Rome vs. America, and the sustainability of Western culture.

[Serenity]

hmmmm..... now this is a golden thread.

It is becoming more and more apparent of the similarities between Rome and America, and it is said in the bible that america is the last super-power the world will know.

WHere i'm worried about america's demise , is what comes from the east. With the asias becoming ever so populated and enhancing their quality of life to meet those of the western world, is where i see the tip of the totter coming down.

I don't think we have to worry about an overthrow of idealism, such as what was mentioned about "democracy vs. communism" for the global mentality has definitely been persauded by captialism.....it's now merely a power-struggle for who control the pastry to make the pie.

This is something where i'd like someone else's view- it used to be a concern of man-power. In WW2 we had to depleat 6 asians to 1 causasian. That ratio is significantly higher today...but let's go one stage further, for technology has led us to weapons of destruction that don't weigh in the balance numbers of people , so much as tons of explosionary terminal force.

still...this argument of "force" is only relevant should nations go to war.

I think we're past that stage now. Why i think this, is due to the visions of the CFR and the UN and plans to move towards a One world Govt.

Could it be that we won't so much see one super power overcome by another through identity of nations, so much as we'll see all nations under one rule, with the real similarity to rome, being that of a modern day hierarchy of classes once again?

[gmc]

"What will the center of the universe do if the blood and guts of America becomes just another also ran. Our conspicuous spending, life stile and charity, is why other Nations hate us but also strive to be like us. If here is no carrot on a stick for others to pursue what will the world population become. Most of us need direction, but that direction must be rational and progressive. Who would take our place in this roll?"


One of the things I find americans unable to understand is that it is not americans per se that are disliked but the policies pursued by your government in your name. You seem to take any criticism of your government as being aimed at america as a nation and as being a personal attack. It is not

I am new to this forum and this is my first post. One of the attractions is an opportunity to "speak" to normal americans so I would like to make it clear I am not out to offend anybody i wish to hear others views. I find this kind of stuff fascinating and welcome the chance to comminicate to the other side of the globe where it's probably sunny. It's summer here but its rained all week, currently its bouncing off the grass.

I am curious as to what you make of this lot.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Have a look at the signatories and see where they are now. When i first heard about them I thought it was some daft conspiracy theory bit I heck things out myself. On the face of it your government has been taken over by a bucnch of right wing nutters determined to follow their own interests-interpreting them as being synonymous with those of the american people. Your media is in the hands of a few big corporation that stifle political debate and analysis. If you look at the ill judged attempt to stop the release of Michael Moore's film. What ever you may think of him, and he has his own agenda, in the land of free speech should you not be allowed to say what you think without being censored or called unpatriotic? In the UK people can take up an anti war stance and those who called them unpatriotic get short thrift. slagging off the government in power is a national sport.

What is different between rome and the US is that the US is a democracy Rome was not-although it was a republic before it became an empire if Bush goes for emperor maybe you should worry. Americans seem insular in their attittude to the rest of the world but I doubt if they want to rule it, nor will you just follow blindly what a politician tells you-at least not for long

You have a law that bars a president holding more than two terms of office so no matter what things will change in four years time.

You need the rest of the world far more than you want to admit, any drop in the supply of oil would have a catastrophic effect on your economy but I just find it hard to credit you will tolerate invading the middle east to preserve your oil supplies. An empire would, a democracy has to persuade its citizens to fight a war.

If we alienate the international community the world will be even more unstable and war will be more likely.


You have alienated then and large sections are worried about what you will do next.

[gmc]

You Brits are certainly not immune to the hidden persuaders in the corporate world. And though you have a more engaging political system with your parliamentary government I'm not sure that your citizenry participates in the political process any more than Americans. Do they? What percentage of British citizens voted in the last national election? As I see it, most Brits get there politics from the tabloids and aren't any more educated than we Yanks on the real issues.


Very true, but its indifference rather than disinterest but when the issues matter enough they tend to make their views clear. Also I think we are a bit more cynical about our politicians than americans, you seem to identify more closely with your president than we do with our government. A criticism of our government is not taken as being aimed also at the british people. The tabloids are read for their page three and the sport and gossip than their substance, people are eclectic in their reading than you would think

We seem to have more analysis and documentary style investigation than you do-although I will concede CNN and cnbc and an occasional read of time magazine and the los angeles times are hardly a representative sample of your media.

There are also problems with our first past the post system in that it does not reflect the real make up of political attitides in the country. Currently less than 48% of the vote was for tony blair, it was roughly the same proprtion with the tories. Neither of the big parties wants proportional representation as it would change the make up of british politics and they like being in power too much. We have MP's more interested in staying in parliament than using their common sense and a move away from parliamentary democracy over the last thirty or so years that is quite depressing and imo not for he good. TB does not have presidential type powers and needs to be reminded that he doesn't.

I am still curious about what you think about pnac, in another age it would be a statement of imperial aims, but who rules? the people or vested interests who only get away with it so long as they are allowed to.

Any American traveler will tell you that nowadays they get hostile remarks from Europeans who behave as though average Americans have a say in foreign policy.


Does not every vote count? You could say much the same about us couldn't you. Actually being mistaken for English is not funny at all

[capt_buzzard]

gmc wrote: Very true, but its indifference rather than disinterest but when the issues matter enough they tend to make their views clear. Also I think we are a bit more cynical about our politicians than americans, you seem to identify more closely with your president than we do with our government. A criticism of our government is not taken as being aimed also at the british people. The tabloids are read for their page three and the sport and gossip than their substance, people are eclectic in their reading than you would think

We seem to have more analysis and documentary style investigation than you do-although I will concede CNN and cnbc and an occasional read of time magazine and the los angeles times are hardly a representative sample of your media.

There are also problems with our first past the post system in that it does not reflect the real make up of political attitides in the country. Currently less than 48% of the vote was for tony blair, it was roughly the same proprtion with the tories. Neither of the big parties wants proportional representation as it would change the make up of british politics and they like being in power too much. We have MP's more interested in staying in parliament than using their common sense and a move away from parliamentary democracy over the last thirty or so years that is quite depressing and imo not for he good. TB does not have presidential type powers and needs to be reminded that he doesn't.

I am still curious about what you think about pnac, in another age it would be a statement of imperial aims, but who rules? the people or vested interests who only get away with it so long as they are allowed to.



Does not every vote count? You could say much the same about us couldn't you. Actually being mistaken for English is not funny at all


I don't think anyone would make that mistake - a Scot English :wah:

[gmc]

I disagree that the UK has more documentary type programming. We have the History Channel, Arts and Entertainment, PBS, and a plethora of other channels on which you can get in depth coverage of the news of the day plus feature length programs on world events. And, we get the BBC and other programming from the UK and Canada.


Like I said it was only an impression, I have never been to the US (yet) so I can hardly claim to be in a position to offer a considered opinion. The inpression was of a lack of real questioning criticism of your government. Did not the edotor of the washington post get up at a jornalist conference and say as much?

I also get the history channel but the emphasis is, presumably since I'm in the UK, mainly on Uk history. We have a german friend who visits often, it made me realise the number of tomes there are programmes about the war on. but I digress

The thing that got me about the pnac was the number of signatories now high up in the present administration cheney, wolfowitz et al. What is startling is the blithe assumption that the rest of the world will put up with it. In a way it is an attitude from the 40's and 50's that doesn't recognise things have changed. and the world is a vastly different place now.

[gmc]

Google ANSER and you'll see some of the top soldiers in America's intelligentsia army.


Did so, interesting. I'd come across the rand institute before but the web site seemed defunct. I'm inclined to think that anyone who wants political power should be banned from ever having it. If only it were practical.

[capt_buzzard]

PatrickB1979 wrote: Of course the US's power will continue to wane. Our economic power has been on a relative slide since the 1950's, but such a situation is likely to happen when one country controls 50% of the world's wealth. I think America's relative power will continue to decline, as other parts of the world obtain sustainable economic growth. But I think this concept that the American empire will completely collapse is quite alarmist, or for some, wishful thinking. As China, India and the EU continue to gain international prominence and economic power, they will balance out US power. I see that happening already.

[gmc]

food for thought

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6857387/site/newsweek/

[Galbally]

Intersting thread, I've heard this type of argument before about the U.S. being the latter day Roman Empire, with Europe playing the role of Ancient Greece, and the Middle East playing the part of the Ancient Persians. Its a nice idea, but it doesn't really follow through. Firstly the U.S. is not an empire ruled by the elite of one city state, its a modern liberal democracy, that only resembles Rome in terms of its military hegemony. The motivating factor behind what is lazily reffered to as U.S. imperialism is not to politically rule other nations but to simply maintain its position as the world's most powerful nation, i.e. and to make a lot of money. What other great power has ever done otherwise? But the circumstances in the world of classical civilization was utterly different from those pertaining today so I don't think that the argument has any validity.

On the seperate issue of anti-americanism (well European anti-americanism to be precise), its certainly true that many Europeans are prejudiced against their American cousins. There is the political side, which I think has some justification, but then there is that sort of condensending nonsense that Americans are fat, stupid, unsophisticated and all the rest. Of course there are people like that in America, but there are plenty like that over here as well, I know quite a lot of yanks and I would have to say that their positive aspects well outweigh the negative ones. I think this whole idea of pitting Europe against America or acting as some kind of couterweight to U.S. power is a dangerous one, I'm all for a strong Europe, but not as some reactionary power that sets itself up in direct opposition to the U.S. That doesn't mean that we have to stay quiet and not make a fuss when the U.S. acts foolishly, but act as constructive allies as are shared interests are far greater than our differences.

[Galbally]

I was just thinking about the second part of this thread and I'm still trying to work out what exactly "western" culture is? I suppose you could say that Europe and its offspring nations are a civilizational grouping but thats a very loose term. Western values have certainly not remained static through the years, I mean we all know what people are refferring to when they say western culture, but when you try and define it, its not exactly the the easiest thing to do (i.e. is Columbia a "western" country, what about Nazi Germany? or even modern Japan?). I suppose you have to use historical precident and all that. As for the long term stability of the "West" I can't see us going the way of the dodo. Considering that (in whatever form) it has existed for the past 2,500 years and has managed to survive plague, war, famine, revolutions, dictators, genocide, Ghengis Khan, the Ottomans, and the Soviets while somehow along the way managing to invent the modern world as it presently is.

[DesignerGal]

Its always interesting to know what people from other countries think of us. Unfortunatly I work with Bush supporters/racist people?Capitalists whom my political and religous beliefs always differ. I take alot of abuse about who I vote for at every turn.

I detest George Bush and have nothing but disdain for the crook, and I hope people from other countries know that not all of us support this greed monger!

[chonsigirl]

Galbally wrote: I was just thinking about the second part of this thread and I'm still trying to work out what exactly "western" culture is? I suppose you could say that Europe and its offspring nations are a civilizational grouping but thats a very loose term. Western values have certainly not remained static through the years, I mean we all know what people are refferring to when they say western culture, but when you try and define it, its not exactly the the easiest thing to do (i.e. is Columbia a "western" country, what about Nazi Germany? or even modern Japan?). I suppose you have to use historical precident and all that. As for the long term stability of the "West" I can't see us going the way of the dodo. Considering that (in whatever form) it has existed for the past 2,500 years and has managed to survive plague, war, famine, revolutions, dictators, genocide, Ghengis Khan, the Ottomans, and the Soviets while somehow along the way managing to invent the modern world as it presently is.
Western culture is defined in many ways, you must include influences from outside the sphere of Europe. You would have to take it all the way back to prehistory, and the nomadic peoples, through Greece, Rome.............you get the picture. How long is this paper, anyway?:wah:

[Galbally]

Yes thats true of course you can always go further back, well within the limits of reason. I suppose if I was to use basic terms to refer to western culture in general I would say secular, rationalist, democratic, capitalist (with a small c) and technological. Well thats the theory, not always quite the same in practice. Feel free to rubbish my ideas if you disagree.

[chonsigirl]

I'm just pipping in because I teach a western civ class, just curious how far back you wanted to go for your paper-

[Galbally]

My advice is to argue in your paper that America is not like rome at all, list the various differences, and make the point that even if they were exactly the same the fall of the western Roman empire in the 5th century AD wasn't the end of western culture so why should a relative decline in American power (if that is actually happening, which I don't think is) won't spell the end of western culture either.

[Galbally]

[QUOTE=Far Rider]It seems to me that one of the reason its not so easy to difine is that it changes relatively quickly...

Parts of it change slowly parts of it change rapidly... for instance religious philosophy changes very slowly, almost at a stand still.. whereas cultural clothing changes almost at whim rate....

Intersting point, I would agree with though I actually think that we are going through interesting changes in religion curently. In America there seems to be a growing Christain movement in say things like creationism and so forth, while in my own country Catholicism, which was once synonomous with being Irish, is undergoing a very rapid decline. Actually I think religion in the whole of Europe is in decline though I can't give you figures, its just a general felling over here.

[gmc]

Rome started out as a subject tribe, won it's freedom went on to conqueor all the neighbouring tribes and expand as much for self defence as anything else, if it was weak it would be taken over.

That's another key point it started out as a republic was controlled by a powerful group of families and ended up with an emperor. What helped the fall was also what seem to have been a severe climate change that affectyed large parts of europe and started the wandering of the nomadic tribes who started pushing in from the east.

While the fall of Rome wasn't the end of western culture what emerged was vastly different.



http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/quotes.htm

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military- industrial complex."

Farewell Address, Radio and TV, January 17, 1961


"The final battle against intolerance is to be fought--not in the chambers of any legislature--but in the hearts of men."

Campaign Speech, Los Angeles, CA, October 19, 1956

"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of their way and let them have it."

TV Talk with Prime Minister Macmillan, August 31, 1959


America is a republic, arguably it's foreign and domestic policy is controlled by a narrow power grouping whose own interests are paramount. Empire next?

Don't think so personally but then the empire of rome wasn't a certainty either.

Why does your teacher see America as a parallell to the Roman Empire?

Yes, there are more similarities, and yes, there are probably good theories as to why America will never go down the same road as Rome did. The fact of the matter is still this: that America is the most hated nation in the world, just as Rome was, and that it would take considerable resilience to keep up their global order for ever. The apple cart that is global politics can easily be upset, and America’s control over it may someday change considerably.




Maybe you should start out with why does america think it is an empire? What global order? Why does america need to control it? While america was influential in the pesent global order it was not the only one, nor is it the only one. Indeed it is only in the 20th century that it began to figure in any really significant way. (hint, what language are you using, )

It's an interesting viewpoint to see global politics as something that can be maipulated to your advantage with little apparent thought to the long term consequences or understanding of how those so manipulated will eventually react. It suggests a sense of detachment with realpolitik as the only morality that matters. Why do you think ameria is the most hated country in the world and how did it become so? Should you be concerned?

[Locke_2155]

ipete23;1518 wrote: While I was at school, my history teacher once gave us an essay to write on the similarities between America and the Roman Empire just before it’s fall. Baring in mind how history tends to repeat itself, he was obviously asking us the question: Is America on a slow and steady demise, and will it ultimately fade away from the global arena?

To most people this might seem a highly cynical and narrow-minded line of thought, but might there be something to it?

Upon first comparison there are some definite similarities between these two societies that can be pointed out. Firstly the way in which both powerhouses insisted on imposing themselves upon the rest of the world. Rome ruled virtually all of the “known world” at its heyday, imposing their societal structure and way of living on may different cultures.

In the same way America insists on other cultures doing things their way. This, perhaps proven best, by the recent war in Iraq.

Another similarity would be the importance that is laid upon being Roman or American. A Roman had distinctly different rights to the peoples that they ruled, and in the later stages of the Empire, Romans didn’t even fight in their own army, because it was seen as better to pay the conquered peoples to fight on their behalf.

Similarly an American life seems to be worth a great deal more than that of other nationalities. It’s worth reminding ourselves that it only took around four thousand Americans to die to throw the world into a global war against terrorism. Yet even after 800 000 Rwandans died in the ’94 massacre, nothing much happened.

Yes, there are more similarities, and yes, there are probably good theories as to why America will never go down the same road as Rome did. The fact of the matter is still this: that America is the most hated nation in the world, just as Rome was, and that it would take considerable resilience to keep up their global order for ever. The apple cart that is global politics can easily be upset, and America’s control over it may someday change considerably.

What are your opinions on the matter? id say that in a since we want to follow the Roman example but if u look at it we are very much alike. One similarity we have that i dont think u put on here would be our increase of desenstivty to gore and violence. Like the Romans Gladiator games and Chariot races so we Have Nascar and shows like CSI and movies i.e. Hostel Saw that are nothing but gore torture and the like also in video games GTA. Two would be our slide into a Plutocray (which is the goverment run by the rich) To be a politian today takes great wealth to campiegn. Three would be Globalization and how we play a role in it. Its not that other countrys have to be born in the US but just to be like us the spread of mcdonalds and MTV would be reason enough. And we like the Romans have taken things from other clutures such as the Romans did and addapted it to fit our lives. these are just my thoughts so sry for it being so long.

[Raven]

The symbols of the two are the same. EXACTLY the same. The great EAGLE has landed yet again. And the forces are out there trying to enforce the PAX AMERICANA. The two have similar political systems. A great and noble (sic) SENATE, a great almighty (sic) CAESAR. It's the system of government that Rome insisted that others go by. They gladly let other cultures keep their ways. Rome often absorbed the many gods and religions of other cultures as do the States. It's called freedom of religion.

[Nomad]

Rome vs. America



We'd kick Rome's ass

[Lon]

ipete23;1518 wrote: While I was at school, my history teacher once gave us an essay to write on the similarities between America and the Roman Empire just before it’s fall. Baring in mind how history tends to repeat itself, he was obviously asking us the question: Is America on a slow and steady demise, and will it ultimately fade away from the global arena?

To most people this might seem a highly cynical and narrow-minded line of thought, but might there be something to it?

Upon first comparison there are some definite similarities between these two societies that can be pointed out. Firstly the way in which both powerhouses insisted on imposing themselves upon the rest of the world. Rome ruled virtually all of the “known world” at its heyday, imposing their societal structure and way of living on may different cultures.

In the same way America insists on other cultures doing things their way. This, perhaps proven best, by the recent war in Iraq.

Another similarity would be the importance that is laid upon being Roman or American. A Roman had distinctly different rights to the peoples that they ruled, and in the later stages of the Empire, Romans didn’t even fight in their own army, because it was seen as better to pay the conquered peoples to fight on their behalf.

Similarly an American life seems to be worth a great deal more than that of other nationalities. It’s worth reminding ourselves that it only took around four thousand Americans to die to throw the world into a global war against terrorism. Yet even after 800 000 Rwandans died in the ’94 massacre, nothing much happened.

Yes, there are more similarities, and yes, there are probably good theories as to why America will never go down the same road as Rome did. The fact of the matter is still this: that America is the most hated nation in the world, just as Rome was, and that it would take considerable resilience to keep up their global order for ever. The apple cart that is global politics can easily be upset, and America’s control over it may someday change considerably.

What are your opinions on the matter?


My opinion, like it or not, is that irrespective of any comparisons between Ancient Rome and present day U.S.A., one cannot deny the positive influence that Rome has had on the world we live in, and what things we enjoy in a civilized and modern society. Had there been no Roman Empire, would the world be a better place today. I really doubt it. Just think of the contributions the Roman Empire is responsible for. No, I shan't enumerate them, just think. It is possible that the U.S.A. will not continue to be the economic or even military powerhouse of years past or present, but it's influence both past and present will touch the world and leave it's mark in many positive ways, just like Rome.

[gmc]

Lon;764738 wrote: My opinion, like it or not, is that irrespective of any comparisons between Ancient Rome and present day U.S.A., one cannot deny the positive influence that Rome has had on the world we live in, and what things we enjoy in a civilized and modern society. Had there been no Roman Empire, would the world be a better place today. I really doubt it. Just think of the contributions the Roman Empire is responsible for. No, I shan't enumerate them, just think. It is possible that the U.S.A. will not continue to be the economic or even military powerhouse of years past or present, but it's influence both past and present will touch the world and leave it's mark in many positive ways, just like Rome.


I'd agree with you up to a point. But america has been a benefactor of western culture not it's progenitor. undoubtedly it's had a tremendous influence and probably will continue to do so but it's moral and intellectual leadership is very much on the wane at present. Whether that will change will be interesting to watch.

[ragavendra]

yes this is a good topic,but the difference between the rome and america is rome showed its power with cruelty but america is showing that in a different manner.

-------

ragavendra

sreevysh corp

[spot]

ragavendra;1028550 wrote: yes this is a good topic,but the difference between the rome and america is rome showed its power with cruelty but america is showing that in a different manner.

-------

ragavendra

sreevysh corp


The effects on Iraq are similar in kind to Caesar's effects on Gaul in terms of the number of dead and the number of refugees. The Romans had the excuse of not knowing of the Enlightenment.

[gmc]

spot;1031516 wrote: The effects on Iraq are similar in kind to Caesar's effects on Gaul in terms of the number of dead and the number of refugees. The Romans had the excuse of not knowing of the Enlightenment.


So so americans, they think it was invented by Edison about the same time he invented electricity:sneaky:

[Sheepish]

gmc;2692 wrote:

You need the rest of the world far more than you want to admit, any drop in the supply of oil would have a catastrophic effect on your economy but I just find it hard to credit you will tolerate invading the middle east to preserve your oil supplies. An empire would, a democracy has to persuade its citizens to fight a war.




Now that's interesting, 5 years later. The Bush administration DID invade another country to preserve the USA's oil supply. Seems awfully imperialistic, no?

[gmc]

Sheepish;1138543 wrote: Now that's interesting, 5 years later. The Bush administration DID invade another country to preserve the USA's oil supply. Seems awfully imperialistic, no?


On one level it is in that if you look at some of the writings and speeches of the right in america they very much seem to see it as Americas right and role to act like an empire to preserve their power and wealth. on another the american people are capable of pulling their leaders back under control. They have to be willing to go along with it and need to be conned almost in to supporting it and when it comes right down to it most aren't. The european empires ended not just because they were bankrupt and weakened by warfare war but also their peoples had had enough of empire dreams.

[sunny104]

gmc;2692 wrote: One of the things I find americans unable to understand is that it is not americans per se that are disliked but the policies pursued by your government in your name. You seem to take any criticism of your government as being aimed at america as a nation and as being a personal attack. It is not

I am new to this forum and this is my first post. One of the attractions is an opportunity to "speak" to normal americans so I would like to make it clear I am not out to offend anybody i wish to hear others views. I find this kind of stuff fascinating and welcome the chance to comminicate to the other side of the globe where it's probably sunny. It's summer here but its rained all week, currently its bouncing off the grass.

I am curious as to what you make of this lot.

Welcome to the Project for the New American Century

Have a look at the signatories and see where they are now. When i first heard about them I thought it was some daft conspiracy theory bit I heck things out myself. On the face of it your government has been taken over by a bucnch of right wing nutters determined to follow their own interests-interpreting them as being synonymous with those of the american people. Your media is in the hands of a few big corporation that stifle political debate and analysis. If you look at the ill judged attempt to stop the release of Michael Moore's film. What ever you may think of him, and he has his own agenda, in the land of free speech should you not be allowed to say what you think without being censored or called unpatriotic? In the UK people can take up an anti war stance and those who called them unpatriotic get short thrift. slagging off the government in power is a national sport.

What is different between rome and the US is that the US is a democracy Rome was not-although it was a republic before it became an empire if Bush goes for emperor maybe you should worry. Americans seem insular in their attittude to the rest of the world but I doubt if they want to rule it, nor will you just follow blindly what a politician tells you-at least not for long

You have a law that bars a president holding more than two terms of office so no matter what things will change in four years time.

You need the rest of the world far more than you want to admit, any drop in the supply of oil would have a catastrophic effect on your economy but I just find it hard to credit you will tolerate invading the middle east to preserve your oil supplies. An empire would, a democracy has to persuade its citizens to fight a war.



You have alienated then and large sections are worried about what you will do next.


I'm glad you decided to stay anyway....:yh_rotfl

[spot]

I've not seen the OP before. I can't offhand think of any "similarities between America and the Roman Empire just before it’s fall" at all, they seem entirely distinct. There might be earlier periods of the Roman Empire which are comparable, but not anything from the 400s (or even the 300s, come to that).

[gmc]

spot;1139669 wrote: I've not seen the OP before. I can't offhand think of any "similarities between America and the Roman Empire just before it’s fall" at all, they seem entirely distinct. There might be earlier periods of the Roman Empire which are comparable, but not anything from the 400s (or even the 300s, come to that).




Rome was no longer a republic and power had shifted into the hands of a few who ran things to suit themselves. America is a republic but power had shifted so a handful ran things to suit themselves regardless of the effect on everybody else. Arguably we have just seen liberal democracy re-exert itself and take back control for the people-at least for a while.

[spot]

gmc;1139772 wrote: Rome was no longer a republic and power had shifted into the hands of a few who ran things to suit themselves. America is a republic but power had shifted so a handful ran things to suit themselves regardless of the effect on everybody else. Arguably we have just seen liberal democracy re-exert itself and take back control for the people-at least for a while.


Exactly my point. That's a perfect description of Rome in the first century. It's four hundred years before the fall of Rome.

[gmc]

spot;1139922 wrote: Exactly my point. That's a perfect description of Rome in the first century. It's four hundred years before the fall of Rome.


Interestingly enough the first emperor was doing it to give power back to the people by taking it away from the cliques and got killed for his pains. Whether he would have actually restored the public is of course open to conjecture.

George Washington was often compared to cincinattus the roman dictator. there's even a statue of him leaning on a fasces. In fact the fasces is all over he place in the states.

* In the Oval Office, above the door leading to the exterior walkway, and above the corresponding door on the opposite wall, which leads to the President's private office. (Note: the fasces depicted have no axes, possibly because in the Roman Republic, the blade was always removed from the bundle whenever the fasces were carried inside the city, in order to symbolize the rights of citizens against arbitrary state power (see above).)

National Guard Bureau insignia

* The National Guard uses the fasces on the seal of the National Guard Bureau, and it appears in the insignia of Regular Army officers assigned to National Guard liaison and in the insignia and unit symbols of National Guard units themselves. For instance, the regimental crest of the U.S. 71st Infantry Regiment of the New York National Guard consisted of a gold fasces set on a blue background.

* The reverse of the United States "Mercury" dime (minted from 1916 to 1945) bears the design of a fasces and an olive branch.

* Two fasces appear on either side of the flag of the United States in the United States House of Representatives, representing the power of the House and the country.

* The Mace of the United States House of Representatives, designed to resemble fasces, consists of thirteen ebony rods bound together in the same fashion as the fasces, topped by a silver eagle on a globe.

* The official seal of the United States Senate has as one component a pair of crossed fasces.

* Fasces ring the base of the Statue of Freedom atop the United States Capitol building.

* A frieze on the facade of the United States Supreme Court building depicts the figure of a Roman centurion holding a fasces, to represent "order".[4]

* At the Lincoln Memorial, Lincoln's seat of state bears the fasces—without axes—on the fronts of its arms. (Fasces also appear on the pylons flanking the main staircase leading into the memorial.)

* The official seal of the United States Tax Court bears the fasces at its center.

* Four fasces flank the two bronze plaques on either side of the bust of Lincoln memorializing his Gettysburg Address at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

* The fasces appears on the state seal of Colorado, USA, beneath the "All-seeing eye" (or Eye of Providence) and above the mountains and mines.

* On the seal of the New York City borough of Brooklyn, a figure carries a fasces; the seal appears on the borough flag. Fasces can also be seen in the stone columns at Grand Army Plaza.

* Used as part of the Knights of Columbus emblem (designed in 1883).

* Many local police departments use the fasces as part of their badges and other symbols. For instance, the top border of the Los Angeles Police Department badge features a fasces. (1940)

* Commercially, a small fasces appeared at the top of one of the insignia of the Hupmobile car.

* A fasces appears on the statue of George Washington, made by Jean-Antoine Houdon which is now in the Virginia State Capital

* VAW-116, famous for their remake of pop songs, have a fasces on their unit insigina

* San Francisco's Coit Tower has two fasces-like insignia (without the axe) carved above its entrance, flanking a Phoenix.

* The seal of the United States Courts Administrative Office






I often wonder if americans get taught the significance of it and how so much of their republic was inspired by pagan ideals of honour and duty and selfless commitment to the common good.