Tag: 10:30 class

June 27th is known to be the day of The Lottery, and no family seems to have an issue with this until the papers are drawn. The importance of tradition for this village represents a real disadvantage of groupthink, as families are willing to put themselves at risk for being stoned to death without any real recompense in return. Ironically, Tessie Hutchinson arrives late to the gathering and is the one who ends up being picked. Her own husband tells her to “shut up,” when she expresses concern about being chosen because he is embarrassed that she is opposing such a long-lasting cultural ritual.

In the city of Omelas, citizens are filled with joy and experience constant happiness at the cost of an emaciated and abused child. The child, referred to as “it,” is believed to be the root of all beauty, tenderness, and delight of the city. Le Guin describes, “to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of the happiness of one: that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed” (page 6). The citizens who reside in Omelas are convinced that the manipulation and neglect embedded onto the child is what provides the rest of the population with their luxurious lifestyle. 

Both stories demonstrate the problematic outcomes of traditions; stoning a chosen individual and agreeing to deny the freedom of a child are ways in which groupthink cause inhumane actions to take place. In each story, a long-lasting ritual leads to mindless thinking, which happens because people are able to reason with horrific practices by using ancient traditions as justification. Having a set tradition gives characters of both stories a sense of self, security, and relief.

Zinn includes various examples of slave rebellions to demonstrate the strong desire of blacks to fight oppression. He speaks about the abolition movement before and after the Civil War, and it is interesting to see how even after slaves gained freedom, African Americans still were not considered equal. Ex-slave Thomas Hall told the Federal Writers’ Project, “He gave us freedom without giving us any chance to live to ourselves and we still had to depend on the Southern white man for work, food, and clothing” (Zinn 197-198). Hall further proves the lack of liberty amongst blacks, even post-emancipation.

One of the main reasons why emancipation took so long to take place is because it was considered to be a huge economic risk for white Americans. James Hammond, a supporter of slavery, questioned, “do you imagine you could prevail on us to give up a thousand millions of dollars in the value of slaves?” (Zinn 174). In other words, if any societal change was going to take place, it needed to benefit whites in every aspect – especially financially. This is also proven by the fact that Lincoln only began to demonstrate opposition to slavery once abolition became part of his political interest. Not only did he believe that blacks and whites were unequal, but he also refused to condemn the Fugitive Slave Law.

In chapter 17, we are exposed to the black revolts of the 1950s and ’60s, specifically through a lense of arts; poetry and music were ways in which blacks expressed their masked emotions regarding their sufferings from inequality. I thought it was interesting that Truman’s Committee suggested new laws to end racial discrimination in jobs not only because of moral reasons but because -economically- it was a waste to America’s talent, along with degrading America’s international reputation (Zinn 449). This connects back to the times of slavery when whites only agreed to emancipate once it was in their favor.

It was really interesting to read about the roots of America’s economic gap between rich and poor since it has been perpetuated since the 1700’s. The author of Tyranny is Tyranny begins this chapter by mentioning Bacon’s Rebellion, which resulted in eighteen uprisings with the purpose of overthrowing colonial governments. I mention this event because it shows a sort of leadership that was purely dependent on situational factors, or as the author described, “this local leadership saw the possibility of directing much of the rebellious energy against England” (page 59). I think this is extremely important because the struggles of America to gain independence from Britain were only overcome once a reasonable amount of the population was on board. Since there was so much economic inequality, one of America’s main focuses was to relieve class tensions. Patrick Henry’s oratory in Virginia suggested to “find a language inspiring to all classes, specific enough in its listing of grievances to charge people with anger against the British” (page 68). In my opinion, any group of people that desires to overthrow their government must find a unified purpose, which is why it was so important for both the upper and lower classes to have a common goal.

It was really interesting to learn about the differences between temporary and permanent inequality. Miller described temporary inequality as the lesser party being socially defined as unequal, where a difference in the level of authority causes a period of disparity that is merely short-lived. In permanent inequality, the “lesser” individual is already born being inferior, and the “superiors” never help them rise in society. In this type of inequality, “there is no assumption that the goal of the unequal relationship is to end the inequality” (Miller 225). While no type of inequality is ideal, I believe that temporary inequality is the best out of the two.

In the second article, the authors explained the importance of dissent. Although they did not outwardly mention groupthink, I believe that when a society or group of people lack dissent, groupthink is the immediate result. The authors described dissent as being “the rejection of the views that most people hold” (Chaney 184), which basically means going against the majority opinion. Dissent allows individuals to challenge existing policies without fear, which contrasts the role of a mind-guard. The second article ends by exploring different methods of embracing dissent and transcending fear. To me, the most important tactics are to talk about the process of conformity, dissent and the suppression of the dialogue and debate, as well as insisting on the rights of employees to express their views. Encouraging dissent is extremely important because it allows for an opportunity to re-evaluate current policies and therefore permits for such policies to reach their full potential.

Eve Gilles began his presentation by showing the audience the first picture to ever be captured of the Earth from the Apollo 8 mission. He referred to the Earth as a “blue marble,” which to me is a very simplistic way of describing our planet; however, he used this description to show that the Earth’s first photograph shows no political boundaries, as it is one home, one Earth that we share. Gilles then went on to describe how humans are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide on Earth as a result of burning fossil fuels. He stated some statistics about increasing temperatures one Earth, such as 115 ̊ in Paris this summer, 123 ̊ in India, 121 ̊ in Australia, and so on. He even showed us a shocking and devastating image of a heavy truck melting into the pavement to display the severity of this issue.

Gilles described how the increase in temperatures on Earth causes air currents to change shape, which severely impacts the north pole. Additionally, 93% of the extra heat humans are producing is trapped by the ocean, and it has gotten to a point where the ocean will not be able to absorb any more. Tides are becoming higher, and Gilles proved so by telling us a story of when an octopus was found in a parking garage in Miami due to flooding. High tides also cause hurricanes to become stronger.

All of the mentioned issues end up impacting humans severely, as they can even be a huge health threat. However, Gilles ended the presentation on a more positive note; while we have caused great damage to our Earth, there is still hope for change. We know for a fact that climate change is extremely destructive, but we also know ways to improve. He mentioned the importance of wind power and reusable energy, as well as electric cars. Most humans are aware of the threat Earth is under, but we must act in order to create a lasting impact. Gilles emphasized the fact that a lot of the leadership we see with this issue is on the municipal level since any human can get involved and contribute to helping our Earth.

One of the things that most grabbed my attention from Derek Thompson’s presentation was the idea surrounding ethics; he argued that while the use of media has been critical for leaders in our nation, individuals who utilize media platforms without ethics often deliver fake news. Thompson connected this specifically to politics, by pointing out how different politicians use social media to persuade their audiences that they can achieve unattainable goals.

Following up on that idea, Thompson explained how attention based platforms tend to incentivize extremism. To do so, he used Youtube as an example; he went as far as saying that Youtube is the platform that helped convince parents that vaccinating their children is not necessary (this comment made a lot of people in the room laugh). Thompson argued that Youtube is a petri-dish for extremism because it is a danger of our virtual environment. He mentioned Youtube’s feature of suggesting videos through a recommendation column, providing viewers with a list of videos related to what they are currently watching. For instance, a person might originally search for videos to learn about an electoral campaign, and end up being persuaded by a completely different video that supports Trump’s ideas of keeping immigrants away from the United States. 

Lastly, I would like to touch upon Thompson’s belief that great freedom – relating to media – brings anxiety about whether or not we are properly maximizing life’s opportunities. Thompson mentioned new studies that prove that suicide rates are skyrocketing in universities in modern America. He argued that this is “due to extreme expectations that universities put over students while providing them with a machine (cell phone) for surveilling the perfect lives of everybody else.” I thought that this was very interesting because I know for a fact that many of my college students, including myself, tend to compare themselves to one another through what they see on each other’s social media posts.

James MacGregor Burns defines leadership as a consideration of both the leader’s and followers’ values, meaning that a leader must care for the needs and goals of their followers. Transforming leadership was a new concept to me, but I think it is crucial for leaders to obtain mutual support for common causes with their followers in order to be successful.

When thinking about a servant as leader as we have discussed in our previous class, I consider a transformational rather than transactional leadership. This is because transactional leadership is based on the followers’ “immediate self-interest,” as described by Bernard Bass, as opposed to the followers’ highest priority needs. Transforming leaders are more likely to align their personal principles with those of the public, therefore becoming more trusted and well-liked. In addition, leader-member exchange generates “trust, loyalty, and respect” (Bass 14); LMX is directly correlated with the success of transformational leadership, as followers are able to put faith in their leader. However, I agree with the fact that the best leader must be both transformational and transactional.

Bass mentions that “some may argue that affirmative action has pushed women faster and higher than justified by their competencies” (Bass 17). I disagree. In fact, I believe women tend to be more transformational than men because they are more willing to compromise their beliefs and ideas with those of their followers. Women simply receive fewer opportunities to act in leadership positions as prejudice against their gender, not because they obtain less leadership qualities than men. Sexism makes women have to work twice as hard for the same accomplishments as men.

All examples displayed throughout Ruscio’s article argue that it is nearly impossible for a democracy to survive without humility. Ruscio defines humility as a leader who has “the courage of his or her convictions, while still being able to open to learning from others and from one’s own mistakes” (page 2). In my opinion, this means that leaders must be able to admit their mistakes and be able to move on efficiently. For instance, Lincoln was uncertain about himself, as he was sure that there was much truth yet to be discovered, but that he would not be able to find it on his own. This intellectual and moral humility is what allowed Lincoln to be a successful leader within a system of democracy. 

On another note, Trump “has been the lack of congruity between the elemental character of the system and the character of the person chosen to lead it” (page 13). This is extremely problematic because it prevents Trump from learning from his mistakes, which could potentially lead from international conflicts in the future. I think there is an extreme connection between tyranny and a lack of humility. Tyrants tend to assert power beyond their duties and responsibilities, as well as seeking truth through personal bias rather than reason and analysis. Tyrants also claim that their authority puts them above the law. All of these characteristics of a tyrant are extremely the opposite of a leader with humility.

In my opinion, the Allegory of the Cave represents the idea of truth versus habit as a parallel with light versus shadow. Plato is using an extreme metaphor to symbolize how individuals only know about things in life that they have experienced. In other words, we as humans are trapped in what we believe are standard ethics that have been constructed by society. So I asked myself: what does this have to do with leadership? To begin with, I think that a leader must be capable of breaking free from the sheltered perspectives of the cave in order to see the bigger picture of the world. Additionally, a leader should be able to go back into the cave and teach an average person about all of the knowledge that comes with leaving the cave. These two qualities of a leader require skills that could even be argued to be charismatic, as it is not easy to convince a person that everything they have ever known has been incorrect.

On another note, I would like to point out the similarity between the arguments of Gardner and Mabey. Both authors believe that leaders must establish a strong connection to their followers in order to be successful. I was surprised to learn that that a main reason for the stagnation between corporate and governmental bureaucracies is the “assumption by line executives that, given their authority, they can lead without being leaders” (page 186). Garner then goes on to argue that this statement is untrue, that these line executives are given subordinates, but they must earn getting followers. When a person in authority mistakes their position of power for leadership, many problems could arise.

Mabey’s article mentioned the traditional leadership models through explaining the five theories of leadership: trait, organizational, vision, situational, and power. Although each theory has both pros and cons, I believe that the situational theory is very beneficial when it comes to leaders influencing their followers. Additionally, the power theory is interesting because while a leader can use their authority to “empower others,” they are actually just increasing their power base by making their followers more confident in the leader’s ideals.

It seems as though King James contradicts his second key point to kingship, “the king is above the law”, once he authorizes the concept of “king-in-Parliament”: the king holds absolute power under Parliament. Yet, couldn’t one argue that the king’s establishment of “king-in-Parliament” is actually an exercise of absolute power? If the king initially holds absolute power above the law, yet decides to share power under the law with Parliament, then he truly holds all power. It’s almost as if the king establishes his own system of checks and balances. From there, would he have to be allowed by Parliament or just self-authorize the decision to undo the “king-in-Parliament”?

According to Carroll, “The King’s Power” includes power over the life and death of every person that inhabits the land(s) that he rules over. Here, the king is no longer a subject under the authority of God. Yet, the king becomes equivalent to God by means of having the ability to take total control over others’ lives. It makes sense for kings to be called gods who reign divinely on Earth. They become distinguishable from the Omnipotent and All-Seeing God because they can die and can extend their powers but so far over their own lands and people.

The article “The Trial and Execution of Charles I” provides a prime example of how the lack of charismatic leadership can conflict with succession. Charles I may have inherited kingship from his father, King James I, but he did not have as much potential to rule effectively. During his trial, he wouldn’t even show respect for the proceeding by taking off his hat, which hinted at his lack of care for the position of the throne due to his inability to be an effective king. Therefore, it was not really fair for him to be executed due to poor decisions in kingship. Perhaps, he could have only been removed through a forced trial without execution.

Given the extent to which Charles I acted in order to regain power, I believe that his execution was justified. His “Engagement” plan, which consisted of a Scottish invasion, destroyed the post-war peace of his country. As the author of Did King Charles I deserve to be executed? described in his pro-execution argument, “[Charles] was willing to cause immense bloodshed rather than forge a new society with Cromwell.”  Not only did Charles perform an act of treachery, but he was also reasonably recognized as a ‘man of blood’ due to the innocent lives that were sacrificed as a result of his plan. To me, Charles’ decisions reflect his betrayal towards his own nation, as well as his tyrannical traits. 

The Jacobean Theory of Kingship highlights a very interesting controversial topic about the law of the land versus divine right. James, for example, argued that kings were not bound by law because they were above the law. This speculation generates high risks of conflict because it is very likely that there will come a time when the people of the land and the king disagree on an issue – in which case the king would act according to his ideals and potentially anger the public (which is what seemed to have happened with Charles’ attempt to restore himself to the throne). Overall, James had a clear vision of absolute power when it came to kingship. However, he assured his citizens that he would always obtain reasoning for his actions, which is something that Charles lacked. In fact, the main reason why I believe that Charles’ execution was justified is due to the fact that he showed no signs that he would be a better ruler if he was given another chance. Therefore, England was better off without him.

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.

It was very disturbing to read Crooked Politics and see how many parallels there were between a Shakespearean play written in the 16th century and 21st century American politics. Richard stated that he could “frame [his] face to all occasions,” similar to the way that Donald Trump is “willing to manipulate the needs and desires” of the audience (Bezio, 4-6). Both Richard and Trump used dynamic rhetoric, when they were striving for power, to play off the emotions of the various audiences to manipulate themselves into power. It was very helpful to contextualize Trump’s toxic charisma through Richard III, because regardless of a person’s political affiliation, it’s hard to argue that Richard III was not a toxic charismatic, and therefore Donald Trump as well because of the numerous parallels in their actions.

Another parallel was the disenfranchisement of and mudslinging towards women that took place both in Richard III and from Donald Trump. Despite that, in Richard III, women were still ultimately responsible for the downfall of Richard; potentially, they will be the downfall of Trump as well (Bezio, 15, 17). Regardless of if it is from women, men, minority groups, majority groups, etc, we will hopefully be able to disrupt the toxic charisma of Donald Trump. This can be done by “rejecting anxiety, shoring up democratic processes, selecting new leaders… and embracing diversity” (Bezio, 18). These strategies will be especially important in the upcoming year because there is the chance to elect a better leader.

I think tyrannicide is a very controversial topic because of the ways in which it can be justified; that being said, many believe that the degree to which tyrannicide is acceptable depends on how beneficial it would be for the nation as a whole. Dr. Andrade argues that philosophers who analyze this matter approach it with “utilitarian reasoning,” meaning they determine right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. These philosophers defend their ideals by saying that certain nations are simply better off without their tyrants, and that tyrannicide is therefore necessary when the tyrant refuses to step out of power. However, this makes me wonder about how effective tyrannicide truly is, as there is no guarantee that the outcome will be advantageous. The author brings up the Middle East as an example; the death Saddam and Gaddafi did not lead to drastic improvements in Iraq and Libya. 

David George explores the difference between terrorist assassinations and tyrannicide, bringing up a very interesting theory that “both acts are performed purportedly in the public interest, namely, to liberate the people”. George even mentioned one writer who claimed that tyrannicide is no different than “good terrorism,” but to me the justification for tyrannicide is much clearer than that of any act of terrorism. 

One of the most eye opening sections of these two readings was when Dr. Andrade pointed out that “tyrannicide is a major theme of The Lion King”. This came to me as a surprise because I had never considered that children’s movie to relate to tyrannicide, but it shows how even kids are exposed to the idea that tyrants should be killed. However, I still feel uncertain about the benefits of tyrannicide, as there is often a lack for someone to fill the void of the tyrant- as well as the contributing fact that most tyrants obtained some level of popularity. On that note, dictators with a shortage of supporters may be more easily replaceable. Overall, the effectiveness of tyrannicide is based on careful speculation of how the nation would stand (politically and economically) without the tyrant’s rule, and whether or not killing that tyrant would lead to positive outcomes.

The word tyrannicide is certainly something not discussed enough in today’s media because I’ve honestly never heard of the word until reading this article. I believe the author was right when he said that tyrannicide does not part far from the American Ethos; in fact, it is celebrated in some ways. Osama Bin Laden wasn’t a dictator of a nation, but his profile as head of a massive terrorist group puts him in the same classification as an evil, terroristic dictator, and his assassination called for massive celebration all across the US. 

Being from Pennsylvania, I had no clue what the Virginia State Flag looked like up until this point. I knew that John Wilkes Booth had shouted “sic semper tyrannis” after assassinating Abraham Lincoln; however, I was completely unaware that those words were on the Virginia State Flag. This, to say the least, surprises me. To have the quote of what was shouted after one of the most devastating tragedies in American History; the death of The Great Emancipator, on a state flag, is sad. Now I did find that the flag was adopted by Virginia in 1861, following their succession from the Union; however, following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, I feel as if continuing to raise a flag somewhat dishonors one of the greatest presidents in American history. However, in an attempt to comprehend Booth’s point of view, (in line with the views of most of the South at the time) I can understand how he possibly saw his actions as justified for the greater good of his people, the South/Confederates whose way of life was destroyed by Lincoln, thus making it a tyrannicide, not an assassination, to many people in the U.S. at the time.

“Tyrannicide should not be about lynching; it should only be about removing a despot from power.” I agree with this statement profusely. Tyrannicide is, of course, a topic up for moral and ethical debate; however, I believe that the harm of one is worth morally less than that of the well-being of a whole society. Because of this belief, I would say that I’m definitely a utilitarian in most senses, and because of the way American culture cultivates our way of thinking, I would argue that most Americans also feel this way. Of course, I feel that the diplomatic approach should be our first, but I think it is fairly evident, fairly quickly, that most tyrannical dictators won’t comply with our terms and ideals; but that’s what makes them tyrannical dictators in the first place. 

I like the way Geroge addresses the fact that tyrannicide is assessed very differently from the common political assassination in western culture. Assassinations are viewed as carried out by professionals, yet tyrannicides are viewed as something done by the common man, making tyrannicides seem a little bit more desperate, and therefore just. Tyrannicides are also viewed as done for the common good, also giving them somewhat more of an ethically justifiable means. The great question Geroge then asks is what point that killing political figures, whether tyrannicide or assassination, becomes terrorism. The interesting thing about all of this is that it really depends on the point of view of who you ask, which is what makes this such a great discussion topic.