Evolution in Action
In the novel, "Oath of Fealty", about the war between the Arcology of Todos Santos and the city of Los Angeles, the inhabitants of the arcology adopt the above catchphrase after some anti-arcology types try to plant fake bombs to demonstrate the fragility of the arcology, and end up dying as a result of their attempt to thwart the arcology's defenses.
The phrase lept to mind the other day while I was watching the History channel distort... I mean relate, the Boudiccan revolt.
First, bear in mind that I'm of anglo-saxon/Irish/Welsh ancestry, so any bias i have should be on the side of the Brits.
The narrator tried his best to make it look like a struggle for freedom on the part of the Iceni, and a struggle for power on the part of the Romans. To portray Boudicca as a valiant underdog, and Suetonius as a heartless killer.
However, Boudicca was a queen, and the Iceni were a warrior culture, not exactly noted for being nice, even before the Romans arrived. There's more reason to think that Boudicca was fighting for power every bit as much as the Romans were.
Even by the History Channel's account, during the revolt, Boudicca viciously sacked the 3 most prosperous cities in the British Isles. Prosperous cities, centers of trade. Important to remember that. She cruelly murdered everyone in the 3 towns, burning them to the point where a layer of ash marks the location to this day.
Her cause was abuse of her and her daughters after the death of her husband, excessive taxes, and the loss of her kingdom's independence.
The first is legitimate, and Catus was, by all accounts, a deficit-spending tax-collecting pig.
However, the Romans *had* extended loans to the Iceni, which they called in upon the king's (Boudicca's husband) death. The Romans, due to Roman law and tradition, there being no male heir anyway, pretty much annexed the Iceni kingdom.
But, here's the point that's sometimes glossed over; under Roman occupation, as was the case with most placed occupied by Rome, there was trade and prosperity. You had the native people's fighting, not just for their former independence, but for the fruits of that trade, as evidenced by all 3 towns being sacked before being destroyed.
A small, disciplined force of Roman soldiers, the result of centuries of civilization, badly defeated a warrior force 5 to 25 times their size. Yes, the warrior force was thoroughly mixed; men, women, old, young, against a force entirely made up of male chauvinist pigs. Yes, the warrior force was less well armored, less well armed, and less trained and disciplined than the Romans. THAT is the fault of their culture; why should it be considered as a negative against the defending Romans, whose culture provided the training, armor and arms?
The reason I mention this, is the reasons why I'm on the Romans' side in this. I believe the Romans represent civilization. The Iceni were in a cultural dead end; the entire cultures of the British Isles, and of the parts of Europe conquered by Rome, were already in decline. Part of the reason Suetonius was on campaign in Briton was because the natives were still picking fights with one another and with the colonial Romans, which not only causes unrest, not only costs money to put down, but interfered with the peaceful trading going on.
Flash forward about 16-1700 years. Can you see the parallels? Advanced civilizations from Europe begin colonizing the Americas. The natives don't approve, big surprise. Like the Romans, the Europeans made allies of some natives, and, with their help, conquered others. There was a large technological and cultural disparity in both instances. Where the natives traded peacefully with the invading Europeans, there was prosperity. Where they struggled for power over territory, they lost and suffered.
I believe many here will disapprove of, and disagree with my stand that the Romans advanced civilization by this non-Objectivist method. But, I submit, that they were Objectivists in that they believed in the real world and the necessity of dealing with it as it is, pragmatically. While the Romans spread by conquest, the preferred trade to conflict, when possible. They concerned themselves with the prosperity of Rome, and thereby provided prosperity for the conquered territories (which were usually left to rule themselves, so long as the tribute came in).
Proof of this is the Dark Ages; they came after Rome fell, not while Rome conquered.
Similarly, when and where the native tribes traded peaceably with the colonial Europeans, everyone prospered. When and where they struggled to displace the more advanced and robust cultures of the colonials, no one did. And, overall, the civilizations of the Americas had been in decline long before the colonials show up.
(Now, I mention "colonials"; I don't include the Spanish conquerors, because they were barely above barbarians themselves, and they came from a totalitarian culture, and came to loot, unlike the colonials.)
Anyway, this became an essay when I just wanted to make a few observations for people to (strike) freak out about (/strike) consider and discuss.
The phrase lept to mind the other day while I was watching the History channel distort... I mean relate, the Boudiccan revolt.
First, bear in mind that I'm of anglo-saxon/Irish/Welsh ancestry, so any bias i have should be on the side of the Brits.
The narrator tried his best to make it look like a struggle for freedom on the part of the Iceni, and a struggle for power on the part of the Romans. To portray Boudicca as a valiant underdog, and Suetonius as a heartless killer.
However, Boudicca was a queen, and the Iceni were a warrior culture, not exactly noted for being nice, even before the Romans arrived. There's more reason to think that Boudicca was fighting for power every bit as much as the Romans were.
Even by the History Channel's account, during the revolt, Boudicca viciously sacked the 3 most prosperous cities in the British Isles. Prosperous cities, centers of trade. Important to remember that. She cruelly murdered everyone in the 3 towns, burning them to the point where a layer of ash marks the location to this day.
Her cause was abuse of her and her daughters after the death of her husband, excessive taxes, and the loss of her kingdom's independence.
The first is legitimate, and Catus was, by all accounts, a deficit-spending tax-collecting pig.
However, the Romans *had* extended loans to the Iceni, which they called in upon the king's (Boudicca's husband) death. The Romans, due to Roman law and tradition, there being no male heir anyway, pretty much annexed the Iceni kingdom.
But, here's the point that's sometimes glossed over; under Roman occupation, as was the case with most placed occupied by Rome, there was trade and prosperity. You had the native people's fighting, not just for their former independence, but for the fruits of that trade, as evidenced by all 3 towns being sacked before being destroyed.
A small, disciplined force of Roman soldiers, the result of centuries of civilization, badly defeated a warrior force 5 to 25 times their size. Yes, the warrior force was thoroughly mixed; men, women, old, young, against a force entirely made up of male chauvinist pigs. Yes, the warrior force was less well armored, less well armed, and less trained and disciplined than the Romans. THAT is the fault of their culture; why should it be considered as a negative against the defending Romans, whose culture provided the training, armor and arms?
The reason I mention this, is the reasons why I'm on the Romans' side in this. I believe the Romans represent civilization. The Iceni were in a cultural dead end; the entire cultures of the British Isles, and of the parts of Europe conquered by Rome, were already in decline. Part of the reason Suetonius was on campaign in Briton was because the natives were still picking fights with one another and with the colonial Romans, which not only causes unrest, not only costs money to put down, but interfered with the peaceful trading going on.
Flash forward about 16-1700 years. Can you see the parallels? Advanced civilizations from Europe begin colonizing the Americas. The natives don't approve, big surprise. Like the Romans, the Europeans made allies of some natives, and, with their help, conquered others. There was a large technological and cultural disparity in both instances. Where the natives traded peacefully with the invading Europeans, there was prosperity. Where they struggled for power over territory, they lost and suffered.
I believe many here will disapprove of, and disagree with my stand that the Romans advanced civilization by this non-Objectivist method. But, I submit, that they were Objectivists in that they believed in the real world and the necessity of dealing with it as it is, pragmatically. While the Romans spread by conquest, the preferred trade to conflict, when possible. They concerned themselves with the prosperity of Rome, and thereby provided prosperity for the conquered territories (which were usually left to rule themselves, so long as the tribute came in).
Proof of this is the Dark Ages; they came after Rome fell, not while Rome conquered.
Similarly, when and where the native tribes traded peaceably with the colonial Europeans, everyone prospered. When and where they struggled to displace the more advanced and robust cultures of the colonials, no one did. And, overall, the civilizations of the Americas had been in decline long before the colonials show up.
(Now, I mention "colonials"; I don't include the Spanish conquerors, because they were barely above barbarians themselves, and they came from a totalitarian culture, and came to loot, unlike the colonials.)
Anyway, this became an essay when I just wanted to make a few observations for people to (strike) freak out about (/strike) consider and discuss.
So, too, with the Romans, do we confuse objective law with "Objectivist" law. The laws were all written down, true enough. They were uniformly enforced, without a doubt: no mercy. That objectivity alone was enough for Ayn Rand in her interview with Henry Mark Holzer on "Objective Law." And that much is acceptable.
In the introductory essay to "For the New Intellectual" Rand easily glosses Rome as the "inheritor" of Greek culture. In fact, Rome raped and looted Greece, emptying whole towns such as Corinth, slaughtering the adult males and carrying off the survivors to be slaves in Rome. You take the bad with the good in history and do not project the present onto the past. I can accept that, also.
I have published over a dozen articles about ancient history, though only one on Roman events centered on Cato the Younger "Cato Uticensis." Culturally, Rome was no different from China or the Aztecs in having merchants, but not honoring them. This is just plain wrong:
"While the Romans spread by conquest, the preferred trade to conflict, when possible. They concerned themselves with the prosperity of Rome, and thereby provided prosperity for the conquered territories (which were usually left to rule themselves, so long as the tribute came in)."
It is true that -after- conquest, a city was free to run its internal affairs, as long as they did not conflict with Rome's intentions. Perhaps a hundred cities struck their own coins in bronze, for instance. However, Roman culture was entirely about conquest and tribute. When a merchant was successful, he turned the daily affairs over to his slaves and freeman and retired to the country to be a gentleman farmer. Commerce was dirty. Conquest was heroic. Bringing loot home to Rome was the goal, the acknowledgment, and the reward.
"... I submit, that they were Objectivists in that they believed in the real world and the necessity of dealing with it as it is, pragmatically."
Pragmatism is range-of-the-moment and non-objective. If you mean "practical" then again (as Ayn Rand quipped) that depends on what one wishes to practice. Their engineering feats are notable, but in the ancient Greek and Hellenistic cities, similar achievements were known. Polycrates, the tyrant at Samos from whom Pythagoras fled, had his engineers build a tunnel through a mountain by beginning at opposite ends and meeting in the middle. Romans only continued such projects, but did nothing to fundamentally improve on them. They were no more "Objectivist" than were the Aztecs. Consider Tenochtitlan. The Romans were no more "Objectivist" for their practicality than was Plato for his rationalism.
I published an article about the Great Medieval Fairs of Europe. We Objectivists tend to denigrate the Middle Ages unfairly. It was a time of intense astronomy and applied mechanics. But they were not Objectivists just because they had some practical successes, admirable as those must remain.
Boudicca and her daughter were hauled from their homes, stripped naked, flogged and raped. You called it "abused" as if the Romans drew mustaches on their pictures. No wonder they pillaged and destroyed Camulodunum, Londonium, and Verulamium (Colchester, London, and St. Albans). No British queen would have done less at any time in history... including today...
For my bachelor's (2008) I had a class in "History of China." It is the same story: good times, bad times; enlightenment, ignorance...
One of my favorite books is about a merchant in Cairo 1600. It was an enlightened time. A Bosnian slave woman sued in court three men who attempted to cut her out of a deal that she arranged with her owner. No free woman, no noble woman in London or Paris of the time had the same rights under law. Do I endorse Islamic culture as superior? Of course not! Times and places are as they are and we accept them as we do. It starts and ends there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGy...
XD