What A Terrorist Incident in Ancient Rome Can Teach Us – Pirates of the Mediterranean
IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.
The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.
By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.
[…]
An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent, skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same.
#56:
“Anti discrimination laws don’t apply to private individuals and entities They apply entities like schools & businesses which for the most part are public.”
Really? Try opening up a coffee shop and posting a sign on the front door that says: “We don’t serve Asians” and tell me again how those laws work.
“Your 4th paragraph reeks of bigotry. Not all African Americans listen to rap music…”
I suppose that Bill Cosby is a bigot in your mind too? You’re right, not all black kids listen to rap music, but let’s stop pretending that it isn’t a major cultural influence. At least things seem better in one regard, we don’t hear much of the “better bring yo strap” from Tupac and Bone Thugs sung to the rhythmic sounds of gunshots anymore. Instead we just get people jumping up and down in front of $200,000 cars surrounded by half-naked women who are only there to shake their asses and be groped in front of the camera. Yes, that is certainly helping the average black kid achieve economic and social equality. And you are also correct, there are too many stupid white kids listening to that nonsense as well. I don’t care about race or ethnicity, but what I do care about is behavior and the harm that can be caused from the glorification of destructive ones. I’m also not too fond of this celebration of drunken irresponsibility that gets plastered all over MTV every year during Spring Break.
So beyond that minor quibble, what were your objections to my position against Affirmative Action? Or does the simple fact that I disagree with it make me a bigot as well?
“Your lack of understanding of the law really undermines your argument. Murder of a Anglo American guy by another Anglo American is not always the same.”
First of all, can we stop with this “Anglo American” nonsense? Yes, I’m white, but my ancestry is neither Anglo nor Saxon, so how about we all just refer to ourselves as “Americans,” and if we need to further distinguish ourselves by a physical characteristic then let’s do it in the most direct way possible.
Secondly, manslaughter is not murder, and the degrees of murder have to do with premeditation. So if I plan in advance to kill you to steal your television or because I just don’t like whatever particular ethnic group you belong to, there should be no difference in the law between the two. Unless you believe that being murdered for your property is less significant than being murdered for your race.
And why exactly should you believe that if you aren’t going to see justice for one named crime, that you will magically get it for another which relies on more subjective interpretation of motive? If you get the shit kicked out of you by a group of thugs, does it really matter why they did it? And why should the penalties be different, when all you will be saying is that one victim is worth less than another?
All civilizations rise and fall, all aflicted with the same disease: human nature. We don’t make mistakes, we simply act naturally. The larger, the more complex a human social construct, the top heavier it becomes until it eventually falls. No exceptions, including America. America would do well to fragment into smaller, more efficient entities.
#61 Mike
“Really? Try opening up a coffee shop and posting a sign on the front door that says: “We don’t serve Asians” and tell me again how those laws work.”
Did you even think before you typed that? Go back and look at what I said.
“I suppose that Bill Cosby is a bigot in your mind too?”
Yes I suppose to some degree he is. Again, stop pretendening you know anything about the life the average “black” person lives.
“let’s stop pretending that it isn’t a major cultural influence”
Yes it is but not just for poor black kids. I see plenty of wealthy white kids listening to it as well. As a matter of fact more white kids buy rap music than black kids.
STOP BLAMING MEDIA! It is an old argument and it has always been wrong!
“Or does the simple fact that I disagree with it make me a bigot as well?”
No your own words are what make you a bigot.
“and if we need to further distinguish ourselves by a physical characteristic then let’s do it in the most direct way possible.”
O.k. Cracker! You don’t even realize it isn’t about physical characteristics. Charlize Theron is an African American and so is Dave Mathews. You see you are the one that looks at our differences as a bad thing. Do you think “that black guy” would be accurate for Dave Mathews? I just call for more accurate descriptions.
Do you even know what Anglo means? Let me help you Anglo :a white American of non-Hispanic descent.
Manslaughter is murder just a lesser form in the eyes of the law. You are the one that said “Murder is murder” I was just showing you the ignorance of that statement because you used it to back up your argument.
Is it ok for a white guy to kill black guy and get away with it because the local system is corrupt?
“Did you even think before you typed that? Go back and look at what I said.”
Yes, I read your statement. And please tell me how a proprietorship is not a private entity when it is not legally distinguishable from the owner?
“Yes it is but not just for poor black kids. I see plenty of wealthy white kids listening to it as well. As a matter of fact more white kids buy rap music than black kids.”
Gee, I’m pretty sure I stated that. Let me look back and see, yep, sure did.
“No your own words are what make you a bigot.”
Words don’t make me anything, my beliefs do. And besides my stated opposition of the government creating artificial advantages for any group based on traits beyond our control (which has in recent times placed a stigma over those who didn’t need them in the first place), you really have no idea what my beliefs are.
“O.k. Cracker! You don’t even realize it isn’t about physical characteristics. Charlize Theron is an African American and so is Dave Mathews. You see you are the one that looks at our differences as a bad thing. Do you think “that black guy” would be accurate for Dave Mathews? I just call for more accurate descriptions.”
Of course we are talking about physical characteristics. You certainly weren’t meaning to refer to Charlize Theron when you said “Many African Americans remain poor because they, even with an education, find it more difficult to get those high paying jobs that many incompetent white men get.” So you are clearly being dishonest in your argument. And “cracker” is a slur, not a legitimate descriptor of a physical distinguishing trait. And there is a clear difference between recognizing differences and insisting that you be characterized by them. I object to the latter.
And FYI, the word “Anglo” refers to the Germanic Anglos who populated southern England, and were later conquered by the Saxons, hence the term “Anglo-Saxon.” So, no, Anglo does not mean “white American of non-Hispanic descent. But, keep making things up and telling yourself they are true, and maybe they will become so.
“And please tell me how a proprietorship is not a private entity when it is not legally distinguishable from the owner?”
If you do business with the general public then you are not a “private” entity. Just because you don’t form an S Corp doesn’t mean you are “private”. The rules change when you open your doors to the general public.
“Words don’t make me anything, my beliefs do”
O.k. then your beliefs make you a bigot. Your words expose your beliefs. Don’t be glib.
“You certainly weren’t meaning to refer to Charlize Theron when you said “Many African Americans remain poor ”
I most certainly was! Just because she isn’t poor doesn’t mean she isn’t included as an African American. Hence the word “Many” that isn’t the same to us non bigots as “all”
“And “cracker” is a slur, not a legitimate descriptor of a physical distinguishing trait”
Sure it is. Some white people have the same color as a soda cracker.
“And FYI, the word “Anglo” refers to the Germanic Angles who populated southern England”
You don’t even bother to find out the truth do you? Once you have convinced yourself. Now you just look stupid!
Dictionary.com
Anglo 1. a white American of non-Hispanic descent, as distinguished esp. from an American of Mexican or Spanish descent.
Online Etymology Dictionary
Anglo American, English-speaking white person,”
Webster
Anglo a white inhabitant of the United States of non-Hispanic descent
Cambridge International
Anglo an American who is white and not from a Latin American country
American Heritage
Anglo An English-speaking person, especially a white North American who is not of Hispanic or French descent
In contemporary American usage, Anglo is used primarily in direct contrast to Hispanic or Latino. In this context it is not limited to persons of English or even British descent, but can be generally applied to any non-Hispanic white person.
A Saxon is a member of a Germanic people that entered and conquered England with the Angles and Jutes in the fifth century. But I never called anyone a Saxon just Anglo American So I was quite correct in it’s usage.
I’m honestly surprised you haven’t just cut to the chase thrown out the “racist” moniker… I mean, how could anybody have a philisophical objection to various government policies that create one form of inequity as a solution for another, and not be? Especially when those policies have contributed to finger-pointing and questioning by some of a whole group’s legitimate merit and mostly have an affect on people who weren’t even around to contribute to the original problem in the first place.
“If you do business with the general public then you are not a “private” entity. …”
I’m not even going to argue this further, as I know that laws can be changed at any moment and what seems completely absurd today can be made the law tomorrow… Either by a legislature who feels they need to dream up some way to legitimize their regulation of everything, or by a judge with no intellectual honesty who wishes to find a suitable reinterpretation to change something he doesn’t agree with. When debating about how issues like this aught to be resolved, I tend to stick by the generally accepted notion that “public” = government and “private” = non-govermment; but as I alluded to above, I know I will lose the argument based on the actual law, so I will concede to you.
“Don’t be glib.”
Ohh, I like that name.
“I most certainly was! Just because she isn’t poor doesn’t mean she isn’t included as an African American. Hence the word “Many” that isn’t the same to us non bigots as “all” ”
Nice of you to leave off the second half of your original quote. Here, I’ll repost it again: “Many African Americans remain poor because they, even with an education, find it more difficult to get those high paying jobs that many incompetent white men get.”
Let’s see, I was originally making a comment to another post about Republicans alienating Blacks because their lack of support of various policies such as Affirmative Action, and you respond with your own post making references to “African Americans” having difficulty getting the jobs that “white men” get. And then you become needlessly defensive because I challenged your use of “Anglo” and went on about how “African American” could have refered to Charlize Theron or Dave Mathews. Well, first of all, Dave Mathews is one of those “White Men” and furthermore, since South Africa had been a British posession since the late 1700’s, I guess that makes him one of those “Anglo Americans” too. So aside from your “many/all” dance around semantics to back yourself out of something I saw no point in you posting in the first place, all you’ve really done is help point out the flaw in using a geographic place of birth or origin as an identifier for a racial group.
“Sure it is. Some white people have the same color as a soda cracker.”
Meh. I see you refuse to even acknowledge the point I was attempting to make. I don’t ever feel the need to point out somebody’s race in conversation unless there is some reason why I have to specfically identify them in a group using an obvious physical characteristic. In which case I do, and as directly as posible. But, I don’t preface all of my references about people as “this black guy I know” or “that asian chick” and I don’t walk around refering to myself as “European American.” As I said, acknowledge differences that exist when they are relevant and then move on… there is no need to characterize yourself by them when you are dealing with others. But that’s just the opinion of a bigot.
“You don’t even bother to find out the truth do you? Once you have convinced yourself. Now you just look stupid…”
I’ll shock you again… I will conded this vocabulary word spat we are having as well. I really have no control over the adoption of word meanings, even when misused with no basis in history. I do have one small nit to pick however regarding your first reference, and at this point I’m just humoring myself anyway:
“Dictionary.com
Anglo 1. a white American of non-Hispanic descent, as distinguished esp. from an American of Mexican or Spanish descent.”
So Spanish decendents are not Anglos, but Greeks and Italians are? How about Americans with Slovak ancestry? That seems to pretty much point out the idiocy of that definition and the criteria from which it is basing itself.
Well, this has gotten way off topic,
Tschüs
There isn’t enough space to comment on all your stupid statements.
You are trying to spin this argument and I won’t let you.
You are a bigot and your statements are evidence to that. You may not know or be willing to admit you are one but you are.
For the record I am one of those “White Men” and I don’t suffer from white guilt. My mother marched with Martin Luther King and I regularly contribute and participate with the education of inner city children.
What have you done except show your support for policies that are an attempt to remove the last bastion of survival for some. Without a policy to replace it.
You will have no argument from me that Affirmative Action is flawed but like the Republicans say to the Democrats all the time. Show me a your plan!
Pompei fought against Mithridates VI who was a serious threat to Rome at the time. By the time Magnus Pompei had come along, Mithridates had had killed 80,000 Romans throughout Asia and raised an army of several hundred thousand men and lost them to another Roman general (Sulla.)
The pirates, while loosely organized, were working on behalf of a very powerful and very effective Asian king who likely saw himself as a new Alexander, trained in the classical Greek tradition and a re-uniter of the Asian world. The pirates were given free rein by Mithridates and in return they acted much like his navy. In a sense, they were similar to the privateers of a less distant era.
Mithridates had raised another huge army and reconquered much of what was taken by Sulla, even taking Athens (which they likely preferred to Roman rule.) Pompey and Lucullus destroyed him, though it took a few years. It was his son who’s army was destroyed by Gaius Julius Ceasar so thoroughly that it prompted the phrase “Veni Vidi Vidi.”
History is a subject of Looking to the past, to identify the stupidity that we TRY to mis-step in the future.
Seeing and learning to See, what led up to What happened, from the past. So we dont Stub our toes on the tables of the future, or bang our heads, or Slit our own throats..
For some ‘God awful’ reason..We seem to forget Everything of the past.
Gorilla warfare:
We did it to the Brits.
Korea and vietnam Did it to US/USA.
Afghanistan and Iraq, are doing it to US/we again.
The rulings of our OWN governement are taking on the SAME controls as those of Rome.
Why do we mention ROME?? Wasnt there any Other great sociaty??
How about looking at what happened in Russia, MANY times..
Alexandria??
France?? 2-3 times in the last 250 years??
Take your pick. He is still the puppet he has ALWAYS been.
http://redstate.com/stories/featured_stories/of_all_the_comparisons_to_ancient_rome