It seems to me that the traditional way of having leaders going to war directly has slowly diminished and vanished from being how the way of things are supposed to be.
(My speculation)
And I speculate that one of the contributing factors which helped in changing people’s mindset and perspective, in normalizing with the cultural and traditions changes, is the fact that people of old time (whom long lived in these similar environment) [Edit: were able to get] used to accepting the benefits and the joys of having appointed such leaders, regardless of the drawbacks that comes with it - and the fact that they are corrupt.
It is a really interesting point to raise up, especially in today’s age.
And maybe, then, the more important question becomes: “How/ why did people normalize their perceptions and mindsets towards such leaders, despite their anticipated character changes became worse than their precedents”.
(Some justification)
It is really interesting, because historically, we have stories of figures (Such as Al-Shimr, the murderer of Imam Hussain) whom were known to have been cowardly, but were presenting themselves nonetheless, due to the fact that people sought the opposing leader was one with more qualities than theirs; and as such, if one leader becomes of the type that is confrontational and upfront in battles; the opposing leader, due to the pressures of his own people, perceptions, and environment, deems it necessary and more appropriate to come forth to present himself as one with better and more fitting qualities that makes him more qualified to be a leader than the enemy.
(It is certainly an interesting topic to discuss, research, and think about. And one might even write a respectable book about it, were there to be someone who writes a book about it.)
*Edit2:
How did the changes in perception happen ?
(How was it that people’s perceptions towards the current leader were inherited from people that appointed them long before their ages; i.e their ancestors that sought such leaders with presented qualities are more qualifying than others, whom, at some point, when they casted away the ones of their own that had stepped down into the battlefields with such better leadership qualities presented ?)
When did it happen (at what point exactly in history did it specifically happen, that their perceptions changed so much that they normalized with cowardly leaders) ?
I just realized that it interprets ’ — ’ in the text format as headers. I thought that was funny. (I was using them to make the split between lines from other paragraphs more apparent, and therefore more readable).
It seems to me that the traditional way of having leaders going to war directly has slowly diminished and vanished from being how the way of things are supposed to be.
(My speculation)
And I speculate that one of the contributing factors which helped in changing people’s mindset and perspective, in normalizing with the cultural and traditions changes, is the fact that people of old time (whom long lived in these similar environment) [Edit: were able to get] used to accepting the benefits and the joys of having appointed such leaders, regardless of the drawbacks that comes with it - and the fact that they are corrupt.
It is a really interesting point to raise up, especially in today’s age.
And maybe, then, the more important question becomes: “How/ why did people normalize their perceptions and mindsets towards such leaders, despite their anticipated character changes became worse than their precedents”.
(Some justification)
It is really interesting, because historically, we have stories of figures (Such as Al-Shimr, the murderer of Imam Hussain) whom were known to have been cowardly, but were presenting themselves nonetheless, due to the fact that people sought the opposing leader was one with more qualities than theirs; and as such, if one leader becomes of the type that is confrontational and upfront in battles; the opposing leader, due to the pressures of his own people, perceptions, and environment, deems it necessary and more appropriate to come forth to present himself as one with better and more fitting qualities that makes him more qualified to be a leader than the enemy.
(It is certainly an interesting topic to discuss, research, and think about. And one might even write a respectable book about it, were there to be someone who writes a book about it.)
*Edit2:
(How was it that people’s perceptions towards the current leader were inherited from people that appointed them long before their ages; i.e their ancestors that sought such leaders with presented qualities are more qualifying than others, whom, at some point, when they casted away the ones of their own that had stepped down into the battlefields with such better leadership qualities presented ?)
When did it happen (at what point exactly in history did it specifically happen, that their perceptions changed so much that they normalized with cowardly leaders) ?
Why has it not changed ?
And what would cause it to change ?
You don’t need to increase your text size for us to be able to read your book
I just realized that it interprets ’ — ’ in the text format as headers. I thought that was funny. (I was using them to make the split between lines from other paragraphs more apparent, and therefore more readable).
I apologize for the oversight, let me fix that.