jong Il like King Philip also had other children, but he favored Kim Jong Un. Given the highly secretive nature of North Korea it is hard to know what challenges to his leadership Kim Jong Un faced upon assuming control of North Korea. However, based on news reports that Kim Jong Un like Alexander eliminates people who threaten his power. Two examples are the murder of his half-brother in Malaysia¹ and execution of an uncle². In another parallel, Kim Jong Un like Alexander inherited a large army. With this army he intimidates his neighbor South Korea with a constant threat of invasion. His ambitions of unified Korea under his rule are held in check by the international community and large US military presence on the peninsula. However, Kim Jong Un real power comes from North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and its ballistic missile capability. Unlike Alexander who used his army to project his power, Kim Jong Un projects his power through threat of using his nuclear weapons against countries who threaten his power. Kim Jong Un’s nuclear ballistic missile capability has given him the ability to project power in Asia and across the Pacific. It is startling how he is able to manipulate the world powers to not only acknowledge his power but treat him as a world leader.

Alexander the Great’s military success brought him much acclaim, however, he failed to name a successor and after his death his empire fell apart. It is unclear whether Kim Jong Un has succession plan. His main focus seems to be his own survival which tied to having nuclear weapons capabilities. I think lesson to be learned is that in order for succession plan to work it comes down to having the consent of the people that are to be governed.

-Danny Vela

Word count (590)

1 CNN, “Kim Jong Un ‘ordered’ half brother’s killing, South Korean intelligence says”, Feb 28, 2017

2 Washington Post, “Kim Jong Un just had his own uncle killed. Why?” December 12, 2013

The U.S. Remains Superior

When comparing Athenian direct democracy to American representative democracy there is no question that American representative democracy is superior. Democracy in its most basic sense is government by the people and the rule of the majority. It is in the implementation of democracy where the American representative form succeeds in providing the best representation for all.

In a direct democracy the whole population must actively participate to ensure equitable representation. In Athenian democracy, the laws and the leaders were chosen based on a majority rule. While this seems like a practical way to govern, risks exist for under representation of minority positions. The majority of the population was satisfied because their ideas were being heard and their representatives were being elected. However, there was still the minority that needed its voice to be recognized. Aristotle explained the lesser minority status in The Athenian Constitution,“Not only was the constitution at this time oligarchical in every respect, but the poorer classes, men, women, and children, were the serfs of the rich (Aristotle 1.2).” When a majority continually places their candidates in power the minority will never have direct representation. Eventually this results in the minority losing faith in their government because of concerns that they are not being included and this will ultimately lead to failure of this democracy.

While the ideals that an Athenian direct democracy represents are good ones – a government of and by the people – it does have practical flaws that must be addressed to ensure fairness and sustainability. The United States employs a representative democracy to govern. The difference is that in a representative democracy individuals are elected to represent the people and exercise power according to the rule of law. Having a representative based government is critical given size of the country and population. In addition in order to ensure equal representation at the national level, the United States has set rules on how leaders are elected. Congress has two bodies with equal power, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Each state is allocated spots in the House of Representatives based population size. To ensure representation of those living in states with lower populations, two senators per state are also elected to the Senate. In total, 535 elected representatives make legislation on behalf of the country.

In electing a President, the founding fathers again had the foresight to understand that the needs of the many in a highly populated city are different than those of rural area less populated areas. However, their views are equally important and should not be diluted by larger populations of the cities. To ensure fairness they created the Electoral College, which follows the same representative allocation formula as Congress. Rather than voting directly for a candidate, voters actually choose electors who then elect the President. The electors associated with the winning candidate in each state (except Maine and Nebraska which proportionally allocate electors) then vote to select the President. While the use of the Electoral College to elect the President could be considered anti-democratic because it is possible to be elected President without a majority vote (it has happened five times, most recently in 2016), it is in line with the principals of a representative democracy because elected representatives of the population vote for the President.

It is easy to conclude that American representative form of democracy is better than the Athenian direct model, especially for a country with a large population. However, it is important to note that America’s representative version is based on lessons learned from the Athenian experience. The system in United States is not perfect, but its representative form allows for majority rule while ensuring minority rights.

-Danny Vela

Word Count: 600

Source:
The Internet Classics Archive | On Airs, Waters, and Places by Hippocrates. Accessed February 20, 2019. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/athenian_const.1.1.html.

“Tyrant” Takes On A New Meaning in the Modern Era

As we learned in class, the word tyrant, before the rise of democracy in civilization, meant to have a non-hereditary leader. This may come as a surprise to people today because that would make every leader of our modern society a tyrant. However, today the word tyrant is associated with cruel dictators like Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong Un. All of these leaders imposed authoritarian power typical through martial law using either military or police forces to imprison and kill those who did not follow in line with government dictates. If one were to look for a tyrant from the pre-modern era, the most famous example of is Hippias. Hippias is the son and successor of the previous tyrant Peisistratus. Hippias, like the tyrants of today was a harsh leader, which eventually led to his assassination bringing in another tyrant. This is not to say all tyrants of the pre-modern era were bad like the ones today, but it is easy to see where and why the term is associated with cruel leaders. In the Dialogues of Plato, a translated source that contains Plato’s accounts of conversations which has Cleinias talking with an Athenian about the preferred form of government to run a new territory. “I suppose, that the best government is produced from a tyranny,” says the Athenian stating that a young tyrant can evoke a change to a government that is stuck in its ways. This confused Cleinas, but the Athenian continued, “change is best made out of tyranny… , that his strength is united with the men of the state.” Cleinas does not understand what the Athenian is describing. The Athenian asks him, “I suppose you have never seen a city which is under a tyranny?” Clearly, the meaning of tyranny and tyrant have evolved since the time of Plato. Tyrants of that time were viewed more as agents of change and leader with whose ideas the population could relate to and follow to bring about change. This contrasts with today’s modern definition as a leader who uses his/her power to oppress the populace and enforce his/her will through coercion and violence.

An interesting article dealing with modern day tyrants was one from Vanity Fair titled The White House’s “Troika of Tyranny” Is Now a “Wolf Pack of Rogue States.” The take away from this article is that the use of the word tyranny is being watered down in meaning by politicians looking for the next political sound bite. The “Troika of Tyranny” is the term used by National Security Adviser John Bolton to describe Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, who are the communist countries of our hemisphere. They are in fact authoritarian regimes that oppress their people and meet the modern definition of tyranny. Do they fit the criteria for a pre-modern era tyrant? Yes, because they are non-hereditary leaders who took control of their countries. It is also important to note that in a pre-modern definition it does not say if a tyrant is cruel or just; it simply states they are non-hereditary rulers. Today’s politicians are ever expanding the definition of the word tyranny to include nations that are not necessarily tyrannies but simply do not align with US foreign policy. This shifting definition of tyranny is not helpful in building constructive dialogue among democratic nations that do not necessarily agree on policy, but perhaps can help them find common ground for possible solutions.

Danny Vela

Word Count: 529

Source:

VanityFair.com, “The White House’s “Troika of Tyranny” is now a “Wolf Pack of Rogue States”, January 16, 2019 by Tina Nguyen. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01/troika-of-tyranny-is-now-a-wolf-pack-of-rogue-states
The Dialogues of Plato (428/27 – 348/47 BCE) Translated by Benjamin Jowett https://webs.ucm.es/info/diciex/gente/agf/plato/The_Dialogues_of_Plato_v0.1.pdf