Alexander the Great and NL110

In leadership class we learned about influence and power as well as talents and strengths. There are different types of power: referent power is when a leader’s influence over people stems from the strong relationship between them; legitimate power comes from the position one holds in an organization; reward power means influencing others by being in control of rewards offered to them; and expert power is the ability to influence others based on the knowledge you possess. With talents and strengths we learned that talents are innate, naturally occurring aspects of a person. After they are refined, practiced, and consistent they can become a strength. In class we learned about the ancient Greeks and Macedonians, and in particular, Alexander the Great. Though there is controversy about whether he was a good leader or not, there are many benefits to studying him and how we expanded his empire in that he put a great emphasis on strategic military advances as well as training for his men and that he attempted to exercise power in a demanding (and ineffective) way.

Alexander the Great had learned about warfare from fighting alongside his successful father Philip II. When he took over he emphasized having a trained and disciplined force of men. In discussing how Alexander met the threat of elephants in India it is said that, “ when Alexander’s forces had the mastery over then a second time, as they were superior in strength and experience, they were again pressed back on the elephants.” (Alexander the Great, 15. 324) This demonstrates that Alexander had his men fighting often and ensured they were not a weak force. This relates to talents and strengths because experience and actually getting experience is a vital part of becoming a more refined leader and ensuring your men and women are also prepared for whatever may come. On the other hand, Alexander exemplifies what happens when you do not listen closely enough to your people. “In the end, it was not the might of enemy forces but the exhaustion and refusal of his own men to continue that brought Alexander’s conquest to an end.” (Alexander the Great, 15.325) Alexander tried to convince his men to go on but they were exhausted. He attempted to use his legitimate power to force his men to continue conquering lands. As an officer is more usually not as effective to influence people just through your positional authority. Alexander’s men had trusted him but it the end Alexander knew he could not go on alone and had to take his men back home. As officers it is paramount to be able to influence and listen to your people in the most effective way possible. Plutarch argued that Alexander actually did make a positive impact on those he conquered and positively led. He said, “The peoples Alexander vanquished were more blessed than the people who escaped his conquests. For no one stopped them from living wretchedly, but those he conquered, he compelled to live happily.”( Readings in Greek History, I.1) By saying this, Plutarch is arguing Alexander ruled with referent power, which is often the most effective way to lead. As an officer who knows more context, I would be able to recognize this is exaggerated but also think about how I come off when moving into a new command or leading a whole new group of people.

-Carina Richardson

Word Count: 470

Readings in Greek History, I.1

Alexander the Great, 15.324-325

Continuity of Confucianism

Confucius was a philosopher and political adviser who believed that peace and new Chinese political and ethical thought could be introduced by refining society’s elite. He recorded his teachings in the The Analects, which emphasized junzi (“gentlemen”) as well as the five relationships: ruler-subject, father-son, elder-younger brother, husband-wife, and friend-friend. As Confucianism began to have a greater role in government and more, specifically many ruling dynasties in China, clear advantages and disadvantages began to emerge.

Confucius believed good government should be filled with men who have jen; this means people who were benevolent, and full of virtue and culture. These men didn’t have to be born with these traits but could learn them through proper education. One major benefit of staffing government with Confucian scholars is that they are all competent and trained in this virtue. The Analects says “The Master said: “He preaches only what he practices.” (The Analects, 2.13) This means that those who excel on Confucian exams were people who weren’t hypocrites but did what they said they were going to. This is advantageous in government because it is much easier to hold leaders accountable and ensure that you know exactly how officials will act.“The Master” in The Analects also discusses that the best way to win people over is to approach them with dignity and respect. If leaders treat their people this way, there is more room for selfless decision making and cohesion.

By choosing solely educated, specifically trained men who adhere to Confucianism, to make up government, a clear divide between the elite bureaucracy and the common people could quickly emerge. This divide also means less cohesion between different groups and could easily lead to rebellion.Confucianism preaches peace and harmony but this is not possible if there are two very different and unequal groups. There was even a clear divide between men and women. Despite having female Confucian scholars, women were still instructed to be subservient to men in all of their relationships (this included their sons). The Analects 2.5 includes, “The Master said: “Never disobey.”, and goes on to repeat the phrase “according to the ritual” This indicates there is little room to disobey the ritual. Because of this things will remain the same even if circumstances change. Also, ‘never disobey’ means never being able to offer an opposing opinion, which can be very harmful for a government.

One similar institution we have today is the court systems in which judges are appointed. In the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judges who sit on the Court of Appeals are appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress. This institution is similar to Confucian bureaucracies because it is staffed with people who have excelled on a particular exam (the bar exam) and are trained in attempting to maintain peace, and treating others with respect.

-Carina Richardson

Word Count: 461

(The Analects, 2.5 and 2.13)

Christianity and Cannibalism?

Christianity has come to dominate many aspects of western civilization, for example in the pledge of allegiance which students recite daily, and even dating back to manifest destiny. Despite its popularity now, this was not always the case as Romans viewed it as a threat to the stability of the empire. The Romans’ fear of Christianity was valid due to the fact that Christians had seemingly cannibalistic tendencies and went against many of the traditions and customs. Furthermore, due to their suspicions, the Romans were justified in trying to stamp out a religion that threatened the Roman empire.

As Christianity began to diverge from Judaism and become its own religion, the Romans did not take notice of this and often thought of the Christians as atheists because they did not worship the emperor. There were also problems with the ways in which Christians worshiped things that were not on earth. To the Romans, this was directly undermining Roman citizenship and a willingness to serve in the army as well as threatening the power the Empire held over its people. With this in mind, it seems clear that the Romans felt the need to put an end to a religion that would have caused mass chaos. By allowing Christianity to perpetuate without attempting to stamp it out, it would have seemed as though the Romans were allowing destabilization and were willingly giving up power. Romans also thought of the Christian practice of communion as cannibalism because the win and wafers represented the blood and body of Christ. In a letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny is obviously shocked by some Christian practices writing about how they “bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.” He goes on to say “the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it.”(Pliny, Letters 10.96-97) The negative words/connotation of the words Pliny uses makes it clear that Christianity is not wanted and that they are actively trying to get rid of Christians. The lack of understanding between the two religions made it difficult for the two to get reasoning behind certain customs and beliefs. The Romans actions seem more justifiable if thinking of the Christians as am imposing threat so it is valid to say that the Romans had a legitimate fear of, and desire to get rid of the Christians.

The Christian religion at the time would have seemed so different and drastic. Pliny’s words reflect how uneducated he was about the religion, but also how unwelcomed Christianity was at the time. Seen as a threat, the Romans were justified in attempting to stamp it because of its perceived threat to the stability of Roman empire.

-Carina Richardson

Word Count: 426

(Pliny, Letters 10.96-97)

So Metics/Slaves and Dreamers are Similar?

Considering metics were classified as immigrants and freed slaves, there are clear similarities between the debate of granting metics and/or slaves citizenship and providing legal protection for children brought into the United States illegally by their parents.

Especially under the rule of Pericles, Athenians took pride in their culture as the state rose up and became the example to all Greeks that Pericles envisioned it to be. Athenian democracy was limited by the fact that metics and slaves were not given citizenship. As a result of this, social strains were increased within society. Much in the same way, a major social divide is created every time President Trump speaks on the issue of DACA and how awful immigrants are despite Dreamers in particular, being brought into this country without making the decision on their own. In April 2018, President Trump tweeted that, “Democrats want no borders, hence drugs and crime!”, insinuating that all of the people who illegally cross the border are bringing crime and drugs into the United States. This creates an ‘us v them’ mentality as well as a social barrier between American citizens and the children whose lives were complicated from an early age.

Pericles Funeral Oration states, “No one is held back by poverty or because his reputation is not well-known, as long as he can do good service to the city. We are free and generous not only in our public activities as citizens, but also in our daily lives” (Thucydides 3.40-41) Still, Athenian slaves and metics who helped overthrow the Thirty Tyrants and continuously provided many services to the Athenians state (services which were often performed by citizens as well) could not attend Assembly meetings or vote. Similarly, the children who DACA is protecting are those that are actively trying to pursue their education or were honorably discharged from the military. President Trump claims that these illegal immigrants are hurting American citizens by taking their jobs and is concerned for the “the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system.” The reality is, however, that many Dreams are contributing to the American economy and at their respective universities. For as long as he has held office, President Trump uses specific rhetoric to insist that illegal immigrants are inferior. Again, in the same way, many Athenians felt so much pride in their nationality that they did not want anyone (metics or slaves) be able to claim Athenian citizenship.

Our discussion about metic and/or slave citizenship only made my view of DACA and the Dreamers more clear. They deserved citizenship in Athens then and Dreamers deserve legal protection now. Both contribute(d) to their country and had no say in their social standing, yet their impact is felt (arguably metics helped more than Dreamers, but still.) No one will stand up and fight for illegal immigration but DACA protects individuals who did not make the choice to come to the U.S., making them an easy target who must be protected so that their whole way of life is not simply uprooted. The discussion did make me consider that slaves may not have been granted citizenship as easily simply because society was so dependent on their labor. Also, it made sense that some groups wanted metics to be educated before being allowed Athenian citizenship. This makes a lot of sense because they wanted an educated electorate, but even in the case of the Dreamers, many of them have grown up in the U.S. and pursue higher education.

-Carina Richardson

Word Count: 532

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/02/politics/daca-explained/index.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-is-daca-and-what-does-the-trump-administration-want-to-do-with-it

(Thucydides 3.40-41)

Athenian Democracy and American Democracy

Though the Athenians had a direct democracy and we now have a representative democracy (both being democracies at their core), the major difference between the two is the inclusiveness of government and who exactly was/is able to participate. In Athenian democracy only male Athenian citizens could vote and eventually, in order for poorer Athenians to attend Assembly meetings, the government paid poorer citizens so they could participate more. In American democracy, however, the fourteenth, fifteenth, and nineteenth amendments define what it means to be a citizen and ensure that all U.S. citizens enjoy the right to vote no matter their race or gender.

Athenians practiced a direct democracy in which every citizen was supposed to have a voice, excluding women, metics, and slaves. For the time this made sense. The idea that the men who were the warriors should also be the ones who were deciding whether they should go to war was popular. The Constitution of Athenians states, “the poor and the ordinary people there should have more power than the noble and rich, because it is the ordinary people who man the fleet and bring the city her power”. Currently, this is not the case, yet it certainly does not render their democracy invalid. On the contrary, it demonstrates that in their direct democracy the people who were most impacted by major decisions like going to war or paying taxes were the ones governing themselves. The major difference between American and Athenian democracy is then highlighted because these policies and issues also had effects on metics and women yet they had no say or vote. The Sicilian Expedition is an example of the Assembly making a history-altering decision without the input of metics (who would be affected). Against Nicias advice, the Assembly voted to trust Alcibiades and send troops and ships to conquer Sicily. This was a complete failure and women were ultimately affected as Athens continued to crumble. Also metics were needed to fund (monetarily and manuely) expeditions like this yet, along with women, they had no say in whether the Sicilian Expedition should occur or not.

In American democracy, inclusiveness is a key feature that the nation prides itself on. Although Athenians claimed that their form of government didn’t overlook anyone, only Athenian males played an active role in government. Now, however, there are Amendments in the Constitution that define what a citizen is and ensure that they are guaranteed the right to participate in government. The Fourteenth Amendment defines a citizen as anyone who is born or naturalized in the United States. The Fifteenth Amendment goes on to add that U.S. citizens have the right to vote and this right shall not be denied based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Finally, the Nineteenth Amendment states that citizens can’t be denied the right to vote based on sex either. These very Amendments helped President Obama get elected in 2008 when there was a 65% voter turnout among African Americans (Roberts) and 65.7 % voter turnout for registered female voters (Stark). It was decided that President Obama could best represent the citizenry as a whole. Minority groups played a major role in electing the leader of nation; in Athens this was unheard of.

Limiting who gets to participate in government is such a major difference because it impacts who gets to vote and what kind of legislation gets passed. Although the Athenians had a direct democracy and we now elect representatives, the amount of citizens who were represented was so much less in Athens. Women and metics were not able to attend Assembly meetings or vote, therefore their interests could not be vocalized or brought into account. In American democracy, citizens from all different backgrounds, race, gender, etc. have a say in who will best represent them. This system have have its flaws and not workout perfectly in practice, but for the most part a variety of interests are voiced and taken into consideration.

-Carina Richardson

Word Count: 600

https://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/politics/btn-women-voters/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html

(The Constitution of Athens 38,39)

Tyranny Now and Then

In his article, Peters discusses actions by world leaders that suggest that some of the most powerful nations in the world are moving towards tyranny with powerful tyrants at the head, citing Putin in Russia, Kim Jong-un in North Korea, and even President Trump here in the United States. He writes that “Today’s tyrants (other than Kim) aren’t interested in controlling every thought: They’re content to control behavior.” He goes on to discuss the ways in which the powerful leaders are taking over their respective countries; people in some countries value security over freedom thus giving rise to tyrants who claim they can ensure that. Peters employs a post-democratic definition of tyrant to describe modern leaders and therefore uses the term “tyrant” correctly in context, however, this definition differs from the ancient definition of tyrant in a few key ways causing Peter’s definition not to fit the ancient definition of tyrant.

In the context of post-democratic world leaders, Peters considers a tyrant to be someone whose main goal is not only to consolidate power, but also to use corruption, “religious extremism, xenophobic nationalism- or both” to create a false sense of certainty and security. Specifically, “every tyrant provides scapegoats for his people’s failures: It’s never your fault, it’s them. ” The article briefly mentions how Putin was recently re-elected by a landslide; this post-rise of democracy tyrant oppressed his people more in public so they could complain in their households but wouldn’t dare do so in the street. He, along with the other world leaders in the article, all have the common characteristic of providing their people with a false give-and-take relationship that makes it seem like the peoples’ lives are better than they actually are (while giving the tyrant that much more power).

The ancient definition of tyrant greatly differs from the definition many are more familiar with today. Then, a tyrant, such as Pisistratus in Athens, was a single autocratic ruler (ruler with absolute power) who came into power by a non hereditary way. Peisistratus took power as a tyrant after a decade of struggle between the rich and poor. As another example, Cleisthenes also took power as a tyrant and proceeded to reorganize Athens. In The Histories, Herodotus talks about Pisistratus and says, “This time he planted his tyranny firmly, with the help of large numbers of mercenary troops and a substantial income…” It is then written that Athenians were in a state of oppression. The ancient definition of a tyrant is much more definitive in the sense that the word tyrant means someone who came into power by some way other than a hereditary track. This is one of the key areas where the definitions of tyrant diverge. Another key reason is because the word tyrant for ancient Greeks did not have a negative connotation. Although Pisistratus was oppressive, this did not change the entire ancient definition of tyrant or tyranny.

Though it could be argued that Peter’s definition and the ancient definition of tyrant both include a ruler with absolute power who rules with an oppressive, iron fist so they do fit in a way. It is important to keep in mind, however, that Peter’s definition hinges on what the tyrant does with his or her power (affect negative change or cause more corruption) while the ancient definition focuses more on how that tyrant came to possess their power.

Overall, in “The World Is Ascending into Tyranny” Peters uses an expanded and, as expected, post-democratic definition of the word tyrant. The world is used correctly in context because it is discussing world leaders in a post-rise of democracy world. Some of the same aspects of a tyrant and tyranny are existent but the post-rise of democracy definition is expanded to include all of the stereotypes associated with democracy (power hungry, greedy, corrupt, etc.)

-Carina Richardson

Word Count: 566

nypost.com/2018/03/20/the-world-is-descending-into-tyranny.

(Herodotus 1.26)