i've been watching HBO's 'Rome' & things haven't changed that much

Caesar running an illegal war and taking over the town, rampant alcoholism, imperialism, political corruption, infiltration of the government by religious cults, adultery, classism, wretched poverty alongside wretched wealth, subjugation of women, sexual decadence, slavery used to produce wealth for elites, social unrest, upheaval, etc.

the more things change, the more they stay the same.

last night. I couldn't bring myself to watch. Too many parallels to the current misadministration I'm sure!

I started watching it and its pretty exciting actually. You can see that the "Christian" Right isn't so different from a number of other groups who pushed through an agenda based on faith.

has changed in the government's response to areas that have a high African-American population.

Roman institutions with us as our civilizations developed. First the patriarchism, the class system of an elite class who lives on the labor of the masses, the culture of war and conquest, the idea that you have to tame nature and destroy it instead of living in harmony with it.

Christian religious practices are based on Roman rituals without the blood. The shape of our churches are similar to the temples. Catholics still use Latin. There have been many cultures who honored women as equals and practiced commnunism, however, they were conquered by the Romans and their cultures were destroyed.

people who were down below in the square cheering him.

It was just like the Pope standing on high before the people in Vatican Square.

We even commented on it at the time--"looks like the Pope."


The more things change, etc.

Actually Christian church shapes come from another Roman institution - the law court or basilica. Several years ago I read an interesting book, When Women Were Priests, which, among others, advanced a theory that in the early Christian era some women had power and authority because religious services took place in houses, which were the domain of women, being private space. Once churches began to be purpose built, and took the shape of the law courts - which were venues for men because they were public venues, women lost out.

I said temples because I didn't want to go into explaining the whole basilica thing, although many churches in Italy are still called basilicas like St. Peter's in the Vatican.

Last night at the Joker household we settled in to watch "Caligula" (director's cut) followed by toxic dreams.

Yep. Nothing's changed that much.

Same fights over and over and over and over again.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/empirerising/

Well worth reading if you haven't already (5 parts, last was Nov 7th 2004).

Just two examples of the differences between then and now:

1) Even at the height of the Roman Empire, Rome itself was so lawless that rich men, crossing the Forum at night, would go accompanied by 20 or 30 bodyguards. There was no police force as we understand it. Modern-day policing began in the early 1800s in London.

2) The average life expectancy in ancient Rome, as in just about EVERY civilization in the past was around 30 or 35. Thanks to the Industrial Revolution, life expectancy began to rise in Western Europe in the 1800s, reaching 55 by 1910, and of course reaching the mid-70s by now.

I know that a tendency developed in the 20th century, which remains as strong as ever, for people to feel it wise or intelligent to say that nothing ever changes, that society was, is and ever will be hopeless. This pose is not wise or intelligent. It's not even "progressive." How can we honestly make any attempt to reform and improve society if we don't believe that it has ever been done before? Doesn't an attitude of universal pessimism eventually lead to a do-nothing conservatism? To a belief that injustice is the "natural" state of humanity?

If "nothing ever changes" wouldn't that mean that you would live just as happily (or unhappily) in ancient Rome as in modern-day America? I don't know about you, but I'd find life without refrigeration, air conditioning, central heating, plumbing, running hot water, washing machines, modern medicine and the Internet to be a living hell. (It would be hell enough just to live one hundred years ago. Anyone else see the reality program called "1900" on PBS?)

----
Most of us good people are more than willing to praise and appreciate improvements in other people: it's all about progress, not perfection. We realize such an attitude is healthy for ourselves also; it does no good to be constantly beating up on ourselves. But for some reason, when it comes to Humanity in general, too many people have an inability to give credit where credit is due. Guess what people, humanity has improved life for itself. And it is not somehow "wrong" to recognize that fact!

Yes, it's good to acknowledge the good and give ourselves a pat on the back for the improvements we've seen and carried out. But arguably, the myth of progress may very well be just that.

Human nature and the will to power haven't changed. The corrupting influence of unbridled power has not changed. The destructive poison of religiously sanctioned ignorance and superstition hasn't changed. The average life expectancy for the poor of the world has not changed significantly. That being said, yes. I do agree the emergence of the nation state, the enlightenment and the industrial revolution have benefited many -- but at what cost?

We are entering a period of global climate change and social fragmentation as a direct result of unparalleled and unchecked corporate greed and hubris. Will the sharply ascending scale of human suffering be offset by our so called "progress"?

global climate change and other environmental problems are the most pressing issues that need to be addressed today.

I do still think that the increase in average life expectancy is THE strongest proof of progress. Again, for most of history in EVERY civilization on EVERY continent, life expectancy was 30 or 35. The fact that it is now in the 70s in North America and Europe should count for something when my European ancestors used to die in their early 30s. I don't have the statistics, but I'd bet life expectancy in Latin America has risen above the early-30s historical standard. It certainly has risen above that base line in many countries in Asia that have built greater prosperity for themselves over the past 50 years or so (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, now even places like Malaysia and Indonesia also.)

I appreciate your response, but again I suggest that a pessimistic, nothing-changes attitude about human history must inevitably lead to a do-nothing, injustice-accepting conservatism. You yourself stated that the "will to power" hasn't changed, echoing consciously or unconsciously one of Nietzche's most fascist of ideas. If history remains merely the history of "will to power," can the concepts of justice, equal rights, or the general welfare mean anything at all? Should we all just pack it in and become Gordon "Greed is Good" Geckos? Are progressives simply delusional?

And once more: just as we are willing to recognize improvement in others and in ourselves, why are we often so unwilling to recognize improvement in the state of humanity as well?

of course many advances have been made medically, scientifically, and in innumerable ways.

The point was that absolute power still corrupts absolutely.

Greed, corrupt leaders, and a state rotting from the inside will ultimately fall. Just like the Roman Republic did after 400 years of domination.

We need to get our act together in this country--and fast, because we are heading down the same path and the markers are clear.

We tend to make bold declarative statements around here. It's fun and we can get away with it for effect! :-) But yeah, I agree. I doubt anyone means literally "nothing" has changed. The_Spectator (above) has a good point. If longevity is a measure of social progress, then we've certainly progressed.

But on a deeper level, we haven't taken the necessary evolutionary leap beyond the power/dominion based model we got from our limited understanding of evolutionary biology -- the law of the jungle, as it's known. Fact is that in nature, survival is as often dependent on cooperation between species and individuals for their mutual benefit.

We need to dump the "I got mine" mentality that equates individual success with real strength and the right to power. That's the very thinking that enables the "Gordon Geckos" of the world. It's a flawed vision of how the things work anyway. No one can control their own reality for very long in a personal bubble of self-satisfaction. Soon Reality comes and cracks open that particular egg.

Just an opinion though...

B-)

men, which is a cultural institution that we got from the Romans along with engineering. Now it's time to let women run things or at least have an equal say in how things are run.

One of the arguments I used to get from guys was that they were entitled to run things because they had to go to war. Well, that isn't true anymore. So guys it's time to hand the scepter and crown over.

And that's a fact.

The United States has been an aggressive empire with little regard for human rights or democracy (where it suited our purposes) since the end of WWII. Here it is, the decline of the empire and most folks are just figuring out what the deal has been all along. The empire of America has always been a well kept secret. It would seem that it's over before it started, but that isn't even remotely true.

When I lived in South America in the forties and fifties, America was always considered an imperialistic power, with no argument from any other nationals (other than Americans)either. Ask the Canadians sometime what they really think of us.

I lived, worked and traveled all over East and SE Asia for almost seven years during the nineties, and the American imperial agenda was certainly no secret anywhere I went.

:smoke:

Ceasar was a populist reformer, who like those before him who had the same ideas, was killed for his very mild, mild reforms.

It reads as if he and the Gracchi were the Kennedy brothers or something.

His ideas and pursuits to improve the condition and prosperity of Rome's poor is what brought about the emnity of the staunch conservatives of the time. And this enmity is what brought about the civil war.