War and Peace

[karlhenning]

Maybe if you let us know what you feel that Mike was saying, Karl. It would really be interesting!

The key is Mike's opening remark, that the Romans were extremely pragmatic; and his comments were about religious toleration, and peacekeeping.  Where bunny took off with "the equivalent of liberation," is a complete and baffling non sequitur.

[MishaK]

No, the German Nazi aggression and racial hatred towards people who are not German is not the same as other people's aggression to others. German racism was unique and different then other forms of Barbarism.

The atrocities carried out by the German Nazis are the worst kind of atrocities carried out ever by one group of people against another.

M, you attempt to level up German brutality with other nations' brutalities, and I will always catch you on this point and prove you wrong. Your attempts to diminish Nazi German barbarism will not be successful.

The only one the Germans have to blame for their dark history is themselves.

No one forced them to commit any crime, they chose to commit them.
And their crimes are the most horrific ever recorded in the history of man kind.

So Nazi Germany stands out as the most brutal and vicious dictatorial nation that committed the worst crimes against humanity in the history of the world.

Allow me to jump in here. The point is not that to diminish the crimes of the nazis. The point is to show that all humans possess the same potential tendencies towards barbarism. There is nothing peculiarly unique to the German genes or psyche that preordained that the holocaust would happen there. Nor are other nations immune to repeating this sort of barbarism only by virtue of being non-German. By treating the holocaust as a a uniquely German phenomenon you allow yourself to become lazy and ignore barbarism when it is perpetrated by others. It would do you well to read the Judt article I linked to above.

That's true, of course. But some questions still remain. Was this a mass phenomenon or just local anomalies? Can the Polish people as a whole be held accountable for helping Germans to annihilate the Jews? What is the difference between comitting crimes under extreme physical and psychological stress and comitting crimes by one's own will or by inflicting that stress on others? Can we equate the executioner (Nazi Germany or Soviet Union) with his victims (Poles and Jews alike)?

That, Florestan, is always the question. I personally contend that collective punishment is categorically wrong becuase there is no such thing as collective guilt that is passed down by blood to the next generation (which isn't to say that living generations shouldn't be sensitive and mindful of the victims of their fathers and forefathers). But ultimately, the question is always to what extent each individual was involved in whatever atrocities and what he or she could have done to prevent them. You can't just put people into categories like Germans=bad, Poles=good. Again, I am not as familiar with the Polish case, but e.g. in Croatia, the Germans installed a Croatian fascist puppet regime under the Ustasha leader Ante Pavelic. This was by no means a broad-based popular anti-semitic movement for which the Croatian population should be blamed - after all they never voted for the guy and without German occupation he wouldn't have been in power. But there was nonetheless a certain level of anti-semitism among the population that allowed these guys to recruit a sufficient number of fellow executioners who helped eliminate some 30,000 Jews in occupied Croatia (which included most of Bosnia for administrative purposes) without material assistance from the Germans. Across occupied Europe there was a fluid line between people coerced into submission by the Nazis and those eager and willing to assist. From the Waldheims, Pavelics and Pétins to lowly volunteer footsoldiers whose names nobody knows or remembers, there was sufficient pro-Nazi sentiment for the occupiers to exploit. Unfortunately, attitudes like those of Saul above, which seek to present the holocaust as a uniquely German perversion, also effectively absolve the Nazis' willing non-German collaborators, who are all too eager for the world to forget their sins. It allows countries like Austria to present themselves as the Nazis' "first victim", which is the biggest load of nonsense ever. (Barenboim once remarked: "The Austrians are the shrewdest people: they have managed to turn Hitler into a German and Beethoven into an Austrian.")

[Ephemerid]

You have a strange idea of what it was like to be conquered by Rome in the ancient world!  Roman conquest was not the equivalent of liberation. 

I don't think Mike (or Cato) was saying that?  

If people would just kiss a bit of Roman a$$, everything was fine.  Nobody is saying that was necessarily *right*.

As far as more specifically anti-semitic laws after the adoption of Christianity as a state religion, well, that says more about certain "Christian" ideas than it does Rome... The Roman Empire griped about Jews not merely being subservient-- that's not anti-semitism.  But then you look at certain sermons by John Chrysostom, THAT is anti-semitism!  

Its been ages since I've read up on this stuff, but originally Christianity was just viewed as another Jewish sect, nothing more and nothing less.  As its adherents grew across the Roman Empire though, it was the Christians who wished to distance themselves from those "Jewish troublemakers."

[knight66]

Welcome back Bunny, I have not seen you here for ages. I am not going to go point through point on this. I thought I made it clear...

The Romans acted in total self interest, certainly they were not intent on liberation. Though that word was used as pretext on occasion, cynically. 'Liberation' was all about increasing their influence.
As I think was also implicit in what I said, they did allow religious freedom with strings and the rubber hit the road where the Jews refused to allow or adopt any Roman gods.
When their self interest was in danger, the Romans acted brutally.
Pax Romana was not a true peace, it was an imposed peace.
The Romans were interested in power and commerce. These were two of the drivers and when they were at their most influential, they were capable of bringing stability to places and an increase in trade....on their own terms.

However, one really bad example was Pergaman. The city was found in Gold and then systematically denuded of its riches until it sank into obscurity and poverty, its public buildings, once the envy of Rome basically fell down as the city no longer had the resources to maintain its fabric. That was all due basically to the successive actions of corrupt Governors and greedy Roman traders who greased the palms of those Governors.
I have read a great deal of ancient history, including the source material in translations. I am under no illusions about the reasons the Romans invaded everywhere within their reach.

As to anti-semitic laws; there were also anti-Christian laws for a time. This was to check what they saw as a danger to stability, it was not a kind of ethnic cleansing. They acted like exceptionally strict parents; defy them and it would not be allowed to stand. Apart from the perceived affront to Rome, it was a matter of policy to ensure any defiance did not breed defiance elsewhere.

Mike

[Ephemerid]

The Romans acted in total self interest, certainly they were not inttent on liberation. Though that word was used as pretext on occasion, cynically. 'Liberation' was all about increasing their influence.

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

[knight66]

Allow me to jump in here. The point is not that to diminish the crimes of the nazis. The point is to show that all humans possess the same potential tendencies towards barbarism. There is nothing peculiarly unique to the German genes or psyche that preordained that the holocaust would happen there. Nor are other nations immune to repeating this sort of barbarism only by virtue of being non-German. By treating the holocaust as a a uniquely German phenomenon you allow yourself to become lazy and ignore barbarism when it is perpetrated by others. It would do you well to read the Judt article I linked to above.

I absolutely agree with this and can see the potential in my own country for people behaving unspeakably to one another in some invented self-justified context. Give such people a framework, such as Islamaphobia and we will see how it affects the white population. I can see that things could get very bad here. If the wrong people are allowed to fan the flames, we will see just how base some of our countrymen can be.

Perhaps it happens easier in Kenya, but it is the same impulses that operate there as here; just they are held in check here for the moment.

Mike

[karlhenning]

. . . people behaving unspeakably to one another in some invented self-justified context. Give such people a framework, such as Islamaphobia and we will see how it affects the white population.

Oh, heavy sigh.  Indeed, even a self-consciously "Christian nation" can sign on to torture and sundry other barbarities.  One's character is expressed as much by what one fails to censure, as what one specifically promotes, sometimes.

[MishaK]

Indeed, even a self-consciously "Christian nation" can sign on to torture and sundry other barbarities. 

"Gott mit Uns"

[Cato]

Reading through "Bunny's" claims earlier makes me wonder where she (?) read such half-truths, or even untruths.

I do not have time to answer every claim about Roman attitudes on religion: "ruthless persecution" simply did not happen.  Scholars estimate that even the persecutions of Christians later on total c. 18 months out of 300 years.  Jews were tolerated in the Roman Empire, despite the misunderstandings of Romans toward them!  e.g. The Romans thought circumcision a violent, barbaric thing to do to a male child, which led them to wonder about other practices in Judaism.

Some scholars also agree that the persecutions of pagans by Christians later on was in fact much more "ruthless" than anything done by the Roman government, or de facto "good ol' boy" persecutions in the opening 3 centuries of the Christian era.

And yes, you can see anti-Semitism quite clearly in the sermons of John Chrysostom.

[Bunny]

 

I don't think Mike (or Cato) was saying that? 

If people would just kiss a bit of Roman a$$, everything was fine.  Nobody is saying that was necessarily *right*.

As far as more specifically anti-semitic laws after the adoption of Christianity as a state religion, well, that says more about certain "Christian" ideas than it does Rome... The Roman Empire griped about Jews not merely being subservient-- that's not anti-semitism.  But then you look at certain sermons by John Chrysostom, THAT is anti-semitism! 

Its been ages since I've read up on this stuff, but originally Christianity was just viewed as another Jewish sect, nothing more and nothing less.  As its adherents grew across the Roman Empire though, it was the Christians who wished to distance themselves from those "Jewish troublemakers."

My point was that "kissing" the Roman ass was extremely onerous.  Everyone who kissed the Nazi ass was labeled a collaborator.  Only consider the imposition of communism in Eastern Europe and the misery that peaceful union created.  Yes, there were states that were allowed to be semi independent, but who now considers that a wonderful solution to the problem of world conflict? 

We (I include myself as well) have a strange capacity for looking at events centuries ago through a very optimistic lens.  We look at the Roman Empire and see the words "Pax Romana" and imagine a great, enlightened era where mankind was ruled by a benign and distant despot.  After the events of my lifetime, I no longer can consider the Roman Empire this way.  I've begun to realize that you cannot impose peace with an army, no matter how many years you spend using that army to "pacify" native populations.  I have no doubt the ancient Romans viewed those pesky Judeans in much the same way we view the conflict in the Middle East.  If only they would just adopt our attitudes of tolerance, equality, democracy, etc., etc., etc...

Could the Roman Empire have been less bloody than the conflicts we have nowadays?  Could the reprisals of the Romans against the barbarians have been less harsh than the reprisals of the Nazi armies or the Japanese Armies during World War 2?  Certainly technology enabled the larger scale of the more recent atrocities.  Could the Roman conquest of Europe have been less bloody or oppressive than the Spanish conquest of the New World?  Was it easier to live in the Roman Empire than in Nazi occupied France?  Did Spain have a better time under Franco than after Franco? 

I cannot suppose that Roman rule required mere pennies and lipservice to guarantee easy sailing on Mare Nostrum.

Welcome back Bunny, I have not seen you here for ages. I am not going to go point through point on this. I thought I made it clear...

The Romans acted in total self interest, certainly they were not intent on liberation. Though that word was used as pretext on occasion, cynically. 'Liberation' was all about increasing their influence.
As I think was also implicit in what I said, they did allow religious freedom with strings and the rubber hit the road where the Jews refused to allow or adopt any Roman gods.
When their self interest was in danger, the Romans acted brutally.
Pax Romana was not a true peace, it was an imposed peace.
The Romans were interested in power and commerce. These were two of the drivers and when they were at their most influential, they were capable of bringing stability to places and an increase in trade....on their own terms.

However, one really bad example was Pergaman. The city was found in Gold and then systematically denuded of its riches until it sank into obscurity and poverty, its public buildings, once the envy of Rome basically fell down as the city no longer had the resources to maintain its fabric. That was all due basically to the successive actions of corrupt Governors and greedy Roman traders who greased the palms of those Governors.
I have read a great deal of ancient history, including the source material in translations. I am under no illusions about the reasons the Romans invaded everywhere within their reach.

As to anti-semitic laws; there were also anti-Christian laws for a time. This was to check what they saw as a danger to stability, it was not a kind of ethnic cleansing. They acted like exceptionally strict parents; defy them and it would not be allowed to stand. Apart from the perceived affront to Rome, it was a matter of policy to ensure any defiance did not breed defiance elsewhere.

Mike

Thanks for the welcome! 

Pergamum is a great example of Roman looting at its worst; I'm reminded of how Hitler managed to steal the Amber Room. 

I agree that just because the Romans were only interested in Power and Commerce (and what more is there?), doesn't mean that their idea of stability was a happy state of being for the rest of the un-italic Empire.  I'm glad you agree about their brutality.  Our main disagreement is the nature of the antisemitic legislation and its significance.

The first anti-semitic legislation on the books was in the Roman books.  They picked out the Jews for special onus after the failure of Bar Kochbar's revolt.  The population was exiled, the Temple was razed, and a temple to Jupiter was erected on the same spot, as was a Temple to Venus at Golgotha (their answer to the Virgin Mary and Christ?).  The Romans then enacted laws forbidding circumcision, the eating of unleavened bread, and in 200 CE, the act of conversion to Judaism (by the Emperor Severus).  That persecution was more along ethnic lines than religious lines because the Romans viewed the Jews as the remnants of a nation.  Circumcision identified a male as a Judean in the public baths and toilets; and the eating of unleavened bread would be equivalent to forbidding Americans to celebrate the 4th of July.  Only after the change of state religion did the laws take on the character of religious discrimination.  At that point, the Romans found themselves worshipping a bunch of Jews, so they had to differentiate among the Jews themselves as to the good (Christian) Jews and the bad (unchristian) Jews. 

My point is not that the Roman laws weren't as onerous until after the adoption of Christianity (although they were quite onerous before), or that we pesky Jews brought it on ourselves by not kissing the Roman ass (another case of blame the victim?), but that antisemitism was legislated in the ancient world, and the Roman legal codes became the basis for the legal codes of Europe.  Thus, antisemitism started within a legal framework and continued to be legal all over the enlightened Christian world of Europe well into the 20th century.  Only consider that Mahler had to convert to Roman Catholicism in order to become the director of the Staatsoper.  That wasn't an amorphous, unlegislated pressure put upon him; it was a legal requirement for the job, and one of the most popular Mayors of Vienna at the turn of the century, Karl Lueger ran on a platform of antisemitism in 1895. 

[Sean]

There is nothing peculiarly unique to the German genes or psyche that preordained that the holocaust would happen there

I'll tell you how it works. The level of moral insight in the various groups or populations or races of the world is about the same, at least most of the time. But the average character of the psychology, personality or psyche of each group is different. And groups like the Germans, Japanese, Cambodians and some Africans have personalities that dispose them towards violence or what the most insightful person would call immorality. It's not that they have any less inherent moral perception, but the overall personalities of their gene pool, subsequently expressed in their cultures also, disposes them in an intemperate direction.

Peoples of the world are as inherently different from each other, on this superficial but crucial level, as one person is from another. Clear?

By the way I'm a keen traveller.

[karlhenning]

Peoples of the world are as inherently different from each other, on this superficial but crucial level, as one person is from another. Clear?

No; for only one thing, the two people who are different from one another, are completely distinct individuals.  For another, a significant fraction of the world's population, are of delightfully mixed heritage;  your odd notion here seems to presuppose a Hitlerian denial of (how's this for an unsavory word?) miscegenation.

By the way I'm a keen traveller.

Still, it hardly seems that you get out nearly enough.

[Bunny]

Reading through "Bunny's" claims earlier makes me wonder where she (?) read such half-truths, or even untruths.

I do not have time to answer every claim about Roman attitudes on religion: "ruthless persecution" simply did not happen.  Scholars estimate that even the persecutions of Christians later on total c. 18 months out of 300 years.  Jews were tolerated in the Roman Empire, despite the misunderstandings of Romans toward them!  e.g. The Romans thought circumcision a violent, barbaric thing to do to a male child, which led them to wonder about other practices in Judaism.

Some scholars also agree that the persecutions of pagans by Christians later on was in fact much more "ruthless" than anything done by the Roman government, or de facto "good ol' boy" persecutions in the opening 3 centuries of the Christian era.

And yes, you can see anti-Semitism quite clearly in the sermons of John Chrysostom.

Are you trying to say that the anti-semitic laws were only on the Roman books for 18 months? Are you trying to say that only the most onerous persecutions happened over a period of 18 months?  Or are you trying to say that over hundreds of years of Roman rule the total amount of time of acts of persecution would only have taken 18 months if done consecutively?

Are you saying that populations weren't annihilated by Roman armies in reprisals against acts of Jewish rebellion, or that these acts were not antisemitic in nature?  Certainly, if the Romans ruthlessly suppressed the Gallic revolts, that must be considered anti-Gallic reprisals.  How is it that in your mind that similar acts in the land of Judea don't also count as being anti-semitic?  Burning homes and public buildings, enslaving and exiling populations don't count as anti-semitic acts?  Why were they done except that the Romans wanted to force Jews to become more Roman than Jewish?  That's pretty ruthless oppression in my opinion.

I don't know what your definition of anti-semitism is, but laws discriminating against Jews have to count.  Just because it became worse later, doesn't mean that it didn't happen earlier.  Anti-semitism cannot be defined as merely aimed at the Jewish religion.  Anti-semitism must also include laws and attitudes targeting Jews on an ethnic basis as well.

[MishaK]

I'll tell you how it works. The level of moral insight in the various groups or populations or races of the world is about the same, at least most of the time. But the average character of the psychology, personality or psyche of each group is different. And groups like the Germans, Japanese, Cambodians and some Africans have personalities that dispose them towards violence or what the most insightful person would call immorality. It's not that they have any less inherent moral perception, but the overall personalities of their gene pool, subsequently expressed in their cultures also, disposes them in an intemperate direction.

Sean, this is the biggest load of bunk you have ever written - and given your usual standard of bunk, that's quite an achievement! This is so gloriously stupid, commenting on it would only raise its stature undeservedly.

Peoples of the world are as inherently different from each other, on this superficial but crucial level, as one person is from another. Clear?

And you seem to think that is genetic?

By the way I'm a keen traveller.

That doesn't help if you lack the wherewithal to process the stimuli to which you would be exposed on your travels.

[karlhenning]

By the way I'm a keen traveller.

That doesn't help if you lack the wherewithal to process the stimuli to which you would be exposed on your travels.

This reminds me so of a delicious exchange in A Fish Called Wanda:

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it.

[Cato]

Are you trying to say that the anti-semitic laws were only on the Roman books for 18 months? Are you trying to say that only the most onerous persecutions happened over a period of 18 months?  Or are you trying to say that over hundreds of years of Roman rule the total amount of time of acts of persecution would only have taken 18 months if done consecutively?

Are you saying that populations weren't annihilated by Roman armies in reprisals against acts of Jewish rebellion, or that these acts were not antisemitic in nature?  Certainly, if the Romans ruthlessly suppressed the Gallic revolts, that must be considered anti-Gallic reprisals.  How is it that in your mind that similar acts in the land of Judea don't also count as being anti-semitic?  Burning homes and public buildings, enslaving and exiling populations don't count as anti-semitic acts?  Why were they done except that the Romans wanted to force Jews to become more Roman than Jewish?  That's pretty ruthless oppression in my opinion.

I don't know what your definition of anti-semitism is, but laws discriminating against Jews have to count.  Just because it became worse later, doesn't mean that it didn't happen earlier.  Anti-semitism cannot be defined as merely aimed at the Jewish religion.  Anti-semitism must also include laws and attitudes targeting Jews on an ethnic basis as well.

I never "try" to say anything.

Please cite the sources for these laws: I will repeat what historians of repute have ascertained, i.e. that Jews were in general tolerated and not actively persecuted in the Roman Empire.  There were two times in the early empire when Jews were supposedly booted out of the city of Rome, once because of a financial scandal, but the sources are unclear if the measures were completely carried out.

So were there exceptions?  Yes, but the loss of the province of Judaea by the Jews was not seen as a religious or racial war by the Romans by any means: you will have to wait for the Christians to take over the empire for that to happen (rf. Orosius who called himself a Christian and a Roman, even when the empire was collapsing in his day.).

The Jewish War was caused by an open refusal to go along with the taxation policies of Rome: the Romans did not invade Judaea because of innate "anti-Semitism," otherwise why would they have waited so long?  So, yes, in some cases religious and racial aspects are not necessarily ascendant in a decision to go to war, to massacre or deport populations.  Sometimes it simply is about obedience to power.

And Jews in Rome itself are described as being very upset by the assassination of Julius Caesar: if they were being treated so shabbily, would they not have rejoiced?

Time's up!

[Sean]

No, what I say is how things are. Don't worry about 'bunk'- you can give some arguments though if you like.

[knight66]

After the Punic wars, to ensure that Carthage could not again threaten the security of Rome, they systematically destroyed the city; "So as not one stone was on another", ploughed the land with salt and moved what little was left of the population. This was all to do with power and nothing to do with religion or ethnicity.

Carthage brought it on itself for deciding to challenge Rome and loosing. The Jews did also bring it on themselves for wanting to lead a life outside of that which Rome prescribed......but no where have I suggested they ought just to have bowed down and sucked it up.

Jews could become Roman citizens with the privileges that entailed. During the time of Augustus one Jewish prince was brought up with the grandchildren of Augustus. He became King of Judea. The action against the Jews was designed to bring them into line, not exterminate them.

I am not suggesting it was appropriate or in any way good. But I do not think the reprisals were aimed at other than imposing their will; just as they did elsewhere.

Mike

[Bunny]

I never "try" to say anything.

Please cite the sources for these laws: I will repeat what historians of repute have ascertained, i.e. that Jews were in general tolerated and not actively persecuted in the Roman Empire.  There were two times in the early empire when Jews were supposedly booted out of the city of Rome, once because of a financial scandal, but the sources are unclear if the measures were completely carried out.

So were there exceptions?  Yes, but the loss of the province of Judaea by the Jews was not seen as a religious or racial war by the Romans by any means: you will have to wait for the Christians to take over the empire for that to happen (rf. Orosius who called himself a Christian and a Roman, even when the empire was collapsing in his day.).

The Jewish War was caused by an open refusal to go along with the taxation policies of Rome: the Romans did not invade Judaea because of innate "anti-Semitism," otherwise why would they have waited so long?  So, yes, in some cases religious and racial aspects are not necessarily ascendant in a decision to go to war, to massacre or deport populations.  Sometimes it simply is about obedience to power.

And Jews in Rome itself are described as being very upset by the assassination of Julius Caesar: if they were being treated so shabbily, would they not have rejoiced?

Time's up!

Racial?  Certainly not as we define racial nowadays which is by skin color.  I think a better comparison would be to ethnic cleansing.  The Romans almost completely cleansed the Middle East of Jews by destroying the institution of the Jewish religion, exiling and enslaving the Priests of the Temple (a separate tribe genetically marked by on the Y chromosome to this day) in 70 AD, and exiling the majority of the population from their homes.  A mere remnant of a proud, independent people was permitted to remain there.  If that's not antisemitism, then what is?   The ancient world is filled with similar examples -- it wasn't the first time the Jews had been exiled from their homeland and the Temple destroyed.  The Babylonians also did it.  Rome was equally brutal against the Carthaginians, to the point of sowing the land with salt to prevent the city from being rebuilt.  The destruction of Troy also has to be counted as ethnic cleansing -- it was a much more brutal world then, the Romans were just more matter of fact about it.

I also don't really understand how you can argue that because the Jews were upset at the assassination of Julius Caesar that is evidence that they were not being treated shabbily in Rome.   I would argue that their upset reflected increased anxiety about how they would be treated by the indigenous population as news spread over the city. 

Certainly one might argue that Jews were treated better by the Romans of the Republic than they were by later Christian Romans.  Caesar was assassinated around 50 years before Christ's birth and the Romans at that time were just a new power only beginning their takeover of the Middle East.  It doesn't mean that under the Empire in the period between 70AD and 300 AD that Jews lived in perfect harmony with the Romans.  It also doesn't mean that the first laws against Jews weren't passed in that period.  If you are at all interested, Abba Eban wrote an excellent history of the Jewish people with a very good summary in the earliest chapters of the anti-semitic legislation passed by the Romans (Heritage: Civilization and the Jews).  I'm sure you can find the book at your library as well as at Amazon.

[MishaK]

No, what I say is how things are. Don't worry about 'bunk'- you can give some arguments though if you like.

Sean, I wanted to say in my previous post that you are a step away from nazism. But in fact you're already there. Your argument is the basic claim of inherent, genetic, racial supremacy. You've just laid out the foundation for the Nuremberg laws. Only you could think that this requires further debate.