Comments

Beautiful...absolutely beautiful post! It it the greatest leaders among us who encourage us in difficult times, reminding us of the past in order to realize the present and the glories of the imminent future. This too shall pass. Thank you, TP, for the reminder. The summer has been most enjoyable!

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 16, 2008 9:56 AM

I think it is brilliant to look back. I often look in absolute awe at the achievements of our forefathers. I look at some of the magnificence in buildings erected many centuries ago in Britain and I marvel at the perfect geometry. I gaze adoringly at how everything looks perfectly square … and then I look at my own DIY skills and how I still have trouble putting up a simple shelf that is level!

So looking back is good … On the other hand I heard the tale last Sunday of 87 year old farmer John Evans who still ploughed his land behind Shire Horses in Lincolnshire, England. He had done this job for 70 years. Stuart, the person telling us the story said he watched in awe as John Evans ploughed a perfectly straight line and was amazed how he made it look so easy. Stuart asked if he could have a go. John allowed him to plough and the resultant ploughed furrow looked to quote Stuart ‘Like the hind leg of a dog’

When Stuart asked ‘old man’ John why his furrow was not straight John replied;

‘The trouble is you are looking where you have been …. not where you are going.’

I can see the merit in looking back and looking forward … and also of course where we are now is a wonderful place too. Like all things I guess it is having the right balance of where we look for our inspiration

Life is good … has summer ended? … Here in England maybe it was that Tuesday afternoon a couple of weeks ago … :- )

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 16, 2008 10:32 AM

I appreciate your sensibleness. There's nothing like ignorance of history to start panic. Of course, people can draw their own conclusions about what happened to Rome. I don't foresee any VisiCanadians in our near future, though.

Regardless, I will be enjoying my summer!

Posted by Amanda Cullen at July 16, 2008 10:34 AM

Looking back at the great depression - and how FDR helped us get out of it - can help us too. (Cf. Steve Yastrow's post a couple days ago)

There were many reasons why Rome fell - one of the most important was their way of levying taxes. The uppermost classes did not have to pay taxes, but the middle and lower classes did. That meant that eventually the upper classes owned everything. The tax base disappeared, as did all those enterprising middle class folks. Increasingly, Rome depended on conquest to keep itself going - a completely unsustainable economic model.

Perhaps some analogs with today's situation? Not to be to overtly political mind you, just pointing out historical economics... ;-)

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at July 16, 2008 11:30 AM

"Historical economics" also indicate that there were more millionaires made during the Great Depression than during any time in our history. Hmm?

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 16, 2008 12:00 PM

There is a bit of a 'let them eat cake' feeling to a lot of the ideas expressed in this thread. In this economy, people are suffering - Oh - I almost forgot - in the past people also suffered, so it must be OK.

Posted by x at July 16, 2008 3:24 PM

There seems to be two points: (1) In the past people suffered. People are suffering now. Perhaps what happened before can help us alleviate the suffering now.

(2) People are suffering. They suffered in the past too. Don't be discouraged or think it is the end of the world. Let's help build a better tomorrow.

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at July 16, 2008 3:57 PM

What the quote about, "The Roman in the street..." overlooks is: The Roman in the street was generally a highly priviliged citizen of the state with the best trained and equipped army hitherto known and one that went out, conquered, subjugated, taxed and pillaged practically the entire known world. His moral compass was pretty much based on a 'might is right' philosophy that saw conquered nations as essentially factories for producing goods and slaves for him. When times got tough (natural disasters, poor harvests etc) the Roman in the street benefited from his leader's lack of concern for the conquered and his continued insistence on all taxes etc being paid so that the Roman in the street would be the last to feel the effects, while conquered people starved.

Of course, I exaggerate a little. But this globalised economy was not one based on "we relationships" or true free trade so much as, "You can trade and live as you like as long as suits Rome." Not an entirely likable political model, methinks.

Posted by Mark JF at July 16, 2008 4:12 PM

Pessimism sucks! Scepticism rules! The former sees the past in a gloomy sense that inhibits grand scale innovation and design. The latter uses the past as a vehicle for the future, forever seeing the possbilities of now, though being fully aware of the past. This is what the New World did so well. Forever forward...

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 16, 2008 5:46 PM

In Kerala, the southern state of India, the traditional frying pan is called a "Chinachatti" which literally means Chinese Pan.

Jay. from Bangalore
http://ideaburger.blogspot.com

Posted by Jayakumar Hariharan at July 17, 2008 12:36 AM

For me one of the most interesting pieces written about the Romans comes not from historians but from Monty Python (stick with me here I am being serious!). The what have the Romans done for us scene:

All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

Really sums up a whole host of dilemmas around taking the benefits of an oppressive situation. You can argue what you like about microsoft for example (abusing position, no real choice, not really the innovators, Apple a lot cooler etc) and yet many people take for granted the benefits of using their stuff (I can open documents sent to me by pretty much anyone)

Many societies in the ancient world were really in a difficult place to decide what to do about Rome. Resist and be potentially crushed or cooperate and enjoy the benefits (with plenty of costs attached!). Although we talk a lot about Rome’s military might in reality much of the empire was built on selling the benefits of joining the “club” – very much an “offer you cannot refuse”!

Incidentally it has been argued that Rome in the early days never saw itself as more than a city state it was war brought about by Carthage and the eventual defeat of Carthage that brought her out of isolationism and I suspect gave her the confidence to expand. Particularly in naval matters. You also need to be careful when describing Rome’s army as the best in the world etc. The nature of her army changed considerably over her long history. The Roman army was defeatable - the problem was they just sent another! Part of Rome’s strength comes from reforms and changes to the army over several hundred years (Scipio, Marius etc). The middle to later imperial army (the image most people think of – heavy armoured infantry) was a very different beast to early Rome and by the end of the empire had changed again to a much more cavalry oriented force. Rome also relied a great deal on allied units and troops from all over the empire.

Posted by PaulH at July 17, 2008 7:36 AM

Great points, PaulH. It seems to me that other countries, including the British Empire, took lessons straight from Roman playbook. I guess to some extent or another we understand this, or perhaps not. What interest me most is understanding that human nature often seeks to dominate and control from families to governments.

How do we address these issues of dominance and control? It is the intersection of being and becoming, as well as the rule of law beginning internally and individually first, that interest me. The beauty of the founding documents of the US, that we are forever becoming, is that the framers understood tyranny and unjust weights and measures and sought to address these issues constitutionally.

Yes, we must understand the past in fundamental ways, as much of what we do is linked to it. But we must, individually and collectively, as I am sure many here would agree, understand the fundamental of our very actions today in order to move forward in the future in more progressive ways that will be beneficial for all at the moment, rather than the benefits that we have from the Romans many years later. Wisoom in the moments plays an all-important role. Remember Charlie Wilson?

I guess, to a large extent, PaulH, your comment speaks to some of this. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 17, 2008 7:59 AM

Judith: "Pessimism sucks!" Amen. So does taking words at face value, not thinking about what has been said, not thinking about the analogies and comparisons being made etc.

Posted by Mark JF at July 17, 2008 11:24 AM

MarkJF, I admit to being a little dense at times. This being so, can you please clarify what I may have missed at being so literal, "the analogies and comparisons being made etc?" Didn't mean to engender any hostility.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 17, 2008 1:38 PM

Judith: why do you assume hostility because I disagree with something you said? Are we not allowed to have different opinions, or shades of opinion, without it causing conflict?

Posted by Mark JF at July 17, 2008 2:58 PM

Quite frankly, MarkJF, I did not know where you were coming from with your last comment. (Generally, I very much appreciate your comments. They are relevant, precise and intelligent.) Had I missed something? I didn't take your comment as an agreement or disagreement. And, where there is no understanding, there is no shading. The dots didn't connect for me. As I poignantly acknowledged, I needed clarification. I did, however, assume that since you addressed your comment to me directly that it was not a general statement and that I had missed the "analogies and comparisons made etc." OK...my bad. But it's all good...really. For my sake, though, can you please clarify your comment? Or, did it have no real connection to the post specifically and should simply be taken at "face value?" And, by the way, I LOVE differences and shades of opinions.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 17, 2008 4:15 PM

How fitting. The Romans traded republic for empire, freedom for comfort and eventually collapsed. Much as the US is doing...

Did the post about globalization mention that ancient Rome poured out all its gold to buy these trinkets, and eventually devauled its currency, much like we're doing with China?

Why are people in our allegded 'republic' 'democracies' so quick to compare themselves with a decadent empire?

My 'favorite' comparision: sports- we have moved from the amateur, greek ideal - atheltics representing values - the decadent roman one of gladiatorial contests.

Posted by callumus_maximus at July 18, 2008 9:59 AM