Legitimacy and Leadership

The key point from this last week in relation to the history we’ve been studying has to do with the concept of legitimacy. Legitimacy in governing is key to how a government runs effectively; the less legitimate citizens feel their government is, the less abilities that government has in ruling. A leader can never rule effectively if he is considered illegitimate.

For much of world history, especially before 1700, legitimacy was determined by the mention of a higher power. If a leader could convince the people that the higher power was in his corner, he was considered legitimate. James I in England took that a step further: he felt that he (as king) was really no different than God. No one could question his power, as he had the connection to God. In a way, he argued that kings had the hotline to God and as such, their decisions were always correct. Of course, today we in this country could never imagine a president who would claim that God speaks to him, right?

The Divine Right of Kings in Europe took the concept of legitimacy pretty far. Inevitably, there was a reaction by the people. When someone claims to have spoken to God, it isn’t long before others start to wonder why God hasn’t spoken to them. This begins the questioning of government in general. In England, that took the form of John Locke’s Of Civil Government. This threw the whole concept of legitimacy on its ear. According to Locke, God was no longer an acceptable way for rulers to claim legitimacy. Locke argued that legitimacy only came from the consent of the people. At least for Europe, this was the beginning of the movement towards democracy. If one admits that government only comes from the consent of the people, it won’t be long before they realize that “consent” usually must come in the form of a vote.

This represents a fundamental change in the conversation regarding the history of government and leadership. To lead, a person now has to consider the collective power of the people to put him/her into the role of leader and thus their collective power to remove him/her. Leadership from this point forward becomes much more complicated for those in power, but much more fair for those under that power.

Machiavelli and the Prince

There is plenty to chew on when reading through Machiavelli's "The Prince." Most important to remember, however, is just how much Machiavelli is concerned with efficiency and power rather than any kind of ideas regarding "good government." Everything Machiavelli writes about has to do with HOW to run a government, not whether that government will produce anything morally correct.

Machiavelli was born into a world, especially in Europe, that was dominated by kings and queens who ruled without any consideration for the livelihoods of the people. The middle ages weren't exactly kind to the average person, so in some ways, Machiavelli was very much a product of the era in which he lived. Keep that in mind when judging his ideas, as nasty as those ideas really are.

Consider, as well, how this fits into the overall theme of this unit. Whereas Aristotle, Socrates and Confucius are utterly consumed with the idea of "good government," Machiavelli is the opposite. In a way, they complement one another quite well. This is not to say that these historical philosophers would ever agree with one another, however. I'm sure Confucius would not in any way support Machiavelli's ideas. But the question that really arises here, and the one I'd like you to think about, is to what extent does Machiavelli really compliment the other philosophers studied this unit? Can a ruler attempt to reach a "perfect" and virtuous government without using some ideas Machiavelli supports in order to get to a position of power?

We've seen over the last week in the news that our very own governor has used quite a bit of Machiavellian tactics to get to where he got. What do you think Machiavelli would have to say about governor Blagojedsfsdfhsufhsdfsoi?

The Mansas

Today's discussion on the Mansas (Sundiata and Musa) raises a number of issues regarding how leadership has been implemented. Clearly, both Sundiata and Musa had very strong feelings about the manner in which a society should operate. Sundiata, in creating the Mali society, was attempting to instill a just and righteous civilization that would grow and thrive. Musa, on the other hand, inherited a society that already was thriving and made it even more successful.

The keys to Musa's success relied upon trade. Trade has helped push forward history through the interactions between societies that developed, and in the Mali example, the fact that Musa was able to use the commodities present in the society (Salt and Gold) to his advantage allowed him to make Mali a central power not only in Africa, but throughout the world. Trade (and the resulting interactions between civilizations) also encouraged cultural and social development across North Africa and into Southern Europe. Musa was able to capitalize on his advantages and the downturn in both Europe and the Middle East to further develop worldwide relations and increase his own civilization's standing in the world system.

So the question that arise from today involves trade. Specifically: can you think of other time periods in which trade/interactions have been the main motivating factor for historical development throughout the world?

Human Nature, Confcianism and Legalism

So, based on today's discussion, its clear that the Confucians and Legalists had very different ideas about Human Nature. The Legalists were generally very pessimistic, thus leading them to conclude that for a state to succeed, rules and order needed to be maintained. If people were free to choose whether or not to follow a leader, they would never do so, so in order for the society to thrive, rewards and punishments were necessary.

The Confucians, having a generally optimistic view of society, concluded that people would naturally do good if they were shown an example of goodness on behalf of the leader. Essentially, the Confucians advocated for a moderated form of anarchy, but not the negative idea of anarchy we associate with the word today, but a very positive view of anarchy in which people are so good that they don't even need laws.

So, in your opinion, which of these two is closer to getting it right on human nature? Consider things like Hurricane Katrina-when people were stripped of all laws, what happened? Then again, billions of dollars are given to charitable organizations each year, much of which is done anonymously. There are examples of both positive and negative views of human nature all around us. So what are we-good or bad?

Early Civilizations and the Environment

The first civilizations on this planet had it rough. Like…really rough.

These small groups of people stopped chasing their food from place to place around 3000 B.C.E. (beginning what is known as the “Neolithic era”) and settled down in modern day Iraq to establish permanent homes that would rely upon the environment to insure the survival of the people. Unfortunately for these civilizations, the environment is not a consistently reliable source of survival. In fact, at times it does more to insure death and destruction than health and well being.

These first civilizations settled between two major rivers: the Tigris and Euphrates. Living between these two rivers would allow for inhabitants of the civilizations access to one of the fundamental benefits presented by the natural environment: water. Of course, the people of this civilization had to find ways to get that water to the central farms that were developing, as the movement from hunting and gathering to fixed locations required people to use the available land to plant and grow food. Irrigation was born. Civilization as a whole grew tremendously as people were able to successfully grow food for both themselves and their neighbors.

Of course, living between two major rivers does have its down side. Heavy rains at any given time would flood the rivers, potentially destroying the farms and/or killing a whole bunch of people. The people of the Neolithic era had to be constantly aware of the potential for disaster. Even more unfortunately for them, there was little they could do to prepare.

A similar catch-21 developed when the first civilizations realized the benefits of domesticating animals. Possessing and maintaining farm animals was a great way to help sustain early civilizations, as these animals (both living and recently deceased) could provide a lot of different resources for humans: eggs, meat and clothing are but three tremendous benefits of having animals around. But, like the dangers associated with living near rivers, domesticating animals also brought with it some danger. These animals carried a number of diseases for which humans had no immunities. Being in constant contact with these animals would eventually lead to the deaths of a number of people in these early civilizations, as they caught and passed on the viruses and diseases carried by the animals.

The inhabitants of the first river valley civilizations had to constantly be aware of their relationship to their environment, as any sudden change in conditions could literally mean the end of their society. With each innovation that would eventually lead to tremendous growth for the world as a whole, there was inevitably a cost that would have to be paid by some members of society. And that cost usually involved a level of give-and-take between mankind and his environment. Unfortunately for the people of the Neolithic time period, the “take” tended to be a lot more severe (and happen more often) than the “give.”

Most importantly, however, it is important to understand that, from even this early time period, there was an unmistakable connection between mankind and his environment. When the environment was cooperative, the early civilizations thrived. When the environment was uncooperative, civilization stagnated.

Hurricane Katrina, the Environment, and World History

Hurricane Katrina and the chaos that resulted stand as a dark time in the history of the United States. Unlike the time period immediately after 9/11, when the citizens of the United States, along with the government, came together with a spirit of unity that was almost unprecedented, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina seemed to push people even further apart and left much of the country to wonder why we weren’t able to effectively deal with a crisis in New Orleans that, from a casualty standpoint, was at least the equal of 9/11. Furthermore, the lack of a unified and successful response to this tragedy which left thousands dead brought to light some massive inequalities in this country (based on both social class as well as race) that this country is going to have to deal with over the coming years. More than a few people wondered how the response (and preparedness in the first place) may have been different if the affected area consisted of wealthy residents as opposed to the poor that lived in New Orleans and Mississippi. These types of questions, crystallized by Hurricane Katrina, are going to linger in our national consciousness for a very long time.

In another way, the discussion of the tragedy that occurred in 2005 helps us lay out the core concepts of this unit. There was an environmental crisis that forced people to react, adjust, and attempt to solve the problems. In doing so, social relationships were formed (and broken), the government attempted to solve the crisis, and (most importantly) many of the divisions that existed in the United States (social, political, economic) that were living just under the surface of our society were exposed and highlighted in a way that should make every observer a little uncomfortable. In understanding the manner in which an environmental crisis contributes to the evolution of human history, a few major questions are raised.

1. How does the interaction between man and the environment shape world history?
2. In what ways does mankind have a reciprocal (“Back-and-Forth”) relationship with the environment?
3. In what ways does that reciprocal relationship result in larger questions about the nature of our society and history as citizens of the world?
4. How do we balance the question of human needs against the dangers of environmental instability?

These questions should remain in your head as we progress through the timeline of world history. As the unit progresses, be sure to look back at these questions on a regular basis. You may find that your answers to these questions may not remain constant throughout this unit. In fact, I hope that you struggle with these questions throughout the next few weeks and, at the conclusion of the unit, can make a solid, cohesive argument in favor of a number of potential answers. Good luck.

Introduction to Environment Unit

Balance.  When considering the issues of environmental use by humans throughout history, the principle of balance plays an enormous role.  As time has progressed, the balance struck between human needs and environmental necessity helps determine the most essential elements of human history.    Much of history can be seen as an attempt to continually redefine the balance struck between these two realities, while both the greatest gains and most dramatic setbacks can, in many ways, trace themselves back to the relationship between humans and their environment.  

This breaks down very clearly.  Humans and their environment live in a constantly changing state of flux.  As human needs change, they make adjustments that impact the environment in which they live, allowing people to thrive.  As the environment responds and changes, humans either adapt to the new condition, move away, or die.  This relationship is continual and in a constant state of adjustment.  Every human advancement, be it social, economic, political, or cultural, has an environmental impact.  The adjustments to the environment made by humans go a long way towards determining whether or not civilization (in some form) can continue in that region.

As we will see in this unit, humans constantly have to adapt to their changing environment, and while it is usually a very subtle process, there are plenty of times throughout history in which the relationship between humans and their environment became so unbalanced that a massive correction took place, usually devastating the human population.  What makes the history of environmental interaction so interesting is that usually you can see direct historical progress between the actions of civilization and the resulting environmental reaction.  The give-and-take of the relationship between man and his environment is very clear and allows for students to develop some significant historical skills.  As the unit progresses, the key will be to be able to identify the causes (and effects) of human use of the environment and how that use brings about a specific and significant environmental response.  

One note: Although this is a unit that revolves around the relationship between humans and their environment, do not assume this will be a 100% pro-environmentalism, Al-Gore-could-have-written-this-whole-thing unit.  We are studying the historical relationship between man and his environment.  The conclusions you draw from this study are yours.  As long as you can back up your opinions with factual evidence, the position you take on environmentalism is up to you.  The events of history are meant to be analyzed and should result in an understanding of how things have worked in the past.  This unit will address how this relationship has evolved over time.  You should let the historical evidence guide you to your opinion on this issue.  Good luck.