The Sorrows Of Empire by Chalmers Johnson
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 02:32
VIEWED: 6083
PAGE 5 of 12
Since some folk didn't catch, or didn't take, the hint.
You DO realize this particular poster drags every thread completely off topic into petty sniping and tit-for-tat nitpicking, yes ?
And you let that happen and even participate.
Instead of discussing what who said, who misquoted who, grammatical or spelling errors, we COULD you know.. be discussing the topic at hand ?
But some folks don't seem to want that, and given the sheer amount of topic derailing, it makes one suspect it might be deliberate.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In the way that an America that had only texas and mexico in would be a continuation of america, and i'm not saying that won't happen.
And stop with the indignant tone, I thought I made it painfully clear that I knew this, since I do have a degree in ancient and medieval history, it stands to reason I did study a little bit about rome.
Territorially speaking, the byzantine empire, which spoke greek, was like the US of Texas and Mexico, with a few other states in the beginning before they flaked off.
That's not a stable continuation of the US from a NY perspective.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think that Rome is totally of topic of "Sorrows of Empire" since we haven't read the book, anything empire should be okay.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, i wasn't goin off about discussing Rome, any discussion of empire is gonna go there cause overall Rome was the most well known, longest lasting, and most successful empire in history.
That's not to say it was a good idea, mind you.
I am just getting frustrated that every single thread some folk drag it into a petty spat of nitpicking, which destroys its integrity and the interest of folks in the topic - or resort to spouting a party line, over and over, and insulting anyone who deviates, destroying its integrity and the interest of folks in the topic.
It's happening often enough to become very frustrating to people wishing to see an honest, rational discourse on a topic.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Finn, anything you have to say is always interesting, even when I disagree with it, or it seems off-topic. Feel free to post at will on any thread I start. Really, a history expert's voice is never out of place in this kind of discussion.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
it occurred to me that I’m hijacking your thread and you don't like it. My apologies. .
Back to your regularly scheduled programming... I won’t interject anymore discussion of Roman history.
Karp eh deeum Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I don't think that Rome is totally of topic of "Sorrows of Empire" since we haven't read the book, anything empire should be okay.
Verbose Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think this bears repeating and I would appreciate elucidation.
I'm saying, specifically, we have recently made, and are making, some very republic-to-empire decisions, and some other fall-of-rome decisions.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym
I think I enumerated them
But in general
1. extended executive power, marginalizing the senate, silencing opposition, republican collapse.
2. limiting freedoms, heavy spending, over 50% taxes, perpetual enemies, perpetual war, imperial collapse.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thank you, Chris. You couldn’t flatter me more by calling me a Roman history expert, but I’m far from an expert. I’m widely read on the topic, sure, but Roman history is enormous, given the shear extent, both spatially and temporally that it existed and I’ve never had the time to invest in it enough to grasp more then a rudiment of that knowledge. But I’ll probably enjoy studying it all my life and never know it all.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, anything you have to say is always interesting, even when I disagree with it, or it seems off-topic. Feel free to post at will on any thread I start. Really, a history expert's voice is never out of place in this kind of discussion.
The Roman Empire has always been the principle example of hegemonic power and Political debates have often strayed towards a comparison between the Fall of Rome, or the the Augustan Peace and modern US politics as a criticism of the US political or cultural hegemony. But most of the time these are contrived comparisons. My original post was a brief retelling of the Second Punic War and how one could make broad comparisons of Carthage’s occupation of the Italian peninsula to the some Democrats “cut and run” policies on Iraq and then use that to draw my own political conclusions, which undoubted most of the anti-war camp would immediately disagree with, thereby showing how tenuous it is to attempt to draw conclusions from broad analogies with ancient states to modern affairs without careful analysis of the underlying details.
But thinking back to it, I don’t think anyone would actually get it. The people who wanted to see that analogy would say it was correct; the people who didn’t, would say that I’m “cheerleading” for Bush, all without any consideration for whether these history would really be compared that way. People prefer their popular myths and ignorance to actual historical debate, since making true historical comparisons is often difficult and requires a degree of pedantry that frequently detracts from the fundamental intent behind politics, the persuasion of others to ones own policy. I don’t mean that in a belittling way. It’s just the way politics is and probably the way it has always been. We should strive that history not be that way, though that is often a loosing battle. History has always been molded by the political landscape. For a long time, people in the West referred to the Eastern Roman Empire as the Byzantine Empire, and that is still the case today, though most historians today (thankfully) will quickly tell you that “Byzantine” is a derogatory applied to the Eastern Roman Empire not a correct characterization; it is not different from the Roman Empire and should not be viewed that way. In fact, it is Western cultural prejudices that lead academics to view the Eastern Roman Empire as “Byzantine” instead of Roman.
Byzantine has a negative connotation that most people don’t recognize today, but academics in the 16th-18th century certainly would have. Byzantine means overly elaborate or fake. It means corrupt and unstable. The fact is, however, that the “Byzantine” Empire, throughout the Medieval period, was far more stable and less corrupt then other Europe or Middle Eastern States. And really it was a “nation” long before the concept of “nation” existed, that sought to employ diplomacy over war, and therefore was really way ahead of its time, or perhaps way behind. The Eastern Roman Empire was, as it had always been, militarily, politically and culturally far more powerful then its surrounding states. This was resented by these neighboring states, in the same way the Roman state had always been resented as a hegemonic power, much as the US is resented as hegemonic today. The history of the Roman Empire as told by many of its critics is a distortion of reality, contrived comparison and prejudice. (That’s not to say that Rome wasn’t, by our standards, a totalitarian militant state; but certainly most of the others were much worse.) Some day in the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT- send me some of these links that refute the biblical accounts, so that i may research them myself. i understand the Israelites have a bias, but also think you are denying the nature of humanity millennia ago; if Darwin is correct, when did Man become civilized in your opinion? whos to say we are any more civilized today?
i am perfectly aware that Judiasm is pre-dated by many pagan beliefs. what you fail to understand is that Genesis 6, the Sumerian cuniform tablets, the greek and egyptian multideities all tell the same story; which is that superhuman entities, ie angels, descended unto early Man and forever changed our course and destiny. the Bible simply tells the story from covenant people of the creator God(and if youll remember, the Jews were constantly defiant); you might argue that this belief has been collectively a negetive experience on humanity, but you have no way to prove that; its the old shoulda-woulda-coulda excuse... but knowing Mans savage nature, which contradicts the messages of "God", id like to hear the arguement how ultimate freedom would be a benefit a society; i think the Roman empire is a pretty clear example. if i recall, you said this same thing, in so many words, in another thread. most importanly though, Christ was the fullfillment of Jewish "law", and was God manifest. what is so objectionable or heinous about Jesus' messages? i think Christian theologians have sufficiently made a case for the legitmacy of the NT accounts. i think that should be considered
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME