Since we just finished Chapter 5: The Dawn of Empires I thought that it would be very interesting to broaden our understanding of one of the empires we studied. As part of the Participation in Democracy class we studied the foundation of democracy, which the chapter briefly explained on. That is why this topic that I choose for our discussion is based upon the creation of democracy and the Greek’s genius to create political theory. You will find this piece of information on the following link: www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekcritics_01.shtml The biggest reason for this topic and work to be discussed is the fact that the first appearance of the formal concept of democracy was when it was presented as a type of government to replace the forceful tyranny imposed by Cambyses II. This we know did not win because Darius succeeded him with his autocracy. I hope that you all find this article and topic as interesting as I did. Contribute greatly to this blog post and have fun.
P.S. Don't forget to "click" next after you have finished the opening page, it is a set of 5.
16 comments:
i'm the first one to blog (fafi)
no you wernt !
srry mr. bravis i comment later i dont really feel like reading all 5 . jejeje i comment like second or third :P
Excellent finding Andy! I am really proud of you. This article hits the core issue of this unit on imperialism. The key: How to govern? What is the best system to govern? The debate was not only sparked by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, but according to the article in Persia after the death of Cambyses II! Now, I am sorry if you aren't excited about this- but to me this is a major revelation. One of Persian statesmen suggested "isonomy, or equality under the laws" for all subjects of the empire. Another important issue was what to do with inheritance- Persians didn't have a constitution stating what to do. The fact that Persia was lenient (depending on the ruler) to its satrapies maybe led some of its statesmen to the assumption that the people should decide instead of the few.
Let me tell you how this nagging conundrum overlaps from Persia to Greece to ROME: the Romans will face the same issues of
who govern over whom,
what makes a leader suitable,
should the mob rule over the few,
should the ruler be the philosopher-prince (Plato's Republic) or should it be the military dictator,
what makes a citizen,
should power be share with wealthy non-patricians
Democracy for whom, my friends, or bettersay, what adaptation of democracy at all.
I recommend the article to everyone is worth its five pages. And again, hits the core issue of the governability of a state or empire.
Yeah! That was the main reason why I picked it. Because of the fact that it completely had to do with Chapter 5. It was also a revelation to me becuase it made me realize that (to me personally) the majority of ideas relating to government, culture, and trade developed from other civilizations, meaning diffudion of some sort. The fact that democracy was first presented as the type of government for the Persian Empire struck me like lightning, and that Athens used it as second hand!!
I really liked this article and I hope that I can again post the discussion for our blog.
the article was really interesting and i was surprised to see how easily i could relate it to chapter 5 ...
porque sale como 8 veces lo de "this post has been removed by the author" ?
anyways ... i'll elaborate later mr.bravo i have to finish some other work jejeje :)
This article relates a lot with Chapter 5 of Imperialism. We can see how people in those times saw only the bad things democracy had. It has not changed a lot since those times. Now days we usually act the same way, we see something new and we always comment about the bad things it has, and don’t see beyond towards the good things it has that can benefit you or others. Because the way the Greeks started to talk about democracy and saying the bad things it had, the word “criticism” (which derived from the Greeks that means to judge) came to a scene. Maybe the Greeks would have been more successful in their Empire if they saw the both sides of democracy and not just the weaknesses of it, and maybe things will be much better today if we all start seeing things for what they have good not the bad things.
At the end of this article a question is asked. The question asks whether we should go back to the Athenian democracy or stick to our modern democracy.
I think that we should not go back to the Greek democracy. To start with it was not a full democracy. It was only given to some (male citizens of a certain age).
The democratic standards were also a little over dramatic, as we can see with what happened to Socrates. That for just going against the accepted religion and supposedly corrupting the young he was given a death penalty (and one of much suffering).
So even though we can (according to the article) go back to the Greeks, i don't think we should.
First of all the suffrage right is not equal between gender and after that it's restricted even more within the male Athenians. In my opinion a democratic system is a good government system because it promotes freedom of speech and it gives everyone a say in the government which in theory should instigate less resentment toward the government. So ,in conclusion not go back to the Greeks but keep efficiently building on their ideals just like we have done up to now.
Summary of Andy's post: Who governs who, and how should he/she govern.
Plato's and that other guy's opinion as the writer of the article states extremely ignorant and false.
I just wanted to state some things i found important.
Although I agree with Jose, it's only fair to criticize an aristocracy that i given the glory to be a democracy. I'm still a little unsure how a mindset like Persia's could be incorporated to such a "for the wealthy few" type of civilization, which is also what makes the fact even more interesting.
The article starts off with something about criticizing and since in history the ones who were given the opportunity to criticize were people like Plato and Socrates the criticism was generally directed to the poor. So maybe it's time to criticize and blame the rich, especially since the economy is at the state is in know.
I argue that the government that should be reestablished is up to the local rulers of each satrapy. Because it is the local rulers that know best about what is the best for their people and the issues that affect them.
I also agree with the author, it is a Persian case, but still a typical Greek argument. As you know most Greek philosophers have always debated about politics.
The debate that the author proposes is that the public, in democracy, has too much power for the amount of knowledge they posses. Although this is true, what is really the common people's job in a democratic government is to tell the problems the communities they exist in, are having and asking/proposing a solution for it. It isn't the actual commoner who makes decisions, it is the officer who takes the background info from the commoners and uses it to make a better society.
And the Greeks established a rule that to bee an officer you had to have a certain base salary or else you couldn't run for or even be elected. Therefore not anybody could run to be an officer, only people who obviously have some kind of knowledge (because they must have been educated (in order to have such a job that pays such money) to do good decisions.
I completely forgot I hadn't posted OOPS sorry .
The articles were easy to read and they related
perfectly with the chapter but i somehow am not so
interested in the topic of democratic importance
and criticism.
Criticism was applied by the greeks into many
aspects and the articles discuss democratic
importance.
I think the ideas that Gaby, Oski, and Chachi.
they did a good analysis.
- FAFER
Post a Comment