Commitment

A pledge to support a policy then reinforced by any actions necessary to maintain that policy requires sacrifice, determination, and endurance. That is commitment.
     From the last decades of the eighteenth century to the civil wars marring the land today, subjects and citizens of nations have risen up to claim their own political and economic freedoms.
     The American Founding Fathers began the experiment of modern democracy through a three-branched republic. While some of the men paid gravely for their treasonous decisions, the desire for liberty and political self-determination encouraged the revolution to press on. Similarly, men seeking to gain political power outside of the three estates began a revolution in France a decade after the Americans. Trying to override the centuries of systematic tradition left the European terrain bloody from executions of nobles and peasants, soldiers and saints, instigators and innocents. No group surrendered peaceably because all saw themselves as right. Another example of men seeking independence is the Indian colonization by Britain in 1757 which ended in 1947 after forty-two years of constant opposition from the Indian peoples. The nation fought for independence while simultaneously supporting Britain through two world wars.
     These examples only exhibit large movements of a deterministic, steadfast commitment to the ideal of independence and freedom. Individuals have committed their lives to various independence movements through history with particular emphasis in the last few centuries from Simon Bolivar's revolution in South America to Martin Luther's clerical reform that sparked the Reformation to the industrial revolution that introduced a new materialistic mindset on world wealth.

     Commitments do not always result in the fall of government, rebellion, revolution, or war. Justinian I of Constantinople chose not to flee during the Nika riots. Instead, the emperor suppressed the public outburst, cemented his role, and took opportunity from the destructive riots to create architectural masterpieces that awe the world today. Commitment results in change, but the change can be catastrophic like the French Revolution or beautiful like the Hagia Sophia.
     Hanging on through the rough patches to achieve what is desired and see the greatness of accomplishment is why endurance is highly prized. Humanity is unique in its robust ability to subdue its surrounding environment, but while changes are occurring out of your control, a true test of your determination is your willingness to hold steady and finish the task at hand.
     If you believe strongly enough, it is worth it.


Happy anniversary, Jessica!
  __    
Agatha Tyche

A Lesson in Empathy

    Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

     Here is a mental exercise. Take what you are most devoted to and passionate about and convert that into a feeling of patriotism for your country. Imagine four years of rain, mud, bullets, and dead friends culminating in losing the war against your most hated enemy. The enemy then forces your nation, that you love most dearly, to pay for the entire cost of the war, never form a military again, and surrender valuable tracks of land.
     After your participation in the largest battles of the war and seeing the courage and strength of your nation only to have it surrender, you feel betrayed. Not by your enemy or the soldiers you fought alongside. Instead, the political backbone of the nation surrendered, destroying the triumph of the military efforts.
     Now imagine, after four years of devoted, unfailing service, after betrayal by the thing you most loved, you raise up opposition to end this political monstrosity that has taken the place of  your beloved country. You are arrested for acting out your beliefs, but, eventually, you are released. Sharing your thoughts with your friends, they pass on your inspiring ideas to give hope to the people. Your people. Who lost all dignity, wealth, and hope after the war. With a surge of emotion, you announce a plan to achieve just revenge against the enemies that destroyed your country and your people. The adversaries responsible for the imploded economy and the death of millions of brave men.
     After years of planning, you succeed in getting large-scale attention and support for your revenge plan. In fact, you go a step further and say that victory will be a new world. A better world where success will out last the lives of your supporters - and the lives of their children and grandchildren  - in a version of stabilized, near-eternal glory.
     But you fail to achieve this dream for millions of your countrymen. The antagonistic countries oppose your dream, and they fear and hate you just as you fear and hate them. How can inspirations of greatness and righteous revenge be objected to? Because they were accompanied by mass racial genocides.
Can you empathize with Adolf Hitler?

     Part of what historians must do to succeed in understanding history is to stand in the shoes of the people that experienced it. For another example, to understand the impact of Martin Luther's Reformation, historians place themselves in Luther's life to flush out motivations. After this the lives of church officials, royalty, nobles, and the common people of all nationalities are similarly related to to explain history's reactions as they progress. Whether or not these individual perspectives are accurate is unimportant since to understand actions, the initial biases must be empathized with. A true test of a historian is to relate to the most disagreeable characters while sharing bias, prejudice, and conviction in order to portray history as the past actually happened.

  __    
Agatha Tyche

Forgotten Knowledge

Humans, as a collective whole, learn so much we . . .
1.) Forget the basics.
     Athletes constantly drill to keep the most instinctual reactions a part of their game. Research in psychology relies on basics of biology to keep theories sound; biological research relies on chemistry; and chemistry relies on physics. The foundation of knowledge, instrumental to advancing, is easily forgotten once soaring skyscrapers rest on a hidden anchor of necessity.
     The perfect historic example of forgotten knowledge is the king of modern construction: concrete. Romans discovered this building material around 300 B.C., but functional knowledge collapsed with the empire. Joseph Aspdin of England reinvented the modern form of Portland cement in 1824 which has since been used to build the cities of today's nations.
2.) Disbelieve the tales of the past.
     Belief is usually based on experiences. Doubt is created from a lack of evidence, and skepticism requires proof to be satisfactorily refuted. Sometimes, the truth is simply hidden, buried beneath the accumulated dirts and sands of the years. The great Mesopotamian city of Ur, inhabited for 3,000 years, lay underneath the deserted landscape until recorded in the seventeenth century but was not explored until 1918. This massive discovery lead to an explosion of knowledge about the ancient inhabitants but lay neglected for three centuries after its discovery. In our intellectual arrogance and security, the modern West holds itself above the experiences of the past only to undergo the punishment of repetition.
3.) Bury our failues.
     The greatness of a people is earned through a complex combination of economic prosperity, military innovation, and cultural drive. Eventually, a stronger culture not weakened by pride or years of sustained power destroys the older nation. That defeated power often falls into a shadow of its former self but may reassert strength centuries later. Interestingly, the very reason for greatness is hidden in the dirt and sands of the defeat while the people continue on.

     Agamemnon, Achilles, and Odysseus united to attack the wealthy, fortified city of Troy. The defeated Trojans' tale after the war is never mentioned, but history knows. Troy rebuilt. In fact, Troy rebuilt itself at least seven times, so prosperous were the trade intersections of her age. The lesson that can be learned from differing layers of the Trojan city is that defeat does not mean the surrender of greatness.
     Burying failures can do two different things. First, moving on keeps the lesson from being learned so misery and self-pity pervades. Secondly, pressing forward while learning from previous mistakes causes a re-accumulation of strength and wisdom that, if beaten, will rise again.
     Like athletes, many people strive to be the best and succeed in their goals.Strength proves nothing since it is easily overcome by superior strength of endurance. However, searching strength's components reveals an understanding of foundation upon which all else is developed. The basics evaluate the errors in previous mistakes and can bolster motivation by learning from the failures of the past.
     Build a city of skyscrapers, fly to the moon, or plan your budget but remember the basics because without a solid foundation all accomplishments will fall.

 __    
Agatha Tyche

Boundaries

     What do we hold the individual responsible for? This is not simply a matter of social interaction since an individual subject or citizen is part of a whole that represents a national identity.
     Does the level of freedom in personal, social, or everyday interactions cause or encourage bigger moral boundaries?
The real question: Does the more a person feels he can do, impact what his country thinks it can do? Or is the reverse true: Does national expansion of ability encourage increased personal views of ability?
     If a country realizes its power to conquer another nation and succeeds, the citizens have boosted confidence in their country's might which results in high morale, increased economic prosperity, and raised levels of military support among civilians. If a country fails to subdue its enemy, its populace feels discouraged, depressed, and demoralized, especially after repetition proves their fears true.
     However, if the citizens themselves have freedom, inspiration, and energy, that translates, on a national scale, into an invigorated strength for the nation as a whole.
     But what comes first? National success translating into increased moral freedoms of the subject-citizens or bold private practices impacting public policy?
 

     Relative to her European neighbors, England had a free society whose elite could function independent of the king, diverging from continental policy because William the Conquerors' agreement with his nobles. Land ownership determined wealth which determined social freedoms as evinced by the Magna Carta. The more power possessed, the more leeway allowed because of retributional might. With the rise of the British Empire, the country's policies pushed forward to maximize economic production, especially after the beginning of the industrial revolution in the late eighteenth century. The evolution of British rights from the Magna Carta to World War I meant that while citizens were protected, the individual was undervalued by the collective whole largely due to the sheer size of the empire. After the collapse of imperial age Britain, the country espoused greater values for individuals culminating in the strong support of the socialist movement by the populace. In short, the freedoms of the populace allowed the nation to grow and expand.
     Let us look at the proudest of England's daughters, the United States, to re-enforce this conclusion. America, land of the free, has, since its independence, boasted of the great freedoms its citizens possess. The politicians espouse that freedom made the nation great since individual liberty inspires innovation. Since its victory "over" the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the world's mono-polar power dominated the world stage economically, politically, and militarily. With that supremacy on the world stage, overconfidence both in the late Cold War era and 2001 with the initiation of the war on terror has significantly reduced both political acceptance of unconditional freedoms and private views of self-ability with the economic recession begun in 2007. In short, America perfectly reflects that individual freedom promotes national greatness and coincides with that nation's collapse. National dominance abroad has turned to national dominance over internal affairs, undermining private, personal freedom.
     As ancient Egyptian religion expanded outward from the pharaoh to the general populace, Egypt grew into one of the the mightiest peoples in the world. The freedom eventually pushed too far and caused a disintegration in the general structure of society. Thus, there is a necessary balance between freedom and strength. Ancient Greece and Rome both provide similar examples.
     An example of this is the basic military training of soldiers. The general both wants his men to follow orders as well as achieve success with minimal loss. If a commander orders his troops to march across train tracks with the train coming, some may run over beforehand, others afterward, but none of the men will walk into the train to die because they have the freedom of thought.
     Is the conclusion then that bigger self-ego generates bigger national-ego? Or that bigger national-ego inspires bigger self-ego? While being partially both, the laws of a nation determine private freedom. Private freedom indulges the population to push farther and strive harder, culminating in national expansion. National expansion proves superiority abroad further strengthening domestic freedoms in a positive feedback loop. This continues until, inevitability, the freedoms undermine national efforts because of individual desires or the nation's expansive powers turn internal to crush opposition by diminishing freedom.

  __    
Agatha Tyche

Arrogant Offspring

     The biggest and strongest can always get their way. Every major tribe and dominating empire can attest that what they want, they get. That mentality could be human nature, the corrupting nature of power, or simply a precedent now ingrained in the human experience. As Europe began to rise with the power of innovation, logic, and resourcefulness, they conquered the world. The earth has been Euro-centric for centuries. Now, as that power wheel begins to shift away from Europe and the West into a slowly adjusting balance with the major Eastern powers of China, Japan, Indonesia, and a few others, the long gloated power of the nations of Europe finally falls into question.

     Whether or not Europe was right to colonize and dominate the world, the past has affected the present as it always does. However, the criticism of the present upon the past directs the future, learning and digressing from previous experiences. Europe birthed the modern world: industry and nation states now permeate the world from European origins. All non-European (and even some European nations: Spain and Eastern Europe) are the children of the colonial era, even if only intellectually (Japan, Thailand). Who now is the bread winner that inherits the power endowed by the old, retired grandparents of Europe?
     By necessity the new power will have once been a colony of Europe. In that sense, Europe will live on just as Rome has lived on through Europe. As the maps above and below illustrate, nearly every habitable portion of land, the world around, has been controlled by Europeans within the last five hundred years.
   

     With the trauma of the twentieth century, those nations destroyed each other through successive wars - while planting industrialism and the keys to power abroad. Who will be the new leaders?
     Consider America, proclaimed owner and victor of the last century, the "American Century." Can she continue to "police" the world considering her shrinking industry, weakened economy, and divided self-interest? Perhaps - she has done so for nearly seventy years already, but with self-criticism. America has forgotten why she came to power, why others fell.
     This nation, though powerful, has several drawbacks.
     1.) America is a young nation by the estimate of dates of independence, her immediate geographical neighborhood even younger. Europe was nearly three times America's age by the time it arose to conquer the new world.
     2.) Along with her youth, America has been historically isolationist most of her history. In fact a good portion of her population still wishes to be self-focused, isolationist, and let the world run itself. Ron Paul, a candidate of the 2012 presidency, had strong isolationist ideals in his campaign and garnered a moderate support. The world wars woke America, but she has not completely abandoned the internal, domestic idealism that characterized her before 1917.
     3.) In conjunction with this isolationism, America is too self-centered to be the big kid on the block. All of her issues are focused on economic might or anti-communism/anti-terrorism agendas. At least the Europeans began industrializing their colonies. The mistakes made in Europe were also made in their colonies, but no precedent existed to caution. The US makes the same mistakes which have already been shown to be dysfunctional to the distribution of power
     In answer to America's weaknesses, what nation is respectably old and stable? What nation has learned from the brutal, oppressive domination of European control? What nation is strong, if inexperienced, on the world stage? What nation remembers its past?
     China is one of the oldest, most geographically stable countries in the world. She was abused by Europeans ransacking trades along her ports, and the Opium Wars destroyed her self-respect. As Western ideologies infiltrated her masses, China split between capitalism and communism. With Taiwan remaining just off her coast, China is still divided between those economic ideologies. However, she has weighed both options and seems to have found a fully functioning middle ground as evidenced by her expanding economy the last thirty years. China is excellent at remembering its history. Ancestor worship strengthens the patterns of the past, and China will likely avoid the selfish individualism rampant in the West. As an economically and military powerful and up-and-coming nation, one of China's biggest flaws is her inexperience on the world stage. "Cathay," an old English term for China, intentionally isolated herself from much of the world the past millenia. In order to dominate the vacancies on stage, she will have to accept a mantle of unprecedented world influence.
     Who then should lead the world? The West is falling. America's monopolar decadence is disintegrating as China has successfully siphoned Asian and African influences to create an increasingly bipolar world. Could the West and East work together, united, as nations seeking a common goal? Will the East try to reassert its ancient strength, so long absent the past five hundred years? Will the West completely collapse a midst an incomprehensibly large pile of debt and military-economic oppression?
     The study of history reveals many things, but only the future can pull the curtain back.


 __    
Agatha Tyche

Berry picking

     Picking berries has been an agricultural function since ancient history. While the types and uses of berries alter with the time and culture, the process remains remarkably the same even for different berry types. Many berries are thrown out because they are imperfect by their size, age, or other qualities. Age is the only attribute that can be justified in contributing to a berry not being picked: it is either too ripe or to the point of molding off. Other reasons should be ignored. Size is unimportant if the berries are to be eaten free of hand or mashed into ingredients. Dried-up berries will still provide flavor when added to the overall berry mixture. Even oddly shaped, slightly aged, or the young, sour berries can be used when mixed in to the larger picture.

     People are like berries. Everyone contributes to the final creation. Size, color, age, and juiciness all vary with the individual. Some groups may be better in size but lose flavor while some of the driest berries may be exactly what is needed for the right taste. Being too perfect may actually detract from the success of that berry because it will be the first one snatched up birds, deer, squirrels, or people which would destroy its potential for reproduction. The most undesirable berries can be the most successful for their usefulness and reproduction.
    Many great leaders and thinkers of the past have not brought children into the world to carry on the legacy of their name or qualities. Alexander the Great, founder of the largest empire of his time, fathered a child but failed to live long enough to rear him. Nikola Tesla, though one of the most creative minds to work with electricity, never had a known relationship with any woman. Ludwig van Beethoven, the great musician, never succeeded in marrying or having children.
     While the finest of berries may be exquisite in certain aspects, the emphasis on one quality forces a decline in other areas. Many of the most brilliant people in the world struggle with social conventions. Conversely, those who interact perfectly with others, seemingly reading other people's thoughts out of the air, may fail rudimentary intelligence tests.
     On the pendulum's reverse swing rests the berries that are poisonous to eat. People, as berries, can poison their consumer. The toxin does not destroy the usefulness of the berry, however. Consider that some of the worst criminals and ruffians become heroes in war. Despite their unsavory habits in polite society, their skills provided them with assets necessary in the heat of bloody war. Considering that some great war heroes may also become poisonous themselves when they fully ripen just as Adolf Hitler did after his respectable service in the Great War.
     The diversity expressed in the types and uses of berries are a poor comparison to the multiplicity of character people reveal. Don't judge a book by its cover. Don't judge a berry by a single variety of qualities. The only way to know if a berry is true is to eat it just like the only way to know the character of a person is to get to know them.


  __    
Agatha Tyche

The Sagacious Non-King

     Letting go or giving up something that is greatly desired for the cause of another person is the main definition of sacrifice. Though the victor is the one that history remembers, some of the losers are more worthy of remembrance because their achievements, character, or ideology is worth recognition.
     Conrad I, the Younger, was the first German king not descended directly from the Charlemagne line. With his election by the nobles of East Francia (modern Germany) to avoid the absorption of the eastern portion of Charlemagne's empire into the western half, Duke Conrad of Franconia, ruler one of the five most powerful Germanic tribes in the region, was granted power because of a succession crisis. He spent significant portions of his twelve year reign seeking to consolidate power against opposing tribal factions.
     Conrad I never succeeded in solidifying his power, and he was mortally wounded in a battle against one of his rivals. Knowing his demise approached, Conrad instructed his younger brother to offer the crown to Duke Henry of Saxony. Conrad knew that Henry alone among his rivals possessed the knowledge and power necessary to congeal the powers of the warring Germanic tribes. Thus equipped with an alliance between the Saxon and Franconian forces, Henry I succeeded in reuniting East Francia under one king. Henry the Fowler's successor and son, Otto the Great, founded the Holy Roman Empire which became and remained a major power on the European continent for nearly six hundred years.

     Conrad I surrendered his power and lands to his bitter enemy Duke Henry of Saxony to unite the East Frankish Kingdom, secure the autocracy of German dukes, and keep the West Frankish Kingdom out. He gave his power and supporters to Henry bolster unification efforts. Henry I used this power to revitalize the German crown and set the foundation for the Holy Roman Empire; Otto I finished Henry I's actions and succeeded in achieving all of Conrad I's hopes.
     In the face of death, Conrad I sacrificed all his authority and military might to his contender in order to achieve an objective impossible without an alliance. He sacrificed for the love of his people even though it put his antagonist in power. He embraced his own defeat as a sacrifice to raise the authority of the German emperor into such potency as to last through until Napoleon Bonaparte nine hundred years later.
     Winning isn't everything. Sacrifice and compromise can be the best way to resolve a situation to avert pointless stalemate or defeat brought on by division and attrition. Know when to let pride go and seek those who desire your same goals even if slightly different.

 __    
Agatha Tyche