Learning the Past to Prepare for the Future

Observing the mistakes and successes of the past allows us to more readily prepare for a successful future. The study and analyzation of the rise and fall of ancient civilizations has proven critical to shaping modern cultures and governments into what we see today. Most often, mistakes made today have already been made once before in the past. By studying the past, one can better learn to prepare for the future. As a midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy, it is important to study both the successes and failures of ancient civilizations in order to better prepare ourselves to be officers in the fleet.

Looking at the rule of Emperor Wan-li of the Ming dynasty, many lessons can be learned on the importance of respecting cultural tradition as well as understanding what particular powers should be given to a leader. Emperor Wan-li caused great controversy by breaking the ancient tradition of passing down the title of emperor to his first born son, Changxun. Instead, he designated the son of his concubine to be his next heir. While many members supported the emperor’s decision, others saw it as a violation of ancient tradition and Confucian teachings. Had the emperor gone through with his decision to appoint his concubine’s son as his successor, he would have brought great distrust to his authority as well as instability throughout his empire.

As future naval officers, it is important to understand that cultural tradition and values matter in society, and the decisions we make must respect those traditions. In his teachings, Confucius dictates that “if your promises conform to what is right, you will be able to keep your word. If your manners conform to the ritual, you will be able to keep shame and disgrace at bay” (Confucius 4). It is the job of the officer to uphold the standards and virtues that our nation fights to upkeep and defend. If morals and values are eliminated from our daily tasking, the freedoms we fight to maintain will ultimately collapse. Followers will be less inclined to obey, and officers will lose the respect they have worked so hard to earn.

With knowledge learned from past failures, such as the mistakes made by the emperor, we may hopefully prevent leadership mistakes as officers in the near future. Learning about both the successes and failures of ancient civilizations allows midshipmen to gain a better insight of the world around them. Opening their eyes to ancient beliefs and cultures will ultimately create a better understanding of how civilization has developed into what we see today.

Word Count:429

Works Cited

Confucius, The Analects. Translated by Simon Leys; edited by Michael Nylan. Norton Critical Editions. New York: W.W. Norton, 2014.

Knight, Ansley, Blog Post: First Born or Third?. 30 Oct 2018.

Same God, Different Religion

With modern day controversy and war against the widely Islamic Middle East, it is difficult for the Western Christian to find any connections or relation to the Islamic religion. As a Christian myself, I rarely hear of anyone going to attend a muslim service at a mosque, opposed to going to church on a Sunday morning. Looking past the fact that pure ignorance is often a factor in misinterpreting what the Islamic religion is actually about, I believe recent events involving acts of terrorism by radical muslims have twisted American views towards Islam.

Both Christianity and Islam’s foundations are set with the belief that there is only one, true God. Although the Islamic religion refers to God as “Allah,” both Christians and Muslims worship the God of Abraham, whom they both descend from. The Qu’ran even states in reference to all Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike that “…our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender…” (29:46). Both religions, and Judaism as well, believe they are descendants of Abraham. Judaism and, ultimately, Christianity came forth from Abraham and Sarah’s son, Isaac, whereas the Islamic religion originates from Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Sarah’s handmaid, Hagar. This initial divide created the differences in Christianity and Islam that we see today.

The basis of Christianity stands on the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God. Jesus was both fully man and fully God, and was sent to the Earth to die on the cross and thus save mankind from their sin. If you “confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). When researching further on the Islamic religion, I was surprised to find that Muslims also believe in Jesus Christ. Islamic religion believes that Jesus was a prophet of God, but not the son of God. Jesus never died on the cross, and therefore was never resurrected. Although these can be viewed as stark differences, I feel that the belief of Jesus Christ gives Christianity and Islam enough similarity to eliminate the vast divide we see today between Christian and Muslim culture.

There are many other religions that also share similarities with both Christianity and Islam. The similarities, as well as the differences, seen between Christianity and Islam are not mutually exclusive. Judaism is another religion that believes in the God of Abraham- the same God of Christians and Muslims alike. Many cultures and the traditions that we see in modern day come from the very foundation in which three different religions were all built. Although different, they are much more similar than most ignorant followers would be comfortable with.

Word Count: 455

References

“What Are the Differences Between Christianity and Islam?” Truelife, www.truelife.org/answers/what-are-the-differences-between-christianity-and-islam. 01 November 2018.

Qu’ran

The Holy Bible

First born or Third?

In accordance with the teachings of Confucius, the successor of the emperor must be his first-born son. This aligns with multiple written Confucian beliefs that argue the importance of order and tradition in a stable empire. The Wan-li emperor brought instability and much discomfort throughout his empire with his refusal to designate his first-born son, Changluo, as his successor. Rather than appoint the son of his hated wife, he opted to eventually name Changxun, his third-born son of his favorite concubine instead. Many members of the Grand Secretariat supported the emperor’s decision, while others saw it as a violation of ancient tradition and Confucian teachings. Had the emperor gone through with his decision to appoint Changxun as his successor, it is likely that an unsettling distrust of the emperor’s authority would continue to spread, along with signs of instability throughout the empire.

In his teachings, Confucian dictates that “if your promises conform to what is right, you will be able to keep your word. If your manners conform to the ritual, you will be able to keep shame and disgrace at bay“ (Confucius 4). Those against emperor Wan-li’s refusal to appoint Changluo because of his dislike of his wife, Lady Wang, argued that the stability of the empire depends on the belief that sex and age both dictate certain privileges (Charles 6). In other words, “a man who respects his parents and his elders would hardly be inclined to defy his superiors. A man who is not inclined to defy his superiors will never foment a rebellion” (Confucius 3). Priority should be given to those who rank higher and are elders to the community. The first-born son of emperor Wan-li, according to Confucius, will obey his superiors as his younger brother, Changxun, should obey him as the next heir to the empire.

Those in support of emperor Wan-li’s decision argue that “he who by revising the old knows the new” and is thus “fit to be a teacher” (Confucius 6). The emperor should be able to decide who will be his own successor. After all, the “judgement of the emperor, virtuous father and mother of all under heaven, [can not] be readily called into question without destabilizing the entire political order” (Carnes 7). This argument puts all trust into the actions and decisions of the emperor alone, ignoring the guidance of ancient teachings and tradition. This belief disregards the traditions and ceremonies that the people of the empire have respected and practiced all their lives, and will eventually cause a rift in the empire. Selfish motives of the emperor in power, as described in Confucian teachings, will ultimately collapse the stability of the empire.

Word Count: 444

Carnes, Mark; Gardner, Daniel, Confucianism and the Succession Crisis of the Wanli Emperor. “Reacting to the Past” Series. Barnard.

Confucius, The Analects. Translated by Simon Leys; edited by Michael Nylan. Norton Critical Editions. New York: W.W. Norton, 2014.

The Christian Fear

The Romans were right to fear the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. The Christian religion not only threatened to undermine the polytheistic Roman religion, but also incurred many political and societal changes throughout the empire. To the Romans, Christian practices were considered to be both immoral and a political threat. Christian refusal to participate in religious sacrifice and ceremonies to the gods insulted the basis of Roman culture and was seen as an act of disobedience and a potential threat.

The Roman religion, unlike Christianity, focused on the worship of many powerful deities (many of whom were originally known to be Greek). Sacrifices to certain deities were made in exchange for protection and good fortune. The Romans praised and worshiped the gods in the hopes that their devotion would convince the gods to look favorably upon the Roman Empire. Even taxes were collected and spent on public cults and events to honor the Roman gods. Those in political power also held positions as cult and spiritual leaders. Overall, Roman culture was completely immersed in the Roman religion, with tolerance of only the Jewish faith.

As more people were allowed to move freely throughout the Mediterranean, Christianity and its teachings began to spread across the Roman Empire. Suddenly, Roman citizens and Jews alike began to reject the polytheistic ideals of the Romans and, instead, accepted the teachings of Christianity. Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of a man named Jesus. During his life, Jesus challenged the abuses he saw and provoked many prominent Jewish community leaders with his push for reform. In Christianity, Jesus preached the idea that salvation is meant for all, including the lower classes. The Jewish community, who were already tolerated and accepted by the Romans, feared that with this argument, Jesus would lead the people of Palestine in an uprising against Roman rule.

Jesus, in the end, was crucified because of the potential political threat he would bring to the Roman Empire. With his crucification, however, came more reason and opportunity for believers to refuse to conform to Roman religion and culture. After the death of Christ, Christians continued to be persecuted by the Romans. As what is already common to mankind, the Roman Empire ultimately feared what it did not know, with much of its suspicions based upon its overall lack of understanding of the Christian faith. Had the Romans known more about Christianity from the beginning, it is likely that the Romans would have been much more tolerant and welcoming to the Christians, as they had to the Jews.

References

Hansen, Valerie. “Chapter 7: The Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity.” Voyages in World History, Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2016, pp. 144-148.

Word Count : 432

Democracy Over Time

The Ancient Greeks are known to be the founders and inventors of democracy. The Athenian democracy is one of the prime examples of a direct democracy- a democracy in which the people ruled. According to Athenian philosophers, “the type of government [the Athenians] were developing was inclusive of all ‘essential’ people” (Haddox). Every free adult male in the Athenian population was allowed to contribute to government and important political decisions. Over time, this direct model of democracy has evolved into what is now the American representative model of democracy. This American system, however, is vastly different from the ancient system when it comes to representation in government affairs.

The founding fathers of the United States democracy admired the Ancient Greeks’ democratic system, but feared there would be drastic consequences if Americans followed a strictly radical direct democracy. The Athenian democracy, in comparison with modern American democracy, was overall more inclusive and transparent with its citizens (Romeo). This, however, caused for some problems in the decision making process of government. Men would become overly passionate about their own personal gain when voting, yelling and shouting always ensued, and voting on a person’s banishment could influence the political outcomes of the Assembly. Overall, the “mob mentality” was a constant, overbearing influence on the Athenian Assembly. As written by James Madison in Federalist 55, “in all very numerous assemblies…passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason” (Romeo 1).

In contrast to the ancient democratic system, the modern American system uses representation of the people in political decision making rather than allowing the people to vote directly. This eliminates the “mob mentality,” but still allows the people to have some say of what goes on in government. By electing officials to vote in representation of the people, it is more likely that more people will vote the one time required, opposed to traveling long, unnecessary distances to an assembly to vote every couple of days or weeks. A representative vote promotes widespread participation in a large population, whereas a direct democracy may be more successful in a small, local population.

The American representative model of democracy is a vast improvement on the direct democratic model used by the Athenians. In modern democracies, citizens have the capability to contribute to government by voting for public officials or deciding to run for office themselves. The American democracy “is more complex and more interconnected, making direct democracy impractical” (Haddox). Although some officials may fail to carry out the policies favored by their constituents, the decisions made by the officials are still made to better the country as a whole. If every person in the United States had a direct vote towards an issue, all would vote in favor of satisfying their personal agendas. Overall, the representative model is a much more organized and reliable system that that of the Ancient Athenians.

democracy

References

Romeo, Nick. “What Modern Democracies Didn’t Copy from Ancient Greece.” National Geographic, 6 Nov. 2016, www.nationalgeographic.com.au/history/what-modern-democracies-didnt-copy-from-ancient-greece.aspx

Haddox, Anthony. “The Athenian Representative Democracy.” California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, 2016.

Modern vs. Ancient Tyranny

For ages, elected leaders of the self-governed “free world” have been terrified of tyrannical rulers spreading their “influence” among surrounding countries. The United States, in particular, has participated in multiple wars dedicated to ending tyrannical rule. Countries deemed as modern day tyrannies are thought to have an unstable, immoral, power-hungry leader who makes political decisions based only off of selfish gain.

According to ancient opinion, particularly the opinions of the ancient Greeks who lived under constant tyrannical rule, a tyrant is a powerful and enlightened leader dedicated to building a large, powerful, and prosperous nation. A tyrant was seen as a rational leader with great spheres of political and economic influence. Tyrants ruled with the intention of raising their nation above all others, even if it entailed invading neighboring countries. Nations, including ancient Greece, prospered under the reign of tyrants.

Unlike the ancient notion that tyranny can actually be a positive aspect, modern day society shuns the idea of a stable and morally sound tyranny. One article describes tyrants of being “often accompanied by cruelty and hedonism, from the sexual perversions of Nero to…rumors of Kim Jong-un killing his uncle by setting wild dogs upon him” (The Conversation). Recently, news reports have lashed out towards President Trump, stating that “the constitution was designed to prevent tyranny through a system of checks and balances, but in President Trump’s America, those safeguards are failing” (CNN). Modern day democracies see one-man actions taken by world leaders as a step closer to tyrannical forms of leadership. In general, modern day tyranny associates itself with corruption and selfish desire.

The modern definition of “tyrant” does not fit the ancient definition. This, however, does not mean that the term “tyrant” is used incorrectly in the context of most news sources. As the meaning of tyrant has changed over the many, many years since ancient Greece, so has the context in which it is used. The modern world is filled with democratic nations who now see tyranny as obsolete- almost to the point of it being called uncivilized. With the opinions of tyrants seen today, the use of the term “tyrant” in most news articles are, in current opinion, correct. If taken back to ancient Greece, however, there might be much disagreement of the word’s use.

Works Cited

Newell, Waller R. “To Defeat Tyranny Today, Look to the Past.” The Conversation, The Conversation, 10 Sept. 2018, theconversation.com/to-defeat-tyranny-today-look-to-the-past-81014.

Sachs, Jeffrey. “Trump Is Taking US down the Path to Tyranny.” CNN, Cable News Network, 24 July 2018, http://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/opinions/trump-is-taking-us-down-the-path-to-tyranny-sachs/index.html.