September 15, 2005

Filthy-Dego-Wop Romans, the Conservatives That Love Them, and the Beginning of Empire (UPDATED)

Why are so many conservatives fascinated with Rome? Personally, I think it's latent homosexuality. In contrast, Dean Esmay has a more serious take on the same question for you conservatives of what he calls "the America sucks right."

These are the guys at your church that think God has an invisible shield over the U.S., and that as America slouches toward Gomorroh he slowly raises the shield. This line of thought can go to the extreme and become one that basically says were doomed, DOOMED, DOOMED!

In many ways, this argument is very similar to the namby-pambies of the 'hate America first' Left and self-proclaimed paleocons on the Right who share the belief that America is destined for failure, soon, because that is the fate of all empires.

The remedy? End the empire, bring troops home, etc. Only by ending the empire can America be saved.

Which, of course, is stupid, since at any point in Rome's history the same argument could have been made. Bring troops home from Palestine now, one could have argued in 70 C.E. Of course, 300 years later you would have found the city of Caesaria, near modern Haifa, bustling with activity--all of it Roman.

And what is so great about the Romans anyway? Filthy mass-murdering buggers that they were. Dean writes:

They were a vicious, savage people, given to mass murder on a scale that would make Saddam Hussein seem like a piker--and that was while their Empire was growing. Julius Caesar, before he seized power and turned Rome into an Empire, boasted of slaughtering over 100,000 people in just one of his jaunts into Gaul. Not 100,000 on the battlefield either--no, this included razing villages, hacking off the heads of children, women, old men, the crippled and lame. This was celebrated as a part of Ceasar's greatness, with triumphal celebrations and murals and statues showing in gory detail as Ceasar and his troops raped barbarian women and sliced barbarian children's heads off.

All that, and Rome's greatest days were yet ahead of her.

Let me just add a few other things. The Romans were not the biggest, not the most powerful, and certainly not the most long-lasting empire the world has ever known.

Biggest: British empire. At one time controlled a quarter of the world.

Most powerful: U.S., present day. Is there any doubt about this? Ok, we'll give special runner-up status to Alexander's short-lived but very kick-ass empire and a tie going to Genghis Khan's Mongolian hordes.

Longest lasting: China is by far the longest lasting empire ever known. Before the Romans even began to consolidate power let alone think of empire, China was already an imperial power. The Chinese Empire begins in 221 BCE. And when did it end? It hasn't. Even when China is conquered by external forces, such as during the Mongolian invasion, it continued. Instead of 'Mongolionizing' the Chinese, the Mongolians were Chinafied. How's that for 'end of empire' theory!

And China was, and is, a real empire. Not an empire in the Leninst sense of the word, or an empire in the dependency literature of the new Left, or like an empire, or an empire defined by--well, by whatever definition suits the purposes of polemists who wish to use the word to describe something they don't like, namely, America.

So, when did the Chinese Empire fall? It didn't. It's still in existance today. So, there's no more Emperor. Big deal. Go to modern China today and you will see it is not a 'nation-state' but an Imperial power. Nearly half of China's land mass is located West of where most Han Chinese live. Ask the Uygyars of Xinjiang or Tibetans if China isn't an 'empire'.

The Chinese Empire might suck every bit as much as the Roman one did, but it has lasted for 2,226 years and shows no sign of falling.

Even if we were to date the beginning of the modern Chinese Empire with reunification under the Sui Dynasty in 589 and date its end (wrongfully, I believe) to 1949, when The People's Republic was set up, that's an empire that lasts 1360 years!!

And we've been around, what, a couple hundred years? I bet it will be another 500 before we even begin to invent a food dish that is the cultural equvalent of the all important General Tsao's Orange Chicken.

Is America doomed? Hell no! World, you aint seen nothin' yet.

UPDATE: First, apologies for mispelling 'dego'. It should be dago. Laura is right--if you're going to use racial slurs to get people's attention you really ought to spell it right. I guess I just don't use racist terminology enough......

Second, Dean's orginal post was in response to an updated post by La Shawn Barber, who I have a great deal of respect for, but who I also disagree. Dean has a related posts here.

Like James Joyner, who enters the discussion here, I also have many concerns about some of the moral decline of America. I just believe that the argument that such declines preceed the downfall of a civilization are not backed by historical facts. If one wishes to argue that cultural decline preceeds the downfall of a civilization, I believe you are on to a more solid argument. One that is not, of course, without its own flaws. Part of what makes American culture so different than those others, though, is its ability to adapt and change over time. Further, if anything, American culture is still on the rise and spreading across the globe

La Shawn's argument actually is religious, if you go read her post. As a religious person--which I actually am to the surprise and shock of my readers (You thought I was kidding about being a Christian Universalist who happens to believe only Mormons go to heaven and that God is really a Buddhist?)--I believe La Shawn is basically right in her assessment and characterization of moral issues (with the exception of her not distinguishing between good gay and bad gay). As you all know I don't believe in gay marriage, as a rule, unless it is between two very hot chicks.

But, if you'll close your Qurans for a moment and open the Bible to the book of Ecclesiastes--the entire book--I believe you'll find that the good preacher notices something that many Christians today have overlooked. Let me quote him from the NIV, chapter 8, verse 10:

There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: righteous men who get what the wicked deserve, and wicked men who get what the righteous deserve. This too, I say, is meaningless.
Indeed. Long before Gibbons poor observations on the decline of empire, King Solomon (ascribed) noticed that the wicked often prosper and the righteous often suffer. Buddha, for the non-Christian, made much the same observation. That is just life.

I would suggest to the religious-right in America, and this includes Doc Rampage who makes an even more overtly religious argument here, not to make the error that their theological reading of history is orthodoxy. Even if one were to read the Bible in this way, one might make the argument that God punished the nation of Israel when it was wicked, and blessed it when it prospered, but that Israel is a covenant nation, different then the rest. Rome was not Israel, and neither is America.

Rampage is right, of course, that this is 'in house' fighting. Chomsky hates America, La Shawn doesn't.

Further, I thought it was the Romans that killed Jesus, the encarnation of God in the flesh--something my Sunday School teachers taught was kind of like the ultimate sinful behavior--and yet Rome grew and prospered for hundreds of years after that. I also seem to recall something about throwing Christians to lions, crucifying Peter upside down, and even one emperor (Nero) using them as human torches. All of this, of course, as they were busy buggering (not being buggered, mind you) young boys in the traditional Greek fashion.

And as for China, the longest lasting empire, did you know that the practice of polygamy was not done away with until this century? I have a friend from Hong Kong who comes from the noble class. His grandfather had many wives, not even counting all the concubines.

Last, let me just clarify that I do not believe that America is really an 'empire' in the same way that Rome was or that modern polemists believe. I thought I had made that clear in the paragraph about definitions of empire, but I guess I hadn't. America is Iraq is not empire. California Mafia has a related point here.

However, if you were to define America's empire as within the boundaries of the United States, then I might concede the point. We certainly conquered a lot of territory, colonized it, culturally extinguished native peoples, and subjected them to our wills. Go to Hawaii. Forget Hawaii, go to Virginia. That seems a lot like empire my friends.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:08 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 1520 words, total size 10 kb.

1 If you're going to wax poetic about empire maybe you should first define the term. Comparing, for instance, the U.S. to Rome is kind of stupid. Just because a contry is powerful and influential doesn't make it an "empire" in my book. Most empires I ever heard of get some land and tribute as part of the deal.

Posted by: Carlos at September 15, 2005 06:29 PM (8e/V4)

2 Yeah, we're actually the opposite of an empire, since we spend our wealth and blood for the sake of others' freedom, though nobody appreciates it. Personally, I wish we would say screw the world and let them eat one another, and nuke anyone to glowing embers who messes with us.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 15, 2005 06:35 PM (0yYS2)

3 Look if you're gonna use ethnic slurs, at least SPELL it right.....it's DAGO. LOL.

Posted by: Laura at September 15, 2005 07:12 PM (L3PPO)

4 Getting Chinafied for tomorrow sounds good. I'm getting the Kung Pao. Mo likes her chicken spicey.

Posted by: Maureen at September 15, 2005 07:36 PM (ny5O/)

5 For all the people who condemn America for committing "genocide" (another word the left has coopted and corrupted), they should read up on the Punic Wars to find out what genocide REALLY means.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at September 15, 2005 08:12 PM (CJBEv)

6 I liked what Michael Ledeen said a few years ago: China is a civilization masquerading as a nation-state. Also what Jonah Goldberg said: Now, the fact that we are not an empire, but could be one if we wanted to, confuses the dickens of all sorts of people. Indeed, some people find the idea so confusing they willfully refuse to believe it and just go on insisting we are an empire the way the guy in the Monty Python skit just kept insisting the parrot wasn't dead. ... Europeans who did have colonies and who did invade both their neighbors and distant lands for material gain — and, to be fair, for more ideologically complex motives — have a hard time computing that America isn't behaving the way they did. They think they've evolved past us, that they are on the same road as us and are simply a few miles ahead of us on the path to enlightenment. What they can't grasp is that America took a different fork in the road a couple of centuries ago. We can argue about who's on the high road or the low road now, but we're on different roads.

Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at September 15, 2005 08:22 PM (aL2tJ)

7 I don't like Chinese, but my cousin's wife from South Louisiana sure does make a mean "wop" salad.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 15, 2005 08:30 PM (q9AWQ)

8 God helps those who help themselves. The U.S. is better than everyone else at helping themselves in defense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Oh yeah, right makes right.[done on purpose]

Posted by: The Uncooperative Blogger at September 15, 2005 08:42 PM (ud47f)

9 Yo, Vinnie the ninnie... "Is anyone honestly suggesting that the Cole was bombed 20 years ago because America was a den of sinfulness on Ronald Reagan's watch?" Well? It wasn't, was it? How's that for accurate?

Posted by: kermit at September 15, 2005 08:52 PM (DX+fh)

10 Most of the time, when the Legions were brought back to Rome, it was so they could put their commander in charge...So "the bring the troops home" folks better be careful....

Posted by: MKL at September 15, 2005 09:15 PM (3fpKJ)

11 Tsao's Chicken was invented in America! Wiki it! God Bless AMERICA, BAAYYYBEEEE!

Posted by: NewOrleanian at September 15, 2005 11:30 PM (d6mij)

12 Wow Vinnie's quite the little troll isn't he? Yes, I obviously mis-wrote, I was thinking about the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983 under Reagan. The Cole was in 2000. Sorry 'bout that. As for people at the State Department reading my blog: some of them do. :-) However, I only made the statement because some Yemeni government weasels were reading it and I wanted to bug 'em.

Posted by: Dean Esmay at September 15, 2005 11:33 PM (98KKP)

13 By the way Rusty, I don't think I implied that Rome was the biggest Empire of all time, just the largest in history up until that time. Although now that I think on it, China may have been bigger at the time....

Posted by: Dean Esmay at September 15, 2005 11:34 PM (98KKP)

14 So the "America Sucks Right" is the Left's answer to the Right's "hate America Left"? Very clever. Kudos. You might actually get some traction with about 6 ignorant boobs out there.

Posted by: dcb at September 16, 2005 12:18 AM (8e/V4)

15 Dean, That's fine, it was a minor point. The larger point, of course, being that the Romans weren't the end-all be-all of Empire. All--on "empire", I was being kind of snarky in the post. It's the concede the point that America is an Empire and then argue "so what?" The paragraph about definitions was supposed to kind of draw that out.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at September 16, 2005 07:59 AM (JQjhA)

16 As a conservative, I like to watch History Channel shows about Rome because of the interesting architecture and their regular people. In alot of ways, modern day culture is like Roman culture (not just in America), but in just as many ways, it is different. We all like going to sports arenas, we like spas, we like being social in large buildings and wearing cool clothing... It's the values of the people that are different. We value life much more than the Romans did, and our society is built around this core value. God bless America.

Posted by: RepJ at September 16, 2005 09:11 AM (XAq/v)

17 You rascist infidels! Even Karen Hughes addressed Muslims last week! And we all know Hillary kissed Suha Arafat! "The Battle of Tours (often called the Battle of Poitiers, but not to be confused with the Battle of Poitiers, 1356) was fought on October 25, 732 between forces under the Frankish leader Charles Martel and an Islamic army led by Emir Abd er Rahman. During the battle, the Franks defeated the Islamic army and Emir Abd er Rahman was killed. The result of this battle stopped the northward advance of Islam from Spain. This battle is considered by most historians to be of macrohistorical importance, in that it may have halted the invasion of Europe by Muslims, and preserved Christianity as the controlling faith, during a period in which Islam was overrunning the remains of the old Roman and Persian Empires." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

Posted by: Demoralize Americans Telethon at September 16, 2005 11:52 AM (SgJ1P)

18 Just to clarify: I didn't mean to imply that I agree with the argument that God rewards and punishes nations today like he did Israel. I just wanted to point out that this isn't one of those specially-invented accusations that no one would pretend to care about except that it suits their rhetorical purposes. By contrast, the America-hating Left is always coming up with novel accusations. Expressing contempt for the US over things that they don't care about when it doesn't apply to the US.

Posted by: Doc Rampage at September 16, 2005 02:42 PM (6IZFG)

19 Rusty, the Romans were indifferent to Jesus' death. It was the Jewish pharisees who wanted Him dead because he was a threat to their corrupt religion.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at September 16, 2005 03:09 PM (OBX/n)

20 YBP: Welcome missed ya

Posted by: Howie at September 16, 2005 03:10 PM (D3+20)

21 But, DAT, I keep hearing from the MSM that the Crusades were the first wars between the Christians and the Muslims. The Christians started all the trouble with the Muslims. The Muslims were just a peaceful people minding their own business and would never attack a Christian. What are you saying here. Surely you must be wrong. The Battle of Tours you refer to was 300 years BEFORE the first Crusade.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 16, 2005 04:16 PM (q9AWQ)

22 Many, including well informed people like Dean Esmay, like to think of the Romans as brutal tyrants. By today's standards, they were. But, the value of life has been increasing since then. In their own time, Rome was the most civilized place on the planet, especially when it was still a republic. While they did commit acts of brutality, they also, just as frequently, opened their arms to the hoards they had conquered, offered to assimilate them, enrich them with Roman wealth, and even let them continue to worship their own pantheon of gods. The conquered were often astounded by how the Romans could so thouroughly trounce then on the battlefield, yet treat them with such mercy immediately after.

Posted by: Doug Purdie at September 16, 2005 05:16 PM (00DOn)

23 The Romans were so barbaric that they had elected leaders and public courts of law at a time when most people were living in tribes with hereditary aristocracies. We mustn't judge their faults by today's standards, but rather we should judge their accomplishments by their own day's standards, but of course, liberals never seem to be able to see the good in any system except, inexplicably, Communism, and conveniently manage to remain in a perpetual state of amnesia regarding the 100,000,000 (that's one hundred million) deaths that Communism has caused, and can only remember to mention that they have free health care.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 16, 2005 05:38 PM (0yYS2)

24 If today's China is a continuation of 500 AD China's empire than the US is surely a coninuation of the Brit empire, which is surely a coninuation of the Roman empire, which "Romanified" barbarian Europe when it was conquered, which was surely a continuation of ancient Greece, which "Greeked-out" Rome when it was conquered by Rome.

Posted by: Harkonnendog at September 16, 2005 06:15 PM (D+qeF)

25 Sorry Harkdog, but no. The US was founded as an entirely new entity based on principles taken from the Roman republic and Athenian democracy, with a dash of parliamentary procedure and a bi-cameral legislature, and was born as a confederacy which grew into a constitutional federal union of states. Likewise, the British empire was a new entity, born of feudalism, and Rome became an empire after Julius Caesar subjugated lands outside the boundaries of direct Roman control. No Greek but Alexander ever had an empire, and it died with him. You can't compare apples to oranges like that, because there is no direct link from one to the next.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 16, 2005 07:35 PM (0yYS2)

26 Laura beat me to it. Jeez Rusty, if you don't know the word is "Dago," I shudder at what your local slice shop shovels across the counter and says is pizza.

Posted by: TC@LeatherPenguin at September 16, 2005 11:39 PM (kiH79)

27 Beth, you wascal!, WTF are you talking about? Don't be DESPICABLE! by diverging from the point!!!

Posted by: Intolerant Bugs at September 17, 2005 02:02 PM (6Jp/w)

28 Roman Empire almost made it as long as the Chinese. Rome was founded in 753 BC. Roman empire ended in Constanople (Istanbul) in 1453. Looks like the Chinese have them by 10 years acoording to your post. Most conservatives I know, when comparing the US to the Roman empire, aren't doing it as a compliment, or for a love of all things Roman. Most references to Rome, from conservatives, are about the inherent evil and debauchery of that empire and how it relates to modern day liberalism.

Posted by: Chris at September 17, 2005 03:16 PM (M1mOT)

29 I have reservations about the Romans. as a left-handed person, I feel somewhat unconfortable about the Romans' practice of slaughtering left-handed children. But still, they were good architects. And sculptors.

Posted by: Norbert the Gnome at September 17, 2005 08:05 PM (AJeHE)

30 Empires suck

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 18, 2005 12:28 AM (VhNDM)

31 I resemble your racist remarks...damn you!

Posted by: Digger at September 18, 2005 04:32 AM (QgVvl)

32 Why does all this talk of American foreign policy remind me of a penetratingly rancid scene in the film, "Caligula"? "In the name of Rome?!"

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 18, 2005 07:14 AM (VhNDM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
43kb generated in CPU 0.0137, elapsed 0.1154 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1078 seconds, 281 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.