For instance, Rome and to a greater extent Greece have to be condemned for their ethno-supremacism, for instance, though it must be said that Rome appears to have been far less ethno-supremacist than Greece, see e.g.: — Tristan L

Yet is this different from the view of the Egyptians, the Chinese or the Aztecs? What I gather, large empires are typically quite ethno-supremacist and quite full of themselves.

If that is so, then I believe it shouldn’t be. — Tristan L

I agree. But usually we assume that people are making a statement of today when referring to history. Yet history in itself deserves focus, even some times it hasn't got much in common with our present.

.. which doesn’t mean that it wasn’t ethno-supremacist. After all, it did view so-called “barbarians” as inferior, didn’t it? — Tristan L

Yes, generally, but in the same sense so many of us, and others, have considered people different from us inferior in some manner. The Roman Empire was fairly extraordinary, though, in that many emperors weren't from Rome or even Italy, but instead from the provinces, e.g. Spain, Africa, Syria, Gaul, Dacia and Moesia. It's also noteworthy that former slaves were able to acquire great wealth and power in the Empire once freed. A person could acquire high status regardless of origin. The Empire's dependence on the legions may account for some of this. "Barbarians" could attain power through the military, which gained more and more influence over the succession.

"Barbarians" could attain power through the military, which gained more and more influence over the succession. — Ciceronianus the White

Some examples of Barbarians attaining power in Roman society - that in itself is already a symptom of decadence and degradation - were Flavius Stilicho - he was a high-ranking general - magister militum - in the Roman army who, for a time, became the most powerful man in the Western Roman Empire. He was half Vandal and half Gothic and married to the niece of Emperor Theodosius I; his regency for the underage Honorius marked the high point of Germanic advancement in the service of Rome -, Flavius Aetius - was a Roman general of the closing period of the Western Roman Empire. He was half gothic. He was an able military commander and the most influential man in the Western Roman Empire for two decades - 433–454 -. He managed policy in regard to the attacks of barbarian federates settled throughout the Western Roman Empire. Notably, he mustered a large Roman and allied - foederati - army to stop the Huns in the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, ending the devastating Hunnic invasion of Attila in 451. Edward Gibbon refers to him as "the man universally celebrated as the terror of Barbarians and the support of the Republic" -, and Flavius Aspar - was an Eastern Roman patrician and magister militum - "master of soldiers" - of Alanic-Gothic descent. As the general of a Germanic army in Roman service, Aspar exerted great influence on the Eastern Roman Emperors for half a century, from the 420s to his death in 471, over Theodosius II, Marcian and Leo I -.

For instance, Rome and to a greater extent Greece have to be condemned for their ethno-supremacism, for instance, though it must be said that Rome appears to have been far less ethno-supremacist than Greece — Tristan L

Yeah, let's condemn the precursors to our civilization. Nihilism at its peak...

Many barbarians served the Empire well, it's true. And I think the Empire generally did well by them, for the most part. The Principate was available to men of low status, as well. Some were famous as restorers of the Empire, like Aurelian and Diocletian. They clearly thought it worth saving. I can't think of any imperial power in which high status and power was more available to men of "low birth," provincials and barbarians (meaning, outsiders) than Rome.

This isn't to say it was "good." But it is to say that it was remarkable.

What I gather, large empires are typically quite ethno-supremacist and quite full of themselves. — ssu

You’re right, that’s very likely human nature, and it’s a main reason why almost all empires are bad as far as they are empires – after all, the empire-building nation regards itself as superior to other nations and conquers them. What good aspects they might have, such as bringing peace (which is often forced, however, and then not so good) and making exchange of ideas easier, is another matter, and empires ought to be praised regarding these good aspects and likewise condemned for their bad ones.

Yet is this different from the view of the Egyptians, the Chinese or the Aztecs? — ssu

It’s true that likely most old folks were ethno-supremacist at least to some degree. As we’ve said, that’s likely due to human nature. However, there are differences. For instance, the ancient Israelites were very ethno-supremacist and, if their old writings are to be believed, also quite good at genocide. And they even legitimized this religiously. Likewise, the ancient Greeks were very ethno-supremacist and misogynistic for the most part, though some, such as Diogenes of Sinope and the Stoics, were in favor of cosmopolitanism, and e.g. Epicurus openly taught women. On the other hand, Rome was generally far less ethno-supremacist and misogynistic as far as I know, with exceptions such as the massacre that backfired and led to the Sack of Rome in 410 AD. Then again, its contributions to science lag far behind those of Greece. In Islam, with which a series of great Empires started, all people are equal, and their ethnic origin has no bearing on their status. In olden China, “barbarians” could become Chinese if they had the ethical qualifications. So we see that while most were supremacist to some degree, some were much more so than others. Moreover, I think that empires can’t be ranked on a linear scale of goodness. For instance, while the Mongol Empire was extraordinarily brutal (and successful), it was also remarkably tolerant, much more so than e.g. medieval Europe and even ancient Greece (think of the trial of Socrates, for example). But a part of it (the Ilkhanate) also sacked the great city of Bagdad, murdered many of its citizens, and destroyed its great treasures such as the House of Wisdom.

I agree. But usually we assume that people are making a statement of today when referring to history. Yet history in itself deserves focus, even some times it hasn't got much in common with our present. — ssu

True, but when I talk about history, I actually do mean what I say. The broad principles which I apply to the past I also apply to the present, of course, and I believe that we should learn from the past, but when I judge the past, I really judge the past. When I say “Roman Empire”, I really mean the Roman Empire and not some present state (though some things I say about the former could perhaps be applied to the latter).

Let's not forget. Let's try to look at them with the same objectivity (and criticism) that we look at our own "Western" history. If we do that, many interesting question arise. — ssu

Yes, I totally agree.

True, which is why I wrote earlier:

For instance, most Western Eurasian (“European”) states from antiquity to modernity are Indo-European, yet the Indo-Europeans are invasive in Europe, so how can any of those states be legitimate? — Tristan L

By the way, I can’t help but notice that @ssu’s country is not one of them :wink:.

This isn't to say it was "good." But it is to say that it was remarkable. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, I agree.

The Roman Empire was fairly extraordinary, though, in that many emperors weren't from Rome or even Italy, but instead from the provinces, e.g. Spain, Africa, Syria, Gaul, Dacia and Moesia. — Ciceronianus the White

I can't think of any imperial power in which high status and power was more available to men of "low birth," provincials and barbarians (meaning, outsiders) than Rome. — Ciceronianus the White

That is indeed a good aspect of Rome. Compare that to the (for the most part) very ethno-supremacist ancient Greeks (Diogenes of Sinope and Stoics were notable exceptions) and Israelites, for instance. However, I don’t think that Rome was alone with its relative openness (which you didn’t assert, I know). For instance, in olden China, a “barbarian” (夷, yí) could become Chinese and vice versa depending on morality. According to the teaching of Islam, which set up a succession of great Empires, all people are equal, regardless of ethnic origin. These are but two examples.

Yes, generally, but in the same sense so many of us, and others, have considered people different from us inferior in some manner. — Ciceronianus the White

Unfortunately, you are right. I have long wanted to write about this matter and had originally planned a thread of its own, but since you’ve brought up the issue, I might as well write about it here.
Even today, in the twenty-first yearhundred, there are still quite a few people who consider themselves and/or their respective ethnic, gender or other group to be inherently superior to others or other groups. These are the supremacists; they are those who judge the worth of a human being (or other sentient being for that matter) based on irrelevant criteria, namely criteria other than moral goodness, such as identity, ethnicity, or gender. They actually do the world harm – if they are allowed to. With their obsolete mentality, they seek to divert human energy away from useful things, such as finding cures for diseases, doing away with injustice, protecting this beautiful planet Earth and all the wonderful living beings on it, and peacefully spreading our civilization into space e.g. to survive the death of the Sun, and into harmful and base things like domination and injustice. Supremacism is a forlorn post, of course, so they won’t have any good arguments for it. They’ll simply ignore all the good arguments against it and obstinately preach their outdated Stone-Age doctrines. They waste their own energy on fighting others for the sake of domination, they – in a way – waste the energy of those who fight against them, and, if they got their way, they’d waste the energy of the oppressed by not allowing the latter to unfold their potential.

The douth (virtue) and outstandingness of an individual depends only on their formay (ability) to do good (not on their ethnic group or gender, for instance), which is directly related to their ethical and other knowledge and smartness, and more weightily on their use of free will to choose goodness itself over badness itself. I think – though I might have to refine my evaluation, as is perhaps the case for all evaluations – that the best individuals are good-hearted and smart, the second-best are the good-hearted but not highly intelligent ones, the second-worst are the bad-hearted but unintelligent ones, and the worst are the bad-hearted and intelligent ones. Also, we have to keep in mind that intelligence in a restricted sense need not be accompanied by overall smartness on the highest level. For instance, a ruler might be very efficient at conquering and ruling others and so be intelligent in that sense, but he would still not be smart overall, because he obviously lacks the wit to see that domination of others and worldly power are base and fleeting and no permanent asset of the soul.

Supremacists do not realize this and are therefore severely lacking in ethical knowledge. Ethno-supremacism is on the national level what egoism is on the individual level. These and the other kinds of supremacism try to throw a wrench into the progress of humanity due to the aforementioned reasons. They seek to harm individual human beings because of the latter’s otherness regardless of the latter’s douth and excellence, and thus would stifle the progress of mankind if they got their way in addition to being blatantly unrightwise (unjust). They would harm the human species as a whole because of that and because they put the interests of the mortal individual and the mostly ephemeral ethnic group (after all, how long do distinct ethnic groups exist?) above the interests of the whole, and moreover, their interests are base at that. Among cells of many-celled organisms, the egoists are called cancer cells, for they seek only to reach their own short-sighted goals, and if successful, in the process destroy healthy cells and the organism as a whole, achieving their own demise in the end. This is similar to the way a succes of supremacism would bring down our great human civilization.

A very good example of how ethno-supremacism is self-destructive comes from Rome. As you rightly said,

Many barbarians served the Empire well [...]. And I think the Empire generally did well by them, for the most part. — Ciceronianus the White

:up:

Among these “barbarians” was the half-Vandal Stilicho, who, like his Germanic troops, protected Rome and kept it stable. The relative Roman openness which you have mentioned paid off, and is likely one of the reasons for the success of the Roman Empire, also compared to much more ethno-supremacist nations like ancient Greece. Yet then, fascists came to power in Rome, murdered Stilicho and began a systematic extermination of Germanics. This backfired twofold, for it robbed the Empire of a great pillar and provoked the Sack of Rome by King Alaric I. Fast-forward to the twentieth century, and we see fascists bring their own folks to their knees.

And of course, supremacism, especially ethno-supremacism, often leads to wars, which waste human and material resources and destroy human achievements (take the destruction of the House of Wisdom by Mongol warriors as an example) for base and ultimately useless goals.

The supremacists ought to be taught in order to cleanse them of their detrimental ignorance, their harmful bigotry, and their dangerous tendency to stifle development and erode civilization. But what if that doesn’t help? Should we perhaps look to the course of action taken by the immune system of a healthy individual with regard to cancer cells for answers?

Once these dangers to the nascent human nation have vanished and been vanquished – and thankfully, they are diminishing – we need not have gotten rid of all nations save for the great human one and become totally selfless. After all, competition is also a driver of development. However, all the supremacism will be gone, replaced by a broad gast (spirit) of mutal respect and working together seasoned with a pinch of competition. The nation of mankind, and later hopefully all ethical sapient lifeforms, as well as its role as stewart and protector of Earth’s life and later maybe other lifeforms, is something to be truly patriotic about and proud of. Dr. Matt O'Dowd expresses a similar view at time 13:05 in the following video by PBS Space Time:

History is filled to the brim with horrors. No nation, no tribe is innocent. Placating our modern views and standards on the past as you are doing is pretty useless. Sure the Caesars killed many, that what kings and emperors do... Water under the bridge.

History is filled to the brim with horrors. No nation, no tribe is innocent. Placating our modern views and standards on the past as you are doing is pretty useless. Sure the Caesars killed many, that what kings and emperors do... Water under the bridge. — Olivier5

What he is not able to perceive is that this concept of "ethnic supremacy" did not exist - and in reality, never did exist - in the Classical Age. Human society is based on the victory of the best over the worst, always. A single person being against it is completely insignificant. I am grateful to our - and here I use plural because they were OUR and not MINE - ancestors for building a civilization as glorious and beautiful as Rome. It was built on blood, genocide and war, however, we are all sons of the winners - in the case of the West: Greece and Rome -; being ressentful for those who have long since lost, means nothing on the grand scale of humanity.

I thought that with JerseyFlight's ban this rotten and evil use of doublethink would have ended, however, it seems that these cancers keep spreading..

This isn't to say it was "good." — Ciceronianus the White

The only purpose of a civilizaiton is to be good to its own people, nothing more, nothing less. Rome was good to Romans, ancient Greece was good to Ancient Greeks, etc...

we are all sons of the winners - in the case of the West: Greece and Rome -; being ressentful for those who have long since lost, means nothing on the grand scale of humanity. — Gus Lamarch

Yes, and even though we may like the historical underdogs, those who lost, it doesn't mean that them losers where any better morally speaking.

.
Mind you, the European project is about that: recognising that there exists a European indentify, built through empires as it was, that transcends national identities. The project makes sense because European nationalism and division killed so many in the last century.

Any European who resent the Roman Empire for killing millions should remember what happened in the 1940's in those oh-so-civilized parts.

It’s true that Jungle Law seems to be the ultimate law in this world, but that doesn’t mean that we should simply accept it. After all, we hope to have morality and true moral beliefs, so why shouldn’t we judge everything – past, present, or hypothetical future – accordingly? Of course, as I said earlier, our moral beliefs may be completely wrong, but we should at least try to find the objective moral law.

even though we may like the historical underdogs, those who lost, it doesn't mean that them losers where any better morally speaking. — Olivier5

Well, that would include Greece and, in a way, also Rome. Greece was conquered by the Romans and stayed under their domination for over one-and-a-half thousand years, after which it was conquered by the Ottomans and ruled by them for more than three-and-a-half centuries. The Romans were militarily and politically much more successful, but their Western Empire fell due to inner and outer factors, not least among these the attacks of Germanics and Huns. The Eastern Empire held out much longer, but it was was beaten back again and again by great Muslim commanders like the brilliant Arab general Chālid ibn al-Walīd. In the end, it was conquered outright by the Ottoman Turks, and its capital city for more than a yearthousand, the “Second Rome”, is under the rule of a Muslim country to this very day.

It’s also true that the losers need not be morally better than the winners. One example is given by the Battle of the Allia, another by the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, and yet another by the Battle of Pydna.

Any European who resent the Roman Empire for killing millions should remember what happened in the 1940's in those oh-so-civilized parts. — Olivier5

But that’s the thing: what happened in the 1940’s was not due to civilized nations, but due to people with the old primitive mentality gaining power. The Italian fascists under Mussolini wanted to rebuild the Roman Empire in Earnest, and the German fascists, also knows as Nazis, under Hitler likewise wanted to build an empire (and succeded for a short time). These people had the old “my-nation-is-better-than-yours”-mentality of much of the ancient world as well as the radical ethno-supremacism of some ancients (Aristotle comes to mind here). Indeed, I’ve already drawn such a parallel:

Yet then, fascists came to power in Rome, murdered Stilicho and began a systematic extermination of Germanics. This backfired twofold, for it robbed the Empire of a great pillar and provoked the Sack of Rome by King Alaric I. Fast-forward to the twentieth century, and we see fascists bring their own folks to their knees. — Tristan L

Mind you, the European project is about that: recognising that there exists a European indentify, built through empires as it was, that transcends national identities. The project makes sense because European nationalism and division killed so many in the last century. — Olivier5

Exactly that kind of nationalism is the one which makes nations create empires by subduing other nations – “my-nation-is-better-than-yours”-nationalism, you know. It fueled both ancient empire-building and the world wars.

The European Union is precisely not that; it’s a peaceful “empire”, if you will, based on human rights, democracy, and the rights of all folks, a union which seeks to allow nations to willingly dissolve the boundaries between them. The individual European nations committed many crimes and atrocities, mostly through their empires (as did many other peoples in the world), such as the Macedonian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Frankish Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, Faschist Italy, and Nazi Germany (and e.g. the Hunnish Empire and the Mongol Empire in the case of not-European peoples). The EU itself, by contrast, did not. It is the exact antithesis to the supremacist nationalism and the imperialism resulting from the latter.

I found the following text useful enough, and relevant to this thread. Translated from the original by Google and meself.



The "eccentricity" of Rome and the future of Europe
MAURIZIO BETTINI
Published on 23/11/2021

Speech delivered on the occasion of the European Day on Languages and Cultures of Antiquity.


Today's theme is immense, so I will limit myself to two salient points that concern the function of teaching classical culture in today's Europe, and especially in that of tomorrow. The first concerns language, the second culture.

Regarding language, we must first refute a prejudice. In the common perception, Latin as well as Greek are considered as "dead" languages. Many deduce that these languages are useless: "What is the point of studying languages that no one speaks anymore? But what does the "death" of a language really mean?

Today, there are about seven thousand languages spoken on earth. This sounds like a lot, but it is not much when compared to the number of languages that have disappeared over the years, for various reasons: one third of the multitude of languages spoken by the North American Indians has already died out, another third barely survives, spoken by a small number of speakers who are now very old. As for the thousand languages spoken in Central and South America, only one, Guarani, can hope to survive: along with Spanish, it is the official language of Paraguay. A real linguistic hecatomb. In this sense, Latin and Greek are - unfortunately - in good company. But not all languages die in the same way, and not all dead languages are alike.

How can a language like Latin be considered "dead"? The fate of Latin is not comparable to that of the indigenous American or Australian languages, irrevocably dead and without descendants. After them, these languages have left no legacy, except for the files of a few linguists. On the contrary, Latin never really died, its fortune has remained immense through the centuries. As is well known, this idiom survives in the many Romance languages that have been derived from it: the structure and lexicon of Latin continue to live on in French, Italian, Romanian, Castilian, Catalan, Portuguese... Moreover, all these languages have kept coming back to Latin - by "re-Latinizing" themselves with each generation - through the classical education practiced in Europe for centuries. This means that, in the Romance languages and cultures, Latin has been "born again" countless times.

Latin is also massively present in the language, which for many reasons plays a dominant role in the cultural, economic and political relations of the contemporary world, namely English. For, despite its Germanic origins, today's English contains 70% of words of Latin origin. It has also been calculated that, of the thousand words you need to know to get into an English-speaking university, 90% are of Latin origin.

In recent years, especially in America and England, there has been a lot of controversy about the Greek and Latin classics, which have been accused of being the source of a racist, white supremacist, misogynistic culture and other similar complaints. This controversy has been called "cancel culture" or "decolonize the classics". There have been some pretty absurd proposals, such as abolishing the teaching of classics at university altogether, refusing to read classical texts that are not "appropriate" in terms of race, gender, violence, and so on. Such arguments have the merit of making us think from a new perspective about the role that classical texts have played in our Western tradition and about the change in perspective that can be brought to bear on the classics, a change that is more necessary than ever today.

But that is not what interests us now; it is the "words" used to describe this movement: "cancel culture" and "decolonize the classics".

Indeed, "culture" is a Latin word, "cultura"; "cancel" itself derives from the Latin "cancellare", which properly indicates the act of the copyist who marks with crossed lines a word or phrase to be "deleted" in a text, thus creating the image of a "grid", in Latin "cancellum"; "classics" is obviously the Latin word "classicus"; as for "de-colonize", it is not only that "colonize" is a derivative of the Latin "colonia", but the preverb used in the English compound "de-" is itself a Latin preverb which retains its original morphological function: as a preverb, it indicates in Latin the notion of "far from", of "deprivation of" ("de-cedo"," de-duco", "de-migro", etc.). “Decolonize” is therefore a perfectly formed Latin compound.

In conclusion, we are faced with proposals which declare the need to erase classical culture while being entirely articulated from Latin words and even from the morphology of this “hated” language. The point is that Latin “speaks” within ourselves, without our realizing it. Latin forms the "deep consciousness" of the intellectual language of the West.

Second point: culture. For a long time, at least in Italy, at school, the study of Antiquity was based on two paths: on the one hand, the study of history (wars and battles, political upheavals, evolution of forms of government) and, on the other hand, the study of language and literature (syntactic grammar learning, author biographies, anthological readings). Today, in a global society which increasingly conceives of the relations between people in terms of "cultures" (in the religious, ethnic, political sense), it is time to abandon this traditional perspective and instead approach the study of Greek and Roman "culture" as such. A "culture" which must be deepened in its aspects not only linguistic, literary or event, but also family, sexual,religious, institutional, artistic, by asking questions about gender, the relationship between masters and slaves, or the role and position of animals in society.

The Romans would agree with us, because they would say that in order to understand their civilization, one must first study their mores (customs, way of life), that is the word - so important in the construction of Roman society - which they would use to signify their "culture". In this way, we will be able to make our students discover that the Elders were indeed "like us" in many aspects - our "ancestors" as they are called - because we have inherited a large part of their ways of living and thinking through the practices of Western education; but that the Elders are also "other than us" in relation to an equally large amount of customs and ways of life.

By taking this path, in particular through the practice of translation, the study of ancient culture could become a veritable "gymnasium" of confrontation with the other, an exercise whose practice is essential in contemporary European societies. The comparison between cultures - ours and those of the Greeks and Romans, but also the Greek culture versus the Roman culture - will allow us to highlight the aspects of the classical heritage which shock our modern sensibilities (slavery, discrimination against women, treating blood and violence as a show), to discuss the original historical context and the influences they sometimes exerted on the development of culture over time.

Indeed, it should not be forgotten that the classical heritage does not only include democracy or freedom, but also slavery, violence and discrimination. For what concerns us specifically on this day, the practice of the comparison between cultures can also help us to define which model to adopt and which to reject in our conception of the future Europe. And in this regard, I would like to compare two foundation myths, one Roman, the other Greek.

According to the traditional account of the founding of Rome, Romulus first gathered in his asylum people from everywhere, free or slaves as many as they were; after that, the founder had a circular pit dug where they placed the first fruits of everything the use of which was legitimized by law or made necessary by nature. [Plutarch - Life of Romulus]. At the end, each one threw into the pit a handful of soil brought from the country from which he had come, and they mixed everything together. They gave this pit the name of "mundus", the "world".

This pit dug by Romulus is loaded with significance. They threw in it both products of culture and products of nature, to signify the creation of a new life, the emergence of a new civilization. In addition - and this is for us the most significant moment of the episode - are thrown into the pit clods of earth coming from the various places of origin of those who had gathered around Romulus.

What meaning can be given to this singular passage from the myth? It certainly delivers a very strong symbolic message: creating one's own earth, building it almost as an act of a cosmological import - Romulus creates a mundus, in fact, "a world" - an act which goes far beyond usual foundation rites. The act of mixing these clods of earth brought from afar reflects the mixture of men from all these different places that Romulus gathers in the asylum at the time of founding the new city: by welcoming the earth from other territories, the soil of Rome becomes in a very concrete way a “land of asylum”.

In the mythical representation, the soil of the city will be configured as both the one and the multiple: one, because the clods, initially distinct, are then mixed; multiple, because it derives its origins from as many different “soils” as clods of earth. The political message of this myth is very strong, it highlights one of the main characteristics of Roman culture: openness. The same provision that allows not only foreigners, but also slaves, to become Roman citizens, thereby subjecting the Roman community to continuous "reshuffle". This fundamental inclination to openness, which constitutes the backbone of Roman culture through the centuries, finds its narrative expression in a founding tale which mixes, on one side, men, on the other, clods of earth, in a perfect parallelism.

Here is now the Greek myth which could be compared with the Roman myth just related. This is another foundational myth, which also speaks of land, origin and peoples, but which conveys a message completely opposite to the myth of asylum and clods of earth: it is about Athenian autochthony. This myth claimed that the Athenians came from "this very land" on which they lived - this is the literal meaning of the word "autochthony", "autochton": by that they mean that they were "born" of the earth. Attica, that they were the first inhabitants of this soil, and therefore the only worthy to reside there.

However, in Athens, the tendency to exclude did not come only from the myth, it was also present in the law. Indeed, one could not become a citizen, as in Rome: one was a citizen, or not. Only the sons of both Athenian parents could enjoy this privilege, while all the others - foreigners, metics and slaves - had no possibility of claiming it. The model of autochthony thus conveys the image of a culture which, unlike the Roman vision, places its identity only in itself: while Roman culture is "eccentric", by basing its identity on men from "outside" and their mix, Athenian culture wants to be "autocentric", as can be seen in several identity movements today. The contrast between the two myths, Roman and Greek,could not be more explicit: in Athens, it is the earth which produces the men, in Rome, it is the men who produce the earth.

In conclusion, the myth of the founding of Rome - mixture of men, mixture of lands - gives concrete reality to the symbolic and lasting representation that the Romans wanted to give of themselves: mixture, multiplicity, movement. In this original myth, the Romans had in short left a place not only for otherness, for diversity, but even for the possibility of being both oneself and other. Roman culture does not hesitate to define itself as a passage, to situate its identity also outside itself.

The identity of the Romans, if they had one, was of an "eccentric" nature: this is why their civilization can still offer a valid model for a Europe in which it is increasingly necessary to be both oneself and others, citizens of a country and at the same time citizens of a community of countries: a Europe which, on the contrary, sometimes insists on finding itself by breaking up into a plurality of (so-called) sovereign nations centered on themselves, thus following the Athenian path of autochthony and closure.

No states are morally legitimate; all any state ever has is its effective control over a territory. — Pfhorrest

:up:

No states are morally legitimate; — Pfhorrest

Can you help me out here, and provide an example of anything at all that is morally legitimate? Thanks.

In the sense that we're talking about with states, if Alice is walking down the street and sees Bob attacking innocent Charlie, and commands or even forces Bob to stop that, that's morally legitimate. Alice doesn't have arbitrary authority to command or force anyone to do just anything, though; that would be morally illegitimate. And that's the kind of authority states categorically claim.

And that's the kind of authority states categorically claim. — Pfhorrest

You've parsed a hair that I'd like to further explore. Regarding Alice, you distinguish between her morally legitimate command/force, and her lack of arbitrary authority. Okay, I get that. But, regarding the state, if it prevents Bob from attacking innocent Charlie under threat of force, is that immoral? Why would that be arbitrary?

And, if the state claims arbitrary authority, why is that morally illegitimate instead of simply amoral authority? My point being, can a non-human entity be immoral? Like a corporation, or a tree, or a wolf? Can't it simply be amoral?

But, regarding the state, if it prevents Bob from attacking innocent Charlie under threat of force, is that immoral? Why would that be arbitrary? — James Riley

It's not immoral, precisely because it's not arbitrary. It's the arbitrariness of the claimed authority of the state that makes it morally illegitimate. To legitimately oblige or prohibit something requires sound reasons to back that up; obligation or prohibition without sound reasons is thereby arbitrary and thus illegitimate.

why is that morally illegitimate instead of simply amoral authority — James Riley

Moral illegitimacy is a species of amorality; it's the lack of moral justification. That doesn't make it immoral, though in general, for independent reasons, anything you might do to force someone to do something is usually immoral, unless you have legitimate moral justification to command them to do so. Basically, if there is a sound moral reason that would rightly prohibit them from doing something, you have justification to stop them from doing it. But you don't have -- and nobody has -- justification to just make anybody do or not do anything for no reason at all, just because they say so. But states by definition claim the power to do so, and since they're not morally justified in that claim, they are morally illegitimate.

No states are morally legitimate; all any state ever has is its effective control over a territory. — Pfhorrest

Secular-wise, yes. Christianwise, god's supreme. Its earthly governors are kings, who are to preside over a territory. The moral of the story in Christian mythology is to obey the ruler, that's the whole point of the exercise. "All authority derives from god", therefore the subjects are morally obligated (obligato) to serve the king to the best of their abilities.

It's the arbitrariness of the claimed authority of the state that makes it morally illegitimate. — Pfhorrest

Where is this arbitrary claim of authority (in the U.S.)?

But you don't have -- and nobody has -- justification to just make anybody do or not do anything for no reason at all, just because they say so. But states by definition claim the power to do so, and since they're not morally justified in that claim, they are morally illegitimate. — Pfhorrest

When I read the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States, I see one of the most morally compelling justifications for any authority that I have ever read. Not just state authority, but any authority. There is no "just because they say so". There is always a reason. In fact, due process of law demands a reason. States are not by any definition claiming power to act arbitrarily. Far from it.

No, a state is a monopoly on the use of violence. That's the textbook political science definition. — Pfhorrest

is not the use of (or threat of) coercion the primary means by which States prove their legitimacy?

Let's say Alaska declares all of itself to be an independent nation. The new state controls the southern coast from Kodiak and Anchorage down to Ketchikan. Most of the territory of Alaska is under the control of the local governments which predate the new nation.

After several years, Sovereign Alaska has yet to extend its control beyond the coastal areas. The people who run the nation are respectable, urbane, sophisticated people who compare favorably to governments elsewhere. Where they are in control, life is peaceable and the people there are happy. But still, they control very little of their territory.

Do you consider them legitimate at this point? Or would you expect them to use force to gain control of the remaining territory?

There are a number of national states, like Somalia, that are considered "failed states". Pretty much no one is in charge. Syria is bad, but Bashar Hafez al-Assad has largely retained control of the government and territory, albeit with savage violence. Syria is still Syria, more or less. Hasn't Assad proved his legitimacy? (He's a loathsome person, but that's another matter.). I don't like the Taliban, either. But, like it or not, they have gained control of Afghanistan. Since they don't seem to want to all drop dead, they have gained legitimacy.

The Republic of Congo has been described as a failed state. Seems like it to me. Various non-governmental actors have stepped in to do some of the things a state is supposed to do (above and beyond controlling territory). That proves the point: The 'State' is out of order. Kaput. Illegitimate.

Where is this arbitrary claim of authority (in the U.S.)? — James Riley

Each state constitution and the US constitution has a clause granting their legislature the power to create and enforce laws in general; often with some limitations, and sometimes nominally only within certain limited domains, but in practice that's always completely ignored, e.g. the US Congress doesn't have to cite which of the enumerated powers granted to them they are passing a law in the name of and show that that law accomplishes that purpose, unless they're challenged by the Supreme Court in which case they can usually just comically hyper-extend one of the enumerated powers like the Commerce Clause. In practice, if a state (either the constituent states or the federal state, in the case of the US) agrees with itself that something is a law, then you're forced to comply regardless of any argument to the contrary, which is tantamount to "because we said so".

is not the use of (or threat of) coercion the primary means by which States prove their legitimacy? — Bitter Crank

Successfully exercising a monopoly on the use of force is what proves that they are actually a state, and not just claiming to be one. But being actually a state doesn't make them morally legitimate.

E.g. the Republic of China clearly is not the state in control of China generally, since their effective power is limited to the island of Taiwan. But even if they did in fact exercise a monopoly on the use of force over China as a whole, while that would make them the actual Chinese state, it would not make them morally legitimate.

Each state constitution and the US constitution has a clause granting their legislature the power to create and enforce laws in general; often with some limitations, and sometimes nominally only within certain limited domains, but in practice that's always completely ignored, e.g. the US Congress doesn't have to cite which of the enumerated powers granted to them they are passing a law in the name of and show that that law accomplishes that purpose, unless they're challenged by the Supreme Court in which case they can usually just comically hyper-extend one of the enumerated powers like the Commerce Clause. In practice, if a state (either the constituent states or the federal state, in the case of the US) agrees with itself that something is a law, then you're forced to comply regardless of any argument to the contrary, which is tantamount to "because we said so". — Pfhorrest

So there is no claim of arbitrary authority. It is all based upon due process of law. And due process of law is all based upon the moral arguments set forth in the organic documents.

If one uses brute force to compel compliance, that is not de facto or de jure arbitrary. It may very well be morally founded. The "victim" of such force will complain such force is arbitrary. But that does not make it so. The power of the state is such that it need not spell it out for each individual, so long as it has been spelled out for everyone. The fact that an individual is ignorant of the law is no excuse, so long as the law is out there for the individual to have consulted.

The state does not need to explain itself so long as it has explained itself. Personally, I don't want my state having to run around pre-emptively explaining to Bob why he should not victimize innocent Charlie. If Bob's sense of morality does not comport with the state's sense of morality, that does not render the state's punishment of Bob to be arbitrary. Fuck Bob. Moral persuasion is set forth in innumerable locations, regardless of the the organic documents. If Bob is not persuaded, his suffering of the consequences is not arbitrary. It is well founded in morality.

The power of the state is such that it need not spell it out for each individual, so long as it has been spelled out for everyone. — James Riley

And it does not have to be spelled out for everyone, only for itself. If part of the state (e.g. the legislature) says that such-and-such is mandatory or prohibited and the rest of the state (e.g. the judiciary) goes along with it, then no further explanation to anyone is taken to be necessary. There is no one else to appeal to, and if there de facto were (some powerful entity that could curtail the state), then the state would cry that that other entity was de jure illegitimate, because the state's authority is beyond question (according to the state).

And it does not have to be spelled out for everyone, only for itself. — Pfhorrest

That is incorrect. It does have to be spelled out for everyone. The fact that it must be is one part of the moral authority underpinning the state. I kicked the federal government's ass a few times in court. My argument was the old tried and true charge of "Arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law." The state lost because it was acting arbitrarily, etc.

If part of the state (e.g. the legislature) says that such-and-such is mandatory or prohibited and the rest of the state (e.g. the judiciary) goes along with it, then no further explanation to anyone is taken to be necessary. — Pfhorrest

That is incorrect. No further explanation to anyone is necessary because it has already been explained. You knew or should have known better. Just because your cause is a loser, does not mean the legislature did not follow the law and that the courts rubber-stamped it. It just means you are a loser. Your "If" is a big IF. Your IF is assuming that when the legislature says that such-and-such is mandatory or prohibited and the judiciary went along with it, that they were wrong; that they were arbitrary. The moral underpinnings of the U.S. system give you recourse; even up to and including waivers of sovereignty under Federal Tort Claims, etc.

There is no one else to appeal to, — Pfhorrest

Where would you go? The World Court? Jesus? Will you keep forum-shopping until you find a someone who rules in *your* favor? What would make you right? You don't have a right to appeal until you win unless you are right. The fact that the state finds you wrong does not mean it lack moral authority under the laws, as set forth in our organic documents. It just means you're a loser.

the state's authority is beyond question (according to the state). — Pfhorrest

Nowhere does the state say the state's authority is beyond question. The state specifically provides you with MORAL ways to question it's authority. If you don't think those ways are moral (see Declaration of Independence and Constitution) then the state goes one step further and allows you to find some other place in the world more to your liking.

The point here is this: Power does not = moral illegitimacy. Demanding the state agree with you, or provide endless review with unlimited scope and standards, is morally illegitimate.

not in accordance with law — James Riley

That just means an agent of the state did something contrary to what the state said they could. It's the laws themselves that can be arbitrary.

moral authority under the laws, as set forth in our organic documents — James Riley

Documents which can say anything, or be interpreted to mean anything, that the people with all the power say they do.

allows you to find some other place in the world more to your liking — James Riley

See Hume's "carried aboard a ship asleep".

Power does not = moral illegitimacy — James Riley

I never said it did. I said power != moral legitimacy. Just because they can force you to comply with their commands does not make their commands morally binding.

That just means an agent of the state did something contrary to what the state said they could. It's the laws themselves that can be arbitrary. — Pfhorrest

First of all, "can be" does not equal "are". You need to come up with an example. While you are searching, find one that was promulgated in violation of the moral principles set forth in the underlying authority.

Documents which can say anything, or be interpreted to mean anything, that the people with all the power say they do. — Pfhorrest

That would be you, not the the documents. You are saying they can say anything. But they don't. They say something. That something is the moral underpinning that you interpret to mean nothing because they are, allegedly, interpreted or applied or promulgated arbitrarily. So you see, it is your unsubstantiated interpretation that is arbitrary. And I see no morality in your claim.

My son just asked me about the definition of "pretentious." We talked about it. I think you are pretending to a morality by pretending to charge the state with arbitrariness just because you are jealous of the state's power to compel you by force. Yes, the state can compel you by force. But that does not mean the state is acting immorally, either in the compelling, or in the promulgation and enforcement of the laws that it acts pursuant to while forcing compliance.

See Hume's "carried aboard a ship asleep". — Pfhorrest

No thanks. I will allow you to argue on your own two feet.

I said power != moral legitimacy. — Pfhorrest

???

Just because they can force you to comply with their commands does not make their commands morally binding. — Pfhorrest

Now you are switching horses, from "arbitrary" to "morally binding." If you don't feel morally bound, that does not mean the state has to honor your morality (or lack thereof). Nor does that mean the state is arbitrary or immoral in it's refusal to respect your morality (or lack thereof).

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. Emphasis added.

After stating that, the Declaration goes on to do exactly that, laying out the moral authority which is anything but arbitrary.

After delineating all that moral authority, the Constitution kicks off likewise: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Now you may think that is all empty BS, but it's not. Anyone who endeavors to interfere with the stated goals may sit back, self-righteously, indignantly, jealously, and complain about the power they don't have, but that does not mean the state is acting without moral legitimacy.

Power does not = moral illegitimacy
— James Riley

I never said it did. — Pfhorrest

You said:

No states are morally legitimate; — Pfhorrest

Maybe you could explain yourself. Maybe we are just two ships passing in the night, talking about something entirely different, talking passed each other. I'll need some help.

I'm increasingly disinclined to continue this conversation as it's clear that you lack dialectical charity (which is the main reason I no longer visit these forums at all, for the most part). But I'll give at least one more succinct response.

Do you think there are such things as unjust laws? Morally bad, wrong laws, that morally should not be enforced, and that nobody is morally obligated to obey -- despite, nevertheless, actually being the law, in full compliance with all legal requirements for laws?

If you say yes to that, you are agreeing with me. That the state commands something -- that something is obligatory according to the law -- does not make it morally obligatory. It's not necessarily wrong to disobey it. (There might be things that the state commands, and that are obligatory, but they're not obligatory just because the state commands them).

If you say no to that, then you're a reprehensible monster and I'm not going to continue this conversation.


When I said no state is morally legitimate, I meant that nobody has a moral power to command just any old thing, and nobody has a moral duty to obey everything someone commands. The state's edicts carry no moral weight. The state might command things that are also morally obligatory, and in that case people have a moral duty to do those things, but they would have a duty to do them even if the state hadn't commanded them -- the state's commands make no moral difference. It is morally permissible to disobey the state, so long as there not some other moral obligation that aligns with what the state commands. You're morally free to ignore whether or not something is commanded by the state in deciding what to do. That is the sense in which the state is morally illegitimate.

I am not saying that having power makes the state morally illegitimate in that sense. Such moral illegitimacy is the default state of affairs. If a powerless nobody went about commanding everyone to do as they said, that would be morally illegitimate too: nobody would be obliged to obey them. But if that powerless nobody suddenly gained power enough to make everybody do as they said... they would still be morally illegitimate. They would be a state, as in, they would have a monopoly on the use of force, but that wouldn't give them any more moral legitimacy.

Do you think there are such things as unjust laws? Morally bad, wrong laws, that morally should not be enforced, and that nobody is morally obligated to obey -- despite, nevertheless, actually being the law, in full compliance with all legal requirements for laws? — Pfhorrest

I do think there are such things as unjust laws, morally bad, wrong laws, that morally should not be enforced, and that nobody is morally obligated to obey, but I don't think they are in compliance with all legal requirements for laws. I asked you for examples, but crickets.

If you say no to that, then you're a reprehensible monster and I'm not going to continue this conversation. — Pfhorrest

Okay, but before you go, I’m going to tell you something you don’t want to hear. I do so because the state-loving, paternalistic dad in me thinks it will be good for you to hear.

You really aren’t that special. Now don’t get me wrong. You are special. In fact, I think the U.S., at least ostensibly, thinks you are more special than any other state. (I say “ostensibly” because the state itself has been corrupted by the Plutocracy who doesn’t think you are worth shit; well, unless you are producing or consuming for them.) But you aren’t so special that the state will subordinate itself to you. In fact, it would be grossly immoral for the state to subordinate itself to you. You are not a sovereign citizen, and you are not sovereign. The state does not, nor should it, allow appeals from the SCOTUS to you. Sorry.

But that little piece of reality, as harsh as it may seem to you, does not then mean the state is immoral, or that it lacks moral legitimacy. Indeed, it proves just how moral the state is. I certainly don’t want you running things, or having state power. Now that-there would be immoral!

I just gave the balance of your post a cursory glance but didn't see much new, other than an effort to change what you originally said. So, as a reprehensible monster, I'll exercise my sovereign powers of evil to stay my wrath, and exercise the magnanimity of the state. Carry on.