Sit down, be humble

The Chinese put an emphasis on the individuals role with respect to society. Despite varying philosophies regarding the way in which people should interact gaining traction in ancient China, each philosophy had a keen sense of duty attached to positions of leadership. The legalists believed leaders should lead and subsequently be followed because it was strict adherence to the law. Confucians believed that it was the natural order for a man in power to lead his subordinate. Daoists similarly took up the argument that the flow of the world may be balanced via the intervention of powerful people. In this way, the ancient Chinese assert the necessity of people leading others through positions of power.

Emperor Taizong spoke of his decision to teach the young men of China the arts of conducting warfare while they were not obliged to farm as a crucial means to govern the people, even going as far as to cite Confucius saying, “Not teaching people how to fight is the same as discarding them” (Taizong). Warfare serves as a means to better the society around them for it is a means through which the commanders may teach his subordinates skills, even if this skill is only how to conduct war. The culture of the time treated the peasant class and those who would be the grunts in battle as essentially pawns to be used by the commanders and ruler in battle, and as such limited them to only be taught their second trade: warfare. However, the identity and individualistic culture of the United States lends itself to be more receptive of the passage of knowledge beyond that of war. Thus, the inherent necessity of leadership combined with the means to guide and instruct via warfare instills a modern duty for those in command to lead beyond the present job. If leadership truly is a necessity, and there is an opportunity to lead, then it must be taken.

Furthermore, the ancient Chinese placed an emphasis on accounting for the lives of their men. The ancient emperors were warned by Sunzi Bingfa to not engage in warfare out of rage or any other feeling because it was foolish and sure to lose men. Similarly, the rulers and commanders were instructed to begin to use spies, which were originally thought of as a dishonorable tactic, because they served as a means to end the war quickly. A quick ending war would mean fewer deaths. Though the ancient rulers’ rationale behind protecting the lives of their men was purely economical, for they could not further conquest nor win the war if they ran out of peasants to throw at the problem, the justness of an action is made revealed. It is not just to make command decisions out of emotion because they harm the people you are commanding, and it may be just to use potentially controversial means to ultimately save more lives. Having the humilty to set aside personal feelings for the betterment of one’s people or to be labelled as a controversial figure in order to save lives is the pinacle of selfless leadership.

Ultimately, the ancient Chinese argue that it is the responsibility of the commander or ruler to lead his people to victory. Philosophy, tact, and wisdom garner success on the battlefield while haughty and emotional decisions are success’s enemy.

-Jackson Garber

Words: 555

Confucius says “Literates Wanted”

Confucianism was created as a means of understanding one’s inherent limitations impressed upon them by nature. As viewed by those who practice Confucianism, a wife may live her best life if she submits to her husband, and the husband, the culturally dominate figure, may live his if he reciprocates respect to his inferior. Through this interaction we may see how it is in the benefit of the inferior to humble themselves and obey those who are deemed naturally stronger individuals, and the duty of the strong to protect and mentor the weak. It is from this perspective that civil service exams to enter the Chinese bureaucracy was born, as they are a definitive test of the intellectual strength of an individual. Thus, by limiting the amount of people who may participate in the bureaucracy, adherents to Confucianism create more educated answers from a narrower point of view.

Tu Fu states in one of his poems “I recall her complaints of the taxation that has made her poor to the bone/ The burden of war on such persons! It makes me shed bitter tears” (Tu Fu). In this excerpt the quintessential balance of jen is revealed. The goodness of man is shown to want to aid in alleviating the sorrows of others to the point of bringing the man to tears over the woman’s pain. Therefore, jen may be characterized as a love that puts the needs of others before oneself. The literacy tests would take time out of people’s occupation in order to serve those around them, which is demonstrative of balanced jen. The balance of goodness with philosophical thought is an advantage of this system as it creates a bureaucracy devoted to the welfare of the people, rather than solely gaining power and status.

Furthermore, the dominant intellectual ability of those who were deemed qualified to serve within the bureaucracy over the common citizen allows for more rational decisions to be made. One of the pitfalls of having low barriers to entry within a government or bureaucracy is that the loudest voice may not have the smartest decision. By limiting who may enter the bureaucracy based on intellect, the Chinese bureaucracy, in theory, will average smarter decisions than if there were no literacy tests at all. Although not formalized, America’s wealthy dominating the political sphere is similar to this institution, for wealth being the barrier to entry denotes connotations of education. Due to the correlation between higher education and wealth, there is an assumption that politicians are educated beyond the common man, and therefore will make more wise decisions.

However, wisdom in decisions by a few neglects the majority viewpoint. The literacy tests, although establishing the intellectual ability of those placed in power, deny the common man from expressing his perspective via legislation. In this way, a majority party’s voice is being silenced under the guise of a more powerful group being more capable of creating decisions. To believe that you are superior enough to know what is best for another person’s life is an arrogant assertion, and the literacy tests boast this ideology. The suppression of the minority power’s voice is a suppression of ideas. But evidently, the Chinese valued the order of the few rather than the chaos of the many.

-Jackson Garber

Words: 544

Tu Fu, China’s Greatest Poet, translation and commentary by William Hung (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952).

“Christians Are Scary” -Roman Elites

The Romans were justified in their fear of the early Christians, as the Christian faith usurps an integral part of Roman society: its social stratification. The Romans adhered to a hierarchical social system in which varying levels of power were associated and legally denoted to individuals of higher standing within their community. Christianity, via the very nature of the religion, tends to contrast with the Roman ideas of weighted importance of singular individuals.

The tale of Christ, as presented in the Bible, accounts for Jesus’s affinity for the poor and those of lower social standing. The first people to be granted to the knowledge of his birth were lowly shepherds outside Bethlehem walls. The first people to hear of his resurrection were a group of women. The people he surrounded himself with were a collective of tax collectors, zealots, thiefs, and fishermen, professions of which did not lend themselves to be recognized as people of power, influence, nor respect. Jesus’s recognition of these types of people in the Christian faith as not only individuals who may practice Christianity, but critical to the success of the religion, inspires a movement of equality with regards to people of all social standings. However, this directly contrasted the rigid social structure of the ancient Romans. Those who were in power, namely the patricians, used the plebeians as a workforce and convinced many plebeians to follow them as patrons in return for protection. If a religion that boasts social equity were to become widespread, then the very power the patricians had created would be stripped away by a deity.

Furthermore, the Christians’ inflexibility contrasted the syncretic nature of the Roman religion. The mystery cults of the Roman era were often enveloped into the mythology of the Roman religion because the polytheism of Roman mythology allowed for it. However, it was important to note that this interaction between the cults and the Roman religion was swayed in the favor of the Romans, as the mystery cults’ faith would become a part of the Roman mythology and thus adhere to the homogeneity of Roman culture. Religion is a means of maintaining order as it controls the thought and moral basis of those engaged with the religion, and therefore using the symmetric nature of the Roman mythology as a means connect with other faiths, allows the Romans to influence the morals of those of different faiths. Pliny remarks that “For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished” in regards to the Christians he has met (Pliny, 10.96-97). The Christian inability to be flexible is cause for alarm for the Romans because it creates a situation in which conflicting morals are present within a society. Successful nations or empires are successful because there is a common goal or ideology that is adhered to by the populous. The counterculture of Christianity within Rome does not adhere to the common goal of Rome, and thus may be deemed dangerous by the elite.

The counterculture’s dangerous nature further expands when the symbols of Christianity are viewed. The death of a god on a cross did not align with the Roman connotation of crosses with the poor or criminals. The assertion that Christ was God and King undermined the power of Caesar. The equity of all people undermined Roman social hierarchies. Christianity was a threat because it was a religion for the poor.

-Jackson Garber

Words: 574

Pliny, Letters 10.96-97

Dreamers, Metics, Slaves and Arbitrary Power

The legality of the citizenship of Dreamers protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, or DACA, draws similar parallels to the argument over the citizenship of the metics and slaves of ancient Athens, due to the constraints placed on these individuals as a result of the arbitrary characteristics they possess.

Metics and slaves in ancient Athens were not granted citizenship due to their lineage. An Athenian citizen was declared as such due to being born an offspring of a mother and father who were both Athenian citizens. This measure was arbitrary in nature for it relied on predetermined qualities and characteristics about the individual that were beyond the individual’s control. Thus, any merit achieved by the individual for the greater good of Athens had no reflection upon their ability to gain status and prestige via Athenian citizenship. Lysius remarked how “this was not the treatment that we deserved at the city’s hands, when we had produced all of ur dramas for the festivals and contributed to many special levies” (Lysius, 12.20). Despite the good works and charity performed by Lysias, he was not given a vote in the assembly. The injustices of his situation is derived from a lack of recognition for the works that he was in control of. Instead, he was defined by a predetermined trait given to him by nature and subsequently was deemed unfit to vote.

Similarly, Americans assign citizenship based on the arbitrary circumstance of being born within the geographical boundaries of of the United States, however they strip citizenship from those who are in a similar bain. The children who are brought to the United States illegally by their parents are not cognizant of the illegal nature of their doings or at a minimum to immature to fully understand the severity of their actions, for the median age of these children is six years old and the average is three years old (Parlapiano). As such, the Dreamers are subjected to illegal activities by the whims of their parents. Thus their parents act as an arbitrary force governing their geographic location. Therefore, the plight of the Dreamer and that of the natural born citizen are congruent with one another for they are subjected to an arbitrary force, whether it be nature or man, to decide the region and nation-state boundary in which they live and are raised.

Both the metics and slaves of ancient Athens and the Dreamers of modern time are defined by the opposition to granting citizenship as unworthy due to characteristics beyond their control. Ironically, government systems such as the direct democracy of the Athenians and the representative democracy of the United States were designed to limit the influence of arbitrary power upon the individual. Direct democracy attempted this via their willingness to give citizens equal portions of the vote, and representative democracy attempted this via the check against the arbitrary power of the majority in the form of representatives. However, stripping citizenship from the Dreamers, metics, and slaves is antithetical to the mission of diminishing arbitrary power in government. It’s hypocritical nature subsequently legitimizes the stated purpose of the two societies government systems. So it brings about the question: are we really dedicated to ridding government of arbitrary power, or is it a facade to justify the rule of those in power?

-Jackson Garber

Words: 554

Alicia Parlapiano and Karen Yourish, “A Typical ‘Dreamer’ Lives in Los Angeles, Is from Mexico and Came to the U.S. at 6 Years Old,” nytimes.com, Jan. 23, 2018

from Lysias with an English translation by W.R.M. Lamb, M.A. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1930.

Why Democracy Sucks, but Representative is the Best of its Kind

Though there is merit to the idea of a direct democracy, such as that of the ancient Athenians, a representative democracy gives a greater benefit to the individual citizen. Democracy, as characterized by its Athenian founders, may be summarized by their most beloved ruler, Pericles, when he said “Our plan of government favors the many instead of the few…nor do we discriminate against the poor. A man may serve his country no matter how low his position on the social scale” (Thucydides 3.37). Their definition of a democracy consisted of an equity of accessibility within government despite social status or merit. In theory this type of government, also known as a direct democracy, allows for the government to be most representative of the people, for it hinders upon a holistic representation of the people. Thus, every corner of the society has their voice made heard within the voting body. However, this theory of direct democracy lacks the changing power of an individual, and instead focuses on the power of the majority.

The major problem with democracies as whole, no matter how they are implemented, is that they require individuals to give up their ability to create change in favor of contributing to the majority or minority. Instead of having the freedom to do as one pleases, individuals in a democracy are subjected to the whims of the majority. The annoyance of this phenomenon is compounded by situations caused by simple majority rules, the type of majority the Athenians used. A faction could win a vote with only twenty percent of the votes because the vote was so divisive between the other factions. As such, the “majority” is determined to by the twenty percent of the population, so the numerical majority of the eighty percent loses their right to act via legislation as they believe is correct.

Direct democracy maximizes the effects of this phenomenon while representative democracy seeks to minimize it. Direct democracy maximizes the inequality by what Pericles believed to be Athenian democracy’s greatest quality: the equity of all. By establishing every citizen as equal in the voting assembly, the power of the vote is diminished. Pericles established his new citizenship law as a means to make being a citizen more exclusive, and thus establishing power and the ability to enact change for the Athenian citizen. However, the mass influx of equity in the voting realm reduces the power of a single vote. Representative democracy, on the other hand, diminishes the effects by creating a system that relies on individuals to create legislation. Representative democracy gives the illusion of equity via the direct election of the representatives, but creates a hierarchical system of voting accessibility. In doing this, American government has successfully created the illusion equality while giving individuals the ability to create change. Furthermore, the power of the vote increases for all of those who voted for the individual, as the representative holds a mandate for the people’s will as a result of the social contract between the incumbent and constituent.

The minority faction within a democracy is always subjected to the whims of the majority, however representative democracy mitigates the amount of people subjected to arbitrary powers.

-Jackson Garber

Words: 532
Excerpt from Pericles’ Funeral Oration written by Thucydides.

Trump: Truly a Tyrant?

The recent shutdown of the government in response to the debate over the funding of the wall between the United States and Mexico has birthed a vocally hostile environment between the Democrat controlled House and executive branch as controversial solutions to the delima gain momentum. The most controversial of these solutions being President Trump’s supposed plan to declare a state of national emergency in order to acquire funds to begin building the wall. This has led to congressional members adementaly opposing the idea and going so far as outspokenly stating, as one congressman, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, did, “We will oppose any effort by the president to make himself a king and a tyrant.” Congressman Nadler’s use of the word “tyrant” evokes connotations of monarchical status that is contrary to the ideals of disseminating governmental power among the people that the United States was founded upon, or at least has evolved into. On the contrary, a Greek tyrant was a ruler who established his domain unconstitutionally or via a herotitous manner, both of which President Trump cannot lay claim to.

Through taking advantage of the power of the presidency, President Trump’s opposition boasts that he is subsequently usurping the power of the legislative and judiciary branches in an effort to accomplish the goals the he, an individual, has devised. Thus, President Trump may be be deemed apt for the contemporary title of tyrant by those who share similar beliefs to Congressman Nadler. However, the definition of “tyrant” used by Congressman Nadler is contrary to that of the ancient Greeks’. President Trump’s plan hinges upon the National Emergencies Act of 1976 in which Congress designed procedural requirements that the President must follow in order to declare a state of national emergency, but not what constitutes a national emergency. Therefore, it is within President Trump’s constitutional privilege to expand his domain and usurp Congress in this manner. His verdict in wether or not he will pursue this method falls inline with the constitutional framework with which our social contractional obligation, a free and willing choice to relenquish power to a higher state, adheres us to.

Moreover, our republic system also does not allow for the endowment of the presidency via inheritance or dictoral measures. As such, President Trump can also claim a mandate of the people to further support his cause. Since support of his presidency was deemed to be in the majority via the electoral college, then his voice, ideas, and execution are indicative of the majority populous. Thus his decision to enact a state of national emergency may be deemed democratic in nature, as his position as president is a conduit for change that has been proven to be the will of the majority. This method of funding the wall is not unconstitutional, nor lacking in a civilian populous’s willingness to subject themselves to his rule, so he cannot be deemed a “tyrant” under the Greek definition.

-Jackson Garber

Words: 473

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-wall-shutdown-national-emergency-pelosi-1283158