Is History actually important?

As a naval officer it will be important to reflect upon the actions of civilizations in the past and their repercussions. In particular, focusing on the military’s role in societies throughout the ages. To look back at the ancient Athenian Empire we can learn some important lessons as a military and a civilization at large. While we commonly attribute Athens to being the founders of Democracy, it is generally overlooked that this Democracy was only within the city-state, and its empire throughout the Aegean was largely oppressive and non-representative. The Athenian people were able to gain such expansive control from their cutting edge navy. Their supremacy on the seas allowed them to cripple civilizations into submission and quell and rebellions that arose. One of the famous quotes from Thucydides’s account of the Melian Dialogue is “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” This quote shows the outlook the Athenians had towards other civilizations being ‘if we can conquer them, then we deserve to rule them’. Since the military of Athens was so crucial to its expansive empire, if the military had objected to these infringements upon the rights of other civilizations to live independently then the mass subjugation could have been avoided.

This is where we can make some crucial takeaways about how our military ought to be run in relation to our society as a whole. While the military must serve the society similar to how it did back in the days of Athens, there must be a reallocation of loyalty. The military must not be committed to any specific leadership position in the country, but rather to a principle to ensure that the values do not change. For instance, if our military were to swear allegiance to the President of the United States, then it would be possible for a corrupt or ill-intentioned person to be elected into the office and then manipulate the military to carry out unjust campaigns in the President’s personal interests. A better system of loyalty, as we have, would be to swear allegiance to the Constitution so that our military’s values do not change every four years. This consistency and principle based service obligates our military to act morally and with the defense of personal freedoms from oppressive governments as paramount.

Just because our military is currently operated in this way does not mean, however, that we no longer have a necessity to learn this lesson from the past. If we fail to keep this commitment to the defense of values at our forefront, then we may allow it to slip away into the past also. Once this occurs there will be an extraordinary opportunity for evil to rise and seize the power of our military to oppress other civilizations, as seen throughout history, and we will once again learn this lesson (the hard way). (479 Words)

-Ross Woods

Jesus: Prophet, God, or Lunatic?

The teaching that Jesus is a well-respected prophet of God in Islam was certain a surprise to me the first time that I was informed about it. It is strange since there are no other religions that have any particular respect for or mention of the Christian God, so this similarity between the two is quite unique. While the presence of similarities may seem to align the religions with each other, the opposite is true. The two religions actually directly oppose one another because of their view of Jesus.

In Christianity it is taught that Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind and is both fully God and fully man. Throughout the Christian Bible Jesus takes the title of the Son of God and very directly claims to be divine. In the Gospel of John, chapter 14, verses 6-7 Jesus says: “I am the way, the truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Here Jesus very clearly claims that following his teachings is the only path to salvation, and he is the link between mankind and God. In contrast to the Christian view the Muslims teach that Christ was simply a prophet, stating “Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!” (5:575, Yusif Ali) This difference in beliefs may come from altered interpretations of what Jesus was teaching, which would not cause the religions to be mutually exclusive, however there is another key teaching of Islam that prevents the two from aligning.

Islam teaches that Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God or have any divinity during his ministry, as shown by this excerpt from the Quran: “Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah’?” He will say: “Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.” (5:116, Yusif Ali) This directly opposes what Christians claim that Jesus taught in his sermons, and it is clear that both of these positions cannot be true at the same time. To evaluate Jesus considering the perspective of Christians there are three possibilities: he is who he says he is (God), or he is a narcissistic deceiver that lacked all righteousness and honor by claiming to be divine dishonestly, or he is a lunatic that truly believes himself to be God but is not. So the claim that Jesus was a prophet but not the Son of God cannot be true if what the biblical accounts of Jesus’ teachings are accurate. Thus, the difference in beliefs between Christianity and Islam cannot be reconciled.

There are of course other similarities between the religions that are not diametrically opposed. For instance, both religions refer to an Archangel by the name of Gabriel appearing on separate occasions, in Islam this was at Mohammed’s revelation, and in Christianity at the Annunciation of Jesus’ conception. Both religions also hold Mary the Mother of Jesus in a high regard and claim that she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived.

These similarities are fascinating if nothing else, but the fundamental disagreements about the identity of Jesus prevent the two religions from being able to simultaneously have credibility. (624 Words)

-Ross Woods

The Galactic Roman Empire

In the ancient Roman Empire Julius Caesar came to power through a mix of political savvy as well as the possession of a large army to force all who opposed him into submission. Once in power, Caesar focused on expanding the Roman territory while also fighting off incursions and rebellions such as the one posed by his most powerful enemy, Pompey. In both his rise to power and his conduct as the ruler of Rome, Caesar conducted himself in a similar way to Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars.

Palpatine came into power by first rising through the Galactic Senate and gaining influence among its members, eventually becoming the Supreme Chancellor. Palpatine simultaneously gained control over the Galactic Army, before overthrowing the Galactic Republic and establishing the Galactic Empire. Similarly, Julius Caesar developed influential relationships with members of the Senate through his charisma and wealth, and became popular among the common people as a successful military general that expanded Rome’s borders and brought back the fruits of war. Once he was powerful enough, Caesar marched his Army on Rome and essentially assumed the position of dictator without publicly referring to himself as such. The similarities in the Emperors’ rises to power emphasize that both were manipulative and scheming individuals who had the cunning to achieve their goals.

As for the Empires themselves, in the Star Wars universe the Empire is an oppressive regime which stomps out unrest and insubordination with its great power. This is demonstrated by the Empire’s development and use of the Death Star to destroy entire planets as a show of force, in order to cause the other systems in its control to obey them out of fear. In the case of the Roman Empire it is obviously not as severe, but the Roman Legions were used to conquer enemies and instill good order and obedience in the conquered. In the event of a rebellion, the rebelling forces would be met with great force and eliminated. This use of power to instill fear and thus obedience is one of the most common themes throughout all of mankind.

In the United States we of course would not compare ourselves to an oppressive empire such as the one in Star Wars, but we may share more resemblance with it than we would like to admit. For instance, in the early years of our existence Shays Rebellion arose and was met by U.S. forces led by George Washington. The rebellion was squashed and this act by the federal government showed that rebellions and disobedience (at least when to the point of violence) would not be tolerated. Continuing with the trend of our military, because of how powerful our military is, if someone was to in some way gain control over it and turn it against the government, they would most likely gain control over the entire country (If the second amendment doesn’t get in there way) and be able to rule in a similar fashion to the Emperor in Star Wars.

Ultimately there do not seem to be near as many similarities between the U.S. and the Galactic Empire as a power such as the Roman Empire, but we must be careful not to immediately assume our nation is not victim to the same follies. (545 Words)

Ross Woods

The persecution of early Christianity

During the rule of the Roman Empire, Christianity was born and developed through its early stages. The practice of Christianity within the empire began to cause fear among both the subjects of the empire as well as its leadership. This fear in the early centuries C.E. is both understandable and justified from the Roman’s perspective. However, the persecution of the early Christian Church was without justification. The fear of the Christians was caused by their refusal to submit to Roman cultural practices and the mystery that surrounded their beliefs. The Christian’s persecution was a response to the fear the Romans had of them, but generally there were no crimes committed to warrant this persecution, so it was unjust.

The early Christians were opposed to many of the customs of the Roman culture. For instance, they rejected the gods worshipped by the Romans and they refused to participate in festivals and ceremonies honoring these gods. The Christians also rejected any relation between divinity and the emperor. The Christians also tended to follow many of the Jewish traditions which were similarly alien to the Roman people. These clashes with the accepted culture of the empire stirred up a great deal of animosity and anxiety among the population at large, who were not Christian.

Much of what Christians actually believed and practiced was not known or understood by the Romans, and this mystery was a great source of suspicion. Since the Christians at the time were actually relatively secretive with outsiders about their masses and celebrations, not much of what Christians did was known by most people. What small parts that were known were generally taken out of context and created more confusion. For instance, to have no idea what Christianity is, and to hear that every week they get together to celebrate someone’s crucifixion and eat his flesh and drink his blood would probably give you a bad impression of Christians. Apart from this radical idea of cannibalism, Christianity and Judaism are the only two monotheistic religions in the empire, and both are a small minority, so even the premise that there is one unimaginably perfect and powerful God as opposed to many gods with human faults and traits would be rejected by many. The mystery that surrounded the Church as well as its differing beliefs caused a great deal of suspicion and unrest among the people.

While Christianity did attract a great deal of attention and suspicion to itself in the Roman Empire, this in itself did not justify persecuting the religion. Christians were being persecuted and put to death for no crime, but simply due to their beliefs, as shown in Pliny’s letter to the Emperor Trajan when he states “I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed.” This blanket persecution was seen as being in the best interest of the empire since civil unrest was stirring up over Christianity, but not due to crimes committed, rather simply because of their beliefs. So no matter how virtuous a person a Christian was, they could be put to death for their faith. There is nothing further from justice.

So, the fear that the Romans had of Christianity was understandable and justified, but their decision to persecute the Christians was without legitimate justification.

(563 Words)

American Supremacy

The American model of a Representative Democracy is far superior to the Direct Democracy practiced by the ancient Athenians. This claim is of course made from the perspective of a person living in the representative democracy of the U.S. and may be biased. The basis of my reasoning lies in the generally overlooked differences between the two. Our understanding of Democracy today leads us to believe that it is a just system that provides equality among the people of the society, however, in ancient Athens this was not the case. The challenges that I have against the Athenian Democracy are the lack of representation in voting, the lack of fully committed voters, the lack of a safeguard against a rising ruler, and the lack of Democracy throughout their empire.

Membership within the Athenian Democracy was limited to the property owning purebred Athenian men. Outside of this category people had no vote within the Assembly; those unrepresented included all women, slaves, and even Metics who owned land. This utter lack of representation in Athens makes me question if it even deserves to be referred to as democratic. The Representative Democracy of the U.S. (while certainly taking time to develop into what it is currently) provides equality and justice under the law to all of its citizens. All citizens have basic rights guaranteed to them, including the right to vote. This is significantly different from ancient Athens, and I believe to be far better.

Another difference is that in Athens voting was a collateral duty, not your primary job, so the men who could vote would have to abandon their jobs for extended periods of time to go to the acropolis to vote. This detracted from their ability to vote, to debate issues, and to do their primary jobs effectively. Conversely, elected officials in the U.S. create, debate, and vote on laws for the good of the nation and their constituency. Having politics be someone’s livelihood certainly does increase the possibility of corruption, but the benefit from having some individuals dedicate all of their time to political decisions is profound.

Our government thanks to its system of checks and balances prevents any one person from being able to gain too substantial of power from simply wooing the masses. However, in ancient Athens profound orators such as Pericles were able to essentially dictate what decisions were made by making compelling speeches to the people that gained their trust. This difference is significant because it keeps the control of the U.S. government in the hands of the people, whereas Pericles was able to convince the people to take advantage of the Delian League and form an empire over its members.

Most significantly, the Athenian “Democracy” was what governed an oppressive naval empire in the Aegean Sea. This empire and all of the riches that came flooding into Athens from it were all that allowed the Democracy to continue to function. An empire is one of the least representative forms of society, and thus one of the furthest from a Democracy. Thus, despite having an apparent Democracy, the Athenian empire was not the ideal form of government for those under their fist. However, in the U.S. the entire population is protected by our Representative Democracy, and (despite some claims) our nation is committed to promoting the good of the world, rather than oppressing others to spread our influence.

While I do have many criticisms of the ancient Athenian Democracy, I understand that we also have them to thank for originating the concept. Additionally, our Representative Democracy would most likely not function well in their society, but our approach is still superior.

The evolution of “Tyranny”

In pre-democratic Greek society the connotation of the word tyranny was vastly different than our post democratic perception of the concept. The ancient Greeks viewed tyrants as political leaders who generally came to power through a populist movement for change from the current political system. These tyrants were also considered to be benevolent and caring leaders who brought about many positive changes in society. They were also considered to be strong leaders and they were well trusted by their people. These traits clearly clash with the modern view of tyranny as an evil and self-interested regime which has total disregard for the wellbeing of its people, and only seeks to empower itself more. This view did not develop until after democracy had developed and been determined to be superior.

In an article from the Daily Intellligencer titled “America Takes the Next Step Towards Tyranny” the author, Andrew Sullivan, makes the case that President Donald Trump is turning America into a tyranny. Sullivan compares President Trump to the tyrannical leader from Plato’s Republic. Sullivan says that “When Plato’s tyrant first comes to power — on a wave of populist hatred of the existing elites — there is a period of relative calm when he just gives away stuff”, and he then compares this to President Trump by referencing the large tax cut that Trump pushed for. All of the positive effects are only to please people until the tyrant gains a strong enough base to start manipulating his power more. Sullivan also compares Trump’s firing of members in his cabinet to “the purge” of political opposition of a tyrant once they have enough power to make people disappear.

The kind of language used by the author to describe tyrannical leadership, such as purge, cruelty, sadistic, and public execution, implies an extremely unjust and power hungry ruler with no concern of the people. These traits are in stark contradiction to those of the tyrants of Ancient Greece who generally improved the lives of those under them, and were considered to be caring leaders in many cases. This change in the definition of tyranny can be attributed to the development of Democracy, and with that the retrospective outlook in which non-democratic governments are now considered inferior and thus the reputation of tyranny changed. It is also likely that many of the tyrants in ancient Greece may have fit our current definition of tyrants, since being in a position of such great power they would be easily corrupted.