Give and Inch; Take a Mile

[DYB-Mike]

Recovering from Pinewood Derby Day!

 

The Scout, to some of your points:

 

Romes collapse had little to do with cultural change. Rome absorbed the Greek states in the later days of the republic and, while adopting aspects of Greek culture to compliment or enhance its own inherent national traits, Rome continued on almost two more centuries of expansion before leveling off. The granting of citizenship I mentioned was primarily to expand the tax base but at least it gave some benefits to peoples who had been living as Romans for centuries. Barbarian immigration actually helped Rome stave off collapse, as these peoples, now perceiving that they had a stake in the empire, became the first lines of defense against external enemies. Romes mistake with these peoples was that they failed to fully enfranchise them and through taxation bordering on extortion and legal inequality turned, in many cases, willing would-be citizens into enemies. We could learn something from this as we try to deal with our own immigration debacle.

 

When the end came for Rome it was more due to economic factors such as currency debasement, rampant inflation, excessive taxation for military purposes, and high unemployment through the proliferation of slave labor. Rome, in its days of greatness, actually thrived on cultural assimilation.

 

My comment on Jefferson was more to point out the value of this modern history of which you speak. I dont know whats so modern about it these facts have always been there, it just that now they are focused upon to, in my humble opinion, provoke thought and add dimension to events and personages. In Jeffersons case, Im surprised a man as deep and brilliant as he could not have a feeling of hypocrisy when he wrote all men are created equal, especially in the context of his relationship with Sally Hemings, contemporary British anti-slavery legal rulings and a budding British abolitionist movement.

 

I find this three-dimensional history more enlightening than the one-dimensional parade of dates and facts that was a history class when I was in school. The addition of a focus on diversity is another aspect of this. My 5th grade son still studies the Pilgrims and learns about the first Thanksgiving, but now he also learns about the Wampanoag lived. I cant see anything wrong with that; it puts the times and environment of the Pilgrim Fathers in better context.

 

As to America in a thousand years if we live to the spirit of words such as all men are created equal and give your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free, then we have a good chance to survive as a great civilization for a thousand years, but if those words only pertain to white Europeans as you seem to indicate then I dont share your optimism.

 

Like Skeptic, I intend on calling it a day with this thread as we have strayed far from topic and even farther from scouting, but Ill end with this: If 2,000 years ago pagan Greeks and Romans were not willing to open their homes, minds and hearts to some traveling strangers, Jews no less (future members of the Old World antagonisms club), who were talking about something called the Good News, then I guess we wouldnt have any Christian traditions to talk about.

 

YIS

Mike

 

 

[evmori]

GW,

I think we do that to be politically correct and as far as I'm concerned, being politically correct is usually wrong.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[TheScout]

I think your analysis of Rome is flawed. The early Roman Republican extensions of citizenship were greatly different than the mass grantings to the Germanic barbarians in the later period. The Latins of Italy and the classical Greeks assimilated quite well as their established cultures fit the Romans quite well. The same can not be said of the Germans. Though many wanted to be part of the Roman greatness they did not have the same civic loyalty to Rome as existed in the old days. This is Gibbons main argument in his famous, Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.

 

Far from barbarian immigration staving off defeat I would say it probably contributed. German components of the Roman armies were often of dubious loyalty. Civic virtue again decayed as Romans paid the Germans to serve in their armies for them. The final Western emperor, was toppled by his own German army led by German officers.

 

Though your economic points have validity and can not be thrown out. You too easily throw out barbarian incursions as a cause of increasing Roman weakness. I can not see this later Empire period immigration policy as a model for ours?

 

I do not understand why Jefferson's relations are important. They are a footnote of history. They do not matter. They are about as important as his favorite dinner meal to the story of the American republic unless one is trying to paint a picture of hypocrisy.

 

I also don't see your vision of America in a thousand years. I guess America would exist under your model of increasing immigration and multiculturalism, but that is not the America that was the dream of the Founding Fathers.

[DYB-Mike]

Im gonna regret this but I couldnt let the Roman stuff go.

 

their established cultures fit the Romans quite well. The rude Roman shepherds and the sophisticated Greeks fit quite well? Eventually they did but not right away. Conservative Romans looked down on some aspects of Greek culture as effeminate and even went so far as to enact laws to keep these Greek influences at bay. There may have been more of a kinship between the traditional Roman of the early Republic and the barbarian tribesman of later times but of course the traditional Roman had become more sophisticated through cultural assimilation by the time the barbarians became a real issue.

 

The Feoderati system of granting land to potential enemies in return for military service had been in use with much success since the Republic. In The Army of the Caesars Michael Grant speaks of the forces used by Julian the Apostate to win the battle of Argentorate as displaying amply that there was nothing degenerate or disloyal about the massive Germanized Roman armies of these later imperial times.

 

I had stated that the Romans had mistreated these barbarian immigrants. Please investigate the events leading up to the catastrophic (for the Romans) battle of Hadrianopolis and you will see that it was Roman mistreatment of the Goths, through such means as withholding food and attempted assassination, that lead to the revolt of these immigrants.

 

In my humble opinion had Rome used these barbarian immigrants more effectively things may have been different, but due to the economic factors I had previously cited and political instability after the breakdown of Diocletians Tetrachy system of government, Rome didnt have the ability to really deal successfully with this situation.

 

My comment about learning from the Roman barbarian immigration experience was not to emulate the Romans, but to be pragmatic: people want to come here (the United States) because they see wealth, opportunity, a vibrant culture, and a lot more freedom than in most places. The majority are willing to work, pay taxes and defend the country in return for acceptance and respect. They want to come here and are using any means possible, even at the risk of death, to get here. Our current immigration system cannot cope with the current influx and needs to be fixed. Ill admit I dont have an answer but building walls to keep out potential loyal and contributing citizens is certainly not the answer.

 

And as far as cultural assimilation and acceptance, the Romans were able to borrow from the Greeks and others and still be Roman and continue on their path of greatness. One might say that it is when the dominant power refuses to accept and enfranchise its subject peoples that problems arise. I suppose we should be thankful for Britains careless attitude towards its American colonies.

 

 

[TheScout]

I do not see your enthusiasm for the feoderati system, basically a policy of subsidizing whole barbarian tribes- as you call them potential enemies. The granting of large areas of territory to them only hurt the economy of the empire more, taking even more areas off the tax roles. And in the end, we know where the real loyalty of these people lay, to their individual tribes, not the Roman state. The granting of these territories to them was the exact opposite of an assimilation policy.

 

Though as you point out, some of the Germanized armies the Romans field fought well. The larger question is why did Western Rome need to field such armies in the first place. The real problem was the lack of a professional citizen army as existed in the East - a large reason why Byzantium far outlived Rome.

 

You correctly point out the Goths were "mistreated" before Adrianople. Again however, this is only a symptom of a larger policy. Buying off immigrants to win their support with entitlements . . . this sounds a bit familar. Sometimes governments can not meet their obligations. Loyal citizens then don't make war. Look at the most famous Gothic leader, Alaric. A general in Roman service, he sought promotions at the change of emperors and was frustrated with the use of his forces in battle, so he marched on Rome, sacking the city for the first time in centuries. Often these tribes waged open war against one another within the Roman state.

 

Your vision of a Roman empire more effectively integrated the barbarians is flawed and comes from and individualistic 21st century perspective. In that time loyalty to the tribal nation was much more important and the individual common barbarian was not seeking to be Roman.

 

I think building walls could be an answer. Nobody is suggesting stopping immigration, just controlling it. I would suggest the Emergency Quota Act of 1924 as a model, but we will never see it with the current political climate.

 

Cultural assimilation and acceptance. But imposed cultural uniformity is another. Look at England which successfully anglicized the rest of Britain making Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Northern Ireland all basically- English for all intensive purposes (I guess the Irish successfully resisted). Or the French which consolidated the Alsations, Bretons, Normans, etc. all into the French state. Spain did the same thing. Remember it even expelled its Muslims and Jews. All those states have lasted a long time . . .

 

And as far as cultural assimilation and acceptance, the Romans were able to borrow from the Greeks and others and still be Roman and continue on their path of greatness. One might say that it is when the dominant power refuses to accept and enfranchise its subject peoples that problems arise. I suppose we should be thankful for Britains careless attitude towards its American colonies.

[DYB-Mike]

I believe the early Roman state was built by the assimilation of tribes first Italic, then Celtic (Gaul, Spain and Britain). Then add the former independent states (Carthage, Egypt, the Greek states, etc.) that Rome conquered and absorbed and welded into a powerful state loyal to the central authority of Rome. If tribal or civic loyalties could not have been overcome, or at least subordinated, then how could there have been a Roman Empire in the first place? Peace and prosperity are pretty strong motivators.

 

At any rate, as Skeptic said, This debate never be settled to the satisfaction of all.

 

And I wouldnt tell a Scotsman hes been Anglicized or hell throw the Stone of Scone at you!

 

YIS

Mike

 

[TheScout]

Chances are you would tell that Scotsman he's been Anglicized in English. If you told him in Scottish, he wouldn't understand.