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).

Mongols and ISIS

The Mongol Empire unexpectedly spread into Asia and Europe rapidly. Even when many thought of the Mongols as brutal, they still surprisingly succeeded. ISIS is one of the groups that many people think of today that could be similar to the Mongols. They spread quickly and brought in many people in order to fight for them while they tried to conquer regions in the middle east.

One reason the the Mongols were able to expand quickly was purely because of their advanced warfare. They used the idea of fake defeats where they would retreat so that the enemy would believe that they won and return later in surprise. Furthermore, they used horses and advanced archery to defeat their enemy. ISIS had a similar way of developing specific tactics for their mission. Specifically, they primarily hide in cities and communities so that they blend with locals, making it much harder for the enemy to accurately identify them. Moreover, David Ignatius points out that ISIS had an important social media presence which is important to their tactics. They create interesting and persuasive (to some) content that draws in those on the edge of their message. This use of technology was identical to the Mongols who took advantage of roads for trade and furthered science and engineering for society and war.

Obviously, one of the most important aspects to the Mongols and ISIS is religion. ISIS promotes religious violence and punishes those who do not agree with their interpretations of Islam. However, ISIS was surprisingly more relaxed on specific religious doctrines than Al-Qaeda was, effectively helping them recruit more people. This can be closely related to Genghis Khan’s views of freedom of religion. Many regard him as a ruthless leader in his later years; however, during his military conquests he tolerated all religions which appealed to many.

One reason that attributed to the success of the Mongols and ISIS was their lack of caring about borders and tolerance for other groups. Specifically, the Mongols reached outside of their empire for trade and other resources. When they conquered territories they were adaptable in that they allowed the continuance of specific group’s culture, customs, traditions, and organization. Similarly, ISIS often paired with non-Islamic groups from other regions for propaganda and political maneuvers that supported their mission of persuasion, terror, and war making.

They way the Mongol Empire and ISIS are thought about is almost similar in a way. Typically, the Mongols are remembered as barbarians under a harsh ruler. Although true, the Mongols also did positive and inspiring things for themselves and others. However, ISIS is thought of in a similar to more radical way. They are barbarians, terrorists, animals, and this is true, certainly coupled with no recollection of doing good.

Brandon Gore

Word Count: 457

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/how-isis-started-syria-iraq/412042/

https://www.21global.ucsb.edu/global-e/october-2017/mongol-hordes-khmer-rouge-and-islamic-state-non-modern-conceptions-space-and

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)

The Conquers of Worlds

There are two empires that were driven by the wills of charismatic leaders whose acts defied the expectations of all around. The path of the Mongol Empire and the Empire of Alexander the Great were aligned in their creation, branched off in their existence, then their fates realigned in their fall.

The rise of both the Mongols and Macedonians were sprung on by the actions of one man. Alexander the Great took Macedon to unite Greece and expand all the way to India while Genghis Khan united the Mongols to then expand all across Asia. These two empires both had a strong ruler who united a divisive homeland to then expand into foreign territory. They were both able to do that with the implementing of new military tactics and weapons. The Mongolians stormed the plains of Asia with unrivaled cavalry and horse mounted archers. The principle innovations of the Macedonians was the sarissae and lighter shields. This transformed the traditional Greek phalanx into a lighter harder hitting unit. The Mongols and Macedonians were able to lighten their war fighting capabilities while increasing their lethality on the battlefield. Despite their abilities on the battlefield to expand rapidly they ran their empires differently.

The Mongolians and Macedonians were known for being tolerant of the customs of those they conquered. In carrying on the Mongol tradition of tolerance to religion Khubilai Khan even said, in regards to the gods of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist faiths, “I do honor and reverence to all four (Marco Polo)”. Alexander the Great went as far as to adopt many Persian customs. He installed Proskynesis and even married a Persian women. The Persians in Plutarch’s word, “were heartened by the partnership that marriage represented” (Plutarch, Alexander 47. 8). Despite control and cultural toleration neither warrior culture liked the administration of empire. The principle difference between the two being the Mongols may not have been administrative specialist, but they would find who was and make them to it. Alexander was so focused on conquest that he did not replace the institutions and governments he destroyed very well. Mongolians were at least able to institute an environment for stability that lasted multiple generations of Khans. The Mongol Empire may have been able to last a little longer, but the in the end they would suffer the same fate of collapse that would befall the Macedonians after the loss of Alexander the Great.

The vast empire of the Mongols and Macedonians would not stay united for long. Eventually due to succession crisis the empires would break up into smaller units ruled by the different factions pursuing power. The Empire of Alexander the Great was split between his generals, turning the once massive empire into smaller kingdoms known as the Diadochi. The Mongols followed a similar path and broke up into smaller kingdoms called Khanates.

The Empires of Alexander the Great and the Mongols in context are vastly different but also resonate in structure of their story. The Mongols and Macedonians were internally united and then rapidly conquered vast territory. They were also, to different degrees of success, able to maintain stability through cultural toleration. In the end both empire would fall to the testament of time into smaller kingdoms.

Robert Hatfield
Word Count: 540

Mongols vs. Romans

The Mongol Empire was one of the fastest spreading empires in the history of the world. Like most of the other great empires of history, they relied on their warfighting ability and tenacity to expand and conquer. The Mongols also had brutal values and laws that had to be followed by citizens. Another empire that was similar to the Mongols is the Roman Empire. Founded in 752 BC, the Roman Empire at its height controlled North-western Europe to all of the Mediterranean as well as the Near East. They expanded by efficiently splitting up their forces and delegating authority to each province. This allowed the Romans to conquer countries swiftly.

The Mongols sent invasions all around them, much like the Romans and expanding very rapidly. The Mongols were known for having some of the terrifying conflicts in human history, confirmed by the short story Perfect History by Ibn al-Athir. He stated that they ripped unborn babies out of mother’s wombs, as well as brutally murdered anyone that stood in their path. Though the Romans weren’t feared for their cruelness exactly, they were feared for their ability to fight and defeat any adversary. Their tenacity was arguably only matched by the Mongols.

Augustus Caesar, an emperor of Rome, set a goal to rule the world. This is what caused him to seek so much land and expand his empire so much. Caesar’s success only led to more morale within his forces, which led to even more expansion. The Mongols, led by Genghis Khan for a period of time, most likely felt the same way when they were able to overtake most of Asia and Europe. The Mongols conquered modern day Iraq, Iran, Causasus, as well as parts of Syria and Turkey. They are known as the largest land empire in history.

Mongol emperor, Genghis Khan, did not hold back when it came to mercilessness and cruelty. There was an estimated 20 million to 40 million deaths while he conducted his conquests, and this factoid clearly showed he had no regard for human life whatsoever. This is perhaps what made him and his empire so intimidating to the rest of the world, allowing him to quickly take control of so much land.

However, everything good always has to come to an end. Both the Roman Empire and the Mongol Empire fell apart because they got too large and became susceptible to smaller scale attacks and invasions that eventually caused their demise.

The Mongol Empire as well as the Roman Empire were two of the fastest expanding empires in history. This caused sort of a snowball effect, letting them conquer more land and kill more people. Their tenacity and war fighting skills are what brought them success, and ultimately caused their downfall.

-Peter Lohrbach

Word Count: 459

Sources: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/the-mongol-empire/

https://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Empire/

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

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)

A Christian Mission: How Christianity Was Able to Survive as a Religion in Rome

Roman religions in today’s modern monotheistic scope are very strange and many people cannot comprehend why someone would believe such a thing. What people don’t consider is how romans may have viewed Christianity when it made its first appearance in Rome. With things such as the eating of Jesus’ “flesh” and the drinking of his “blood” it makes since that the romans would be a little skeptical about this new religion. The romans had every right to stamp Christianity as a bad religion but because of Christian missionaries Rome was able to become accustom to it being around. This same type of tension can be seen in today’s times as well between Christians and Hindus and Muslims.

Some would say that romans did not have the right to judge Christianity like they did. All that the romans knew was that there was a new religion surfacing that followed someone who did crazy miracles. Jesus did things such as heal lepers, walk on water, calm seas, and he raised from the dead. These things are extremely strange especially for someone who would be considered mortal. It makes sense that romans would be suspicious about a person like that or people who follow him. Pliny said that “[he] have never participated in trials of Christians” before. This shows Rome’s total lack of experience with Christians or monotheistic religions. Pliny went on to interrogate the Christians to make them change their religion. The ones who wouldn’t he executed. This new religion was difficult to understand and it scared those who had never experienced something like it. The only reason that Christianity was not abolished was because of missionaries that they sent out. Christian missionaries were able to go out and tell others what their religion was about and why it’s not a bad thing. This lead to people understanding more of what it meant to be a Cristian and why it was not a bad religion.

The fear of what we don’t understand can be seen today just like in Rome. Christian believers do not understand religions such as Islam or Hinduism. Muslims do not practice their religion the same way that Christians do. They also have allot of stratification within their religion. There is a group within their religion called the Sunni who are commonly linked to terrorism. This scares people and they can’t understand why someone would follow such a religion just like the romans felt against Christianity. In the case of Hinduism, Christians don’t understand how Hindus can believe in the multitude of gods that they have with in their religion. This is the same problem that the romans had with believing in Christianity just flipped.

Romans couldn’t understand other people’s religion just like Christians cannot understand current religions in the world. If it were not for missionaries within religions then no one would understand each other and we would be in a constant state of fear. Because of missionaries in Roman times Christianity was able to survive as a religion and later become the most important religion within Rome.

Andrew Beck

Word Count: 510

Sun Tzu at the USNA

The overarching theme of Sun Tzu’s Art of War is the use of deception in order to defeat stronger armies and conquer the enemy. Sun Tzu emphasizes when planning for battle a commander must master opportunity. There are many little things a leader must consider in order to deceive the enemy such as should appear far when near and avoid a strong enemy. Ultimately, the culmination of the little elements of battle prepares an army to “attack when [the enemy] is unprepared” and to “appear where you are unexpected” (Sun Tzu, 1).

Sun Tzu’s ideology on how to conduct war is seen in two ways at the Naval Academy. The first and more direct way the idea of deception Sun Tzu emphasizes so much is seen is in academics. In multiple classes, the battle of Midway is a common example of how the power intelligence in planning can provide in deception on the battlefield, ultimately allowing the less superior America Navy to defeat the Japanese fleet. At the battle of Midway, American intelligence personnel were able to discover the position of the Japanese fleet before the battle. Using the advantage of intelligence the Americans gained, the American admirals were able to lead the Japanese to believe the American fleet would be away from Midway when the Japanese planned to attack. Therefore, when the Japanese tried to take Midway, the American fleet was waiting and as a result destroyed three aircraft carriers. The lost of three carriers drew a huge tactical defeat to the Japanese.

The second example of Sun Tzu’s ideology is the dynamic of being a midshipman. A common saying at the Naval Academy is in order to do the big things right, one first has to learn how to do the little things right. As a midshipman, there are often many little tasks one is responsible for at any given time. In order to correctly execute each task, attention to detail for the little things is required. By being exposed to an environment where attention to detail is necessary, when one commissions, they will be able to identify subtle pieces of information that could shift the winner of a battle.

Ultimately, the best strategy in war is deception. Deception allows for the most effective use of a limited number of resources. The best example of limited resources still being useful is the battle of Midway. Deception also requires extensive centralized planning. The centralized planning is based on attention to little details and demands a professional commander. Deception gives one the advantage based on prior preparations.

Mark Rogerson 411

Cult of Christianity

Xenophobia is something that every civilization has experienced throughout history. This is something that many cultures, religions, and ethnic groups have faced, including Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Growing up in the US, many of us are raised in a Christian community, with many people never questioning their religion and acting like Christianity is a global norm. However, before the 3^rd century, the Romans did not trust the new Christian religion and its people in their empire. From the Romans perspective, Christians were bringing blasphemous religious views, strange foreign lifestyles, and, as Pliny describes to Trajan in a letter, “depraved, excessive superstition.” It’s not fair to judge the Romans harshly when the Christians were bringing a religion that drastically differed from their lifestyle, and offended their own religious views; Romans had reasonable justification to oppose the strange, foreign Christian religion.

In regards to lifestyle, Christians were trying to drastically alter the Roman way of life. This is something that will never go well regardless of which cultures/religions/nations we’re discussing. Imagine if the conservative treatment of women in Iran was brought over to Sweden, it would certainly be met with backlash, and vice versa. Ancient Rome had many practices that are obscene or offensive in a fundamentalist Christian point of view, such as pederasty, homosexuality, and prostitution. Men with spouses usually engaged in these practices, which went against Christian teachings. Although there is misogyny in the Bible (like in Tim. 2:12, in which women are not permitted to “assume authority” over men), the book also commands men to “love [their] wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” (Eph. 5:25) It is clear to see how this would anger many Romans, especially when these new ideas would be coming from a bunch of “depraved” superstitious people.

To the Romans, who practiced polytheism, Christianity was blasphemous. From a Roman point of view, the worship of a single god was bizarre and essentially made them borderline atheists, as they rejected all the other Roman gods. Today in the United States, religious tolerance is a hot topic, as many people in the country are islamophobic, and disrespect many other religions. I’d like to think that our culture is far more sophisticated and civil than ancient Rome’s, and we are, as we don’t publicly execute those who have differing religious views; however, the prejudice that some Americans have against foreign religions is the same feeling that the Romans had against Christians to an extent. The Romans circumstance was a bit different because religion was part of their laws, unlike American separation of church and state. In the Roman Empire, Christians were breaking the law and offending the Roman people’s beliefs.

Although many of us today attempt to preach and practice tolerance towards others, it is unfair to judge the Romans harshly when we possess over a thousand years of hindsight. To the Romans, the Christians were an obsessive cult that drank the blood of a zombie Jewish man. Lack of understanding and xenophobia were two factors that led to the Roman persecution of Christians, two factors that are observable today when a culture is attacked. The Christians are partly to blame, as their lack of awareness and considerations of the Roman’s beliefs led to them appearing as blasphemous and as an overly zealous, invasive religion. Analyzing the history of Christianity shows us that there are many other perspectives in the world, which lets us break free from a strict, Christian perspective that makes people less tolerant of other cultures.

-Kevin Smith

Word Count: 571