Much of what occurred in the 16th century London strangely mirrors what occurs in the 21st century U.S., particularly in terms of politics, government, and its stability.
In the essay, Bezio specifies Richard’s role as the “Scourge of God” to “cleanse England of corruption through his own villainy in order to prepare the nation for the rise of the Tudors”. After reading this statement, I immediately thought of the elaborate discussion from today’s class on how to distinguish tyranny from terrorism. Defining terrorism is a way less complex process than defining tyranny. The concept of tyranny that the class collectively understood and agreed upon involves abuse of [total] power for personal gain without any regard to the common good. According to this understanding, Richard’s role as the “Scourge of God” would be considered dictatorial rather than tyrannical due to him being of service to the public. Yet, here lies the question of divine right under tyranny: is it a contradiction? If a ruler claims power to serve God and not himself while being cruel, is he a tyrant?
I understand where Bezio was coming from when she wrote that we fell victim to Trump’s toxic charisma like the people of medieval times fell to Richard. However, Richard’s toxic charisma was not used on as broad of a scale as Trump’s was (and still is). Trump’s toxicity had been spread virtually all over the world because surely news and disapproval of his presidency did spread beyond U.S. borders. I feel that some Americans applauded him willingly for his toxicity because they agreed with it on the basis of historically-ingrained hate. It would not be fair to say that all of America fell victim to Trump’s toxic charisma because some Americans were fans of his it, and all of America had been fairly warned of it during the time of his campaign in 2016.
I agree that many people supported Trump before he got elected given all of his tyrant like characteristics. This raises the possible idea that maybe the ideology of the American people is changing?
I think your post took a very interesting perspective on Richard III’s power in terms of viewing him as a servant of God. It brings about a difficult question about whether he was a dictator for his own benefit or because that is what he was commanded to do by God. Personally, I believe that there should be an understanding that murder is wrong, whether or not the individual felt that it was a command from God.
I really agree with a lot of what you mentioned. Specifically I really liked your statement: “I feel that some Americans applauded him willingly for his toxicity because they agreed with it on the basis of historically-ingrained hate.” It is interesting to see that people will dismiss the tyrannical characteristics and actions of Trump merely because they believe or will benefit from what he, a businessman, wants for the country. It is so fascinating how people will let their own wants overshadow how millions of members of the U.S. are being mistreated– even if these trump supporters know that his actions are unethical or unfair they ignore this and stand by for their own personal gain or simply because it does not affect them.