America's Crossroad:To Go The Way of Rome or Not
By Allen
J Duffis
Published: July 21,2007
|
Article
tools |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Let's face it; there is no polite way to make the following statement. Therefore, I am going to bite the bullet and state a readily observable fact of life in the United States. As we have come to know it, the revered and highly touted American morality mantra is beginning to disintegrate around the edges, and it is doing so at an ever increasing and alarming rate. Our form of democracy is beginning to breakdown at every level; little pieces of it crumble away each day. The republic seems to be crashing and there appears to be no one in the pilot's seat, either willing or capable of pulling it out of the nosedive. Yet despite this desperate status very few appear to be worried - but we all should be. A Brief History of Ancient Roman Civilization Recorded history reveals that Roman society survived almost 1000 years before it fell into ruin and total destruction at the hands of its enemies. However, if truth be properly and accurately served, it was actually much longer. The true Roman Republic had lasted from 510 BC until 23 BC (almost 500 years) when it fell. But in fact the eastern half of the empire managed to survive that initial onslaught. Therefore, what is generally described as the Fall of Rome does not include the eastern part of the empire with its center in Constantinople. This last bastion of the Roman Empire managed to cling to its existence for almost another thousand years until the Turkish leader, Mohammed ll, conquered it in the year 1463 AD. By which time the empire's former glory and previous identity attributed to Rome was virtually gone. 
At it beginning Rome was governed by a series of kings, but at the end of the reign of the seventh the Romans wrested power over the city and began to rule themselves. Instead of kings, they installed a council which became known as the 'senate' which ruled over them, and from that point the term 'Roman Republic" (from Latin, the Roman language, 'res publica' (which can mean 'public matters' or 'matters of state') became the descriptive reference. Under the kings, the senate had only consulting power, but under the new system the senate appointed a consul who would rule Rome like a king but with one very important difference - his rule lasted only one year. It would appear that the early Romans knew the value of imposing 'term limits' on their leaders. This was a key point imposed to not only limit a ruler's reign but to control it as well, for a consul who ruled badly, or unfairly, could be severely punished by a new incoming ruler. The Roman society had four classes of people, but not all were citizens - citizens had rights, and that distinction was very important to the Romans. The lowest class was the Slaves, who were owned by other people and were restricted from having any rights at all. Next came the Plebeians who were free people but who had little say in the affairs of state. Then followed the second highest class, the Equestrians (sometimes referred to as 'knights') whose name meant 'riders', as each was given a horse to ride should they be called upon to go into battle for Rome. And lastly there was the highest class, the Nobles, who were referred to as 'Patricians'. The bulk of the real power in Rome rested with them. 
One has to be amazed at the startling similarity of Rome's development as a country, when taken in stark comparison to America's own path to nationhood. Unfortunately, their fall from power as a great nation, in many frightening ways, mirrors our own downward perilous present situation as well. Near the end the Roman empire had a series of reckless or incompetent leaders at its helm, a corrupt governing senate, a combined hedonistic and materialistic bent citizenry and leadership, applied its laws unequally between the wealthy and the common citizen, and tolerated rampant homosexuality and other forms of perverse practices throughout all levels of its society. Do these social conditions sound familiar? Now one would hope at least some of you are just a little bit worried? 
What can the most severe outcome of such social and civil conditions be should ever they be allowed to encompass and overwhelm our American lifestyle and values? Well for starters how about, not the total destruction but - eventual dissolution - of the United States, causing it to break into many diverse city-states. In other words, what happened to the former Soviet Union (which many learned pundits deemed a ridiculous theory when it was proposed in the late 60's) could well happen to America; for such an outcome it is not a question of possibility, but more one of degree of probability. Therefore, in furtherance of this scenario let us look at the parallels between the two empires, Roman and American, as they waded their perilous way through a glorious but troubled history. Roman Family Life, Sexual Practices and Homosexuality By our standards the family life of the Romans was not only unorthodox in many ways, but also complicated on many social and familial levels. The major complicating factor was the existence of a society based in great part upon slavery. Since slaves were property they could not only be employed as labor, but also 'used' for just about any purpose - including sexual gratification of the owners. It was also not frowned upon for both married men and women to have outside sexual dalliances (though it was somewhat limited for women), and because it was a common practice to 'use' female slaves as concubines for all of the males in a household, young sons included. This practice led to another problem, that of Incest. No, they did not intend to practice incest, but because children were often born to female slaves, it was not uncommon for those children to grow up to serve in the same household as their mother did. Naturally, or unnaturally, this led to situations and circumstances where father, unknowingly, were sleeping with their biological daughters; and in some cases, likewise, mothers with their stepsons. This careless liberal morality of the Roman family structure made it a natural social culture for the eventual growth of Homosexuality within its society. 
The earliest Roman law that is alluded to by history as pertaining to Homosexuality appears to have been the Lex Scantinia, which was reportedly passed by the Roman Senate in the second century BC. The text of the law itself has not survived, but Roman historians of the second and third centuries AD describe how it 'outlawed' the homosexual rape of young male Roman citizens. However, consensual male or female homosexual relations were not legislated against. By the fourth century this liberal attitude changed dramatically, as harsh new laws condemning male homosexuality came into being. Why this sudden dramatic turn? Theodosian Code and the Code of Justinian as a decree from the emperors Constantius ll and Constans apparently initiated the change. For even though Constans himself was later on denounced for taking male lovers, this noted trend of the emperors to harshly condemn Homosexuality in ever increasing laws would continue to the end of the Roman civilization. 
In the Roman law of 390 AD, surviving in the Theodosian Code and the Lex Dei (Law of God'), the emperors Valentinian Theodosius and Arcadius, clearly stipulated that marriage based upon unnatural sex [homosexuality] should be punished meticulously, and ordained that any man taking the role of a woman in sex would be publicly burned to death. Although the reasons behind the almost fanatical acceleration of laws banning Homosexuality in later Roman society are hotly debated, a reasoned and rational base of opinion has to be the telling affect such behavior was having on Roman society (which was increasing with tell-tale manifestations in Rome's prized military). Observing that Homosexuality was becoming more and more exhibited publicly, and that some were begriming to practice a 'sort of marriage' outside that considered to be 'normal', the rulers were spurred to move decidedly against the spread of what they considered to be an immoral incursion into their society. Both the rulers and the Roman Senate viewed the rampant rise of Homosexuality as a growing threat to the morality and social survivability of Rome. One cannot but make troubling reference to the very same Liberal initiated, pro Gay rights, pro Homosexual Marriage debate now taking place in America. The Roman Immigration Dilemma 
A major and critical civil disruption that plagued ancient Roman civilization, especially near its end, was that of 'illegal immigration'; with particular reference to the increasing social problems it visited upon their well-ordered society. The Romans held sway over vast rich and fertile lands, but they were limited in their ability to protect their borders. For although they were able to either repel or deter large armies that came against them or challenged them for territorial claim, they had a very weak ability to deter individuals or small bands of immigrants. In fact, the problem that heavily taxed their police system was very similar to that which faces America at present.  The greatest problem this 'illegal immigration' began to visit upon Roman society was the combination of difficulty and unwillingness of these immigrants to assimilate into Roman society. Yes, most of them obeyed the laws and many learned the language, but many did not and, bit-by-bit, joined groups that formed a 'mini colonization' representative of their former home countries. Due to language difficulties and cultural attitude, these small colonies made it increasingly difficult for the Romans to administrate and operate their far-flung territories. Hadrian's Wall 
During the period of Roman history that ran from about 122 AD, the Emperor Hadrian (who came to power in 117 AD) sought to protect his far-reaching territories from the ravages of his not so friendly neighbors, the Barbarians. By the time of his ascendancy Rome had ceased its expansion, but Hadrian envisioned a clear route to a massive invasion on the exposed vast borders of the empire. Also of major concern to Hadrian was the need to consolidate his boundaries and thereby, in essence, killing two birds with one stone. By constructing a wall to extend over an obvious potential invasion route (Scotland), to the north of Italy, he sought to seal that weak point in his empire's defense, while at the same time clearly defining his empire's territory to all territorial challenges. The final wall, which took six years to complete, spanned a distance of 73-miles and was viewed as a formidable obstacle to outside incursion - or so the Romans thought. They were to be proved wrong. 
When we Americans take even the most liberal viewpoint with Hadrian's concerns in his time, what is taking place on our borders at present (with particular emphasis on our southern borders) begs comparison. For one cannot fail to see the deadly implications for our future as a culturally distinctive society. Towards this end, there have been back and forth debates within Congress, over the proposal to build a 700-mile wall (estimated cost $30 billion) along the U.S./ Mexican border to deter the massive illegal inflow of Mexican and Central American immigrants. 
Without doubt, America is now being invaded by illegal immigrants who, with the aid of their domestic supporters, have demonstrated a determination to 'integrate without assimilation' into this society. By maintaining a stubborn alliance to their home country, culture and language, most have made their intentions quite clear. They have already affected our liberal democratic political system and, unchecked, in time threaten to engulf our culture. It is far too late for Hadrian's Wall or even a Bush Wall. A "Save America" defensive strategy is now desperately called for - with all due haste. As a nation, we must act now before we are overrun and culturally polluted beyond recognition or possible redemption. The culture we have developed in the 200 plus years of our history has value, and it should not be allowed to be swept away in the name of forced cultural evolution. When the End Came 
The Roman Empire fell in two parts. First came their invasion by millions of Barbarians from the north and east of Europe. It should be understood that this invasion was not totally militaristic. Several times in history huge migrations took place across Europe, where peoples moved to settle in new territories This final great migration, however, proved too much for the Roman armies to stem; for they were designed to defeat other armies, not entire hordes of people flooding towards them. Rome itself collapsed when it was invaded and conquered by the Visigoth Odoacer in the year 476 AD. What's In the Cards for Us? It should be noted that the flood of Barbarians and other tribes that befell Rome in its final years, was in many ways equivalent to that which we now face on our southernmost border with Mexico. For it is not only Mexico that is emptying out its poorest citizens onto American territory, but virtually all of Central America and several states of South America as well. These hordes are entering the United States at a rate of hundreds to thousands per day, closely paralleling the 'silent invasion' that assisted the population overrun of the Romans. Think about it. Their resident population is already estimated at 12 million. We in America need to study well the final fate of ancient Rome. Yes, we a great nation can indeed be crippled and broken up into a segmented society. In fact, should the process go to a probable state of conclusion, we could easily become the "13 United States" once again. And take note, you may still have to - press 1 for English.
|
