h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"I argued that the office of President is rarely treated with respectful awe these days and the President has never claimed to be either a God (Pagan Roman Empire) or second only to the Holy Trinity (Christian Roman Empire))."

You mean like 'Welease Woger, Welease Woger'

Just because most of our historical texts about the Roman Empire are written from the (usually Roman) State's perspective, they are never going to put in that the Emperor is just as human as the rest of you. That would lead to even more people questioning authority. Nobody knows what the ordinary people like us of the Roman age thought of their Emperors. I would hazard a guess at the Life of Brian version of events, simply because that seems to be in human nature - to poke fun and to flout authority.

There are many reasons as to why George Bush doesn't pretend to be 'God's representative' on Earth. Mainly because no-one would believe him. Secondly because that is not his aim. His aim is to appear to be 'democratically chosen' and 'representative'. Therefore less people will question his authority as he is seen as the 'Voice of America', and the American people.

The point was Freedland claimed that the office of Imperator and President both commanded awe and almost spiritual respect. I think the Roman's (especially the political elite) treated the Emperor with only as much respect as was necessary.

Hmmm.

Sounds like a load of poo to me. I don't think anyone respects Dubya too much. It's pretty obvious he's a front man for some of the more 'sinister elements' of the US Administration.

There is a difference between how Presidents are treated in person and how they are treated by our information-based society.

I am willing to bet that most of the people who meet him call him Mr President and remember the event for the rest of their lives.

B

Sad, but true

But on the other hand. Those that do meet him, are those that do respect him.

I suppose it boils down to whether you respect authority or not. Never been a game that I've played really. But there are plenty out there who will blindly give their support to someone just because of their social standing.

Here's an interesting point. If the similarity between US empire? and Roman Empire can be drwan by how much respect their leaders command(ed). Then surely the similarity must be equally between the people of the Roman Empire and people of today in that it is up to THEM (i.e. us) who we respect.

God, I hope that makes sense.

That is not true now as it was not then. If you disrespected the Roman emperor you wound up dead. Sadly after over 15 centurys the same is still true in some countrys today. Though not in the one this thread is attempting to equate to the Roman Empire.

...or even the Byzantine Empire!!!

Interesting point in regard to the Byzantine Empire.

In the early Byzantine Period, there was an attempt by the Eastern Emperor, Justinian, to re-conquer the Western provinces. Carthage and North Africa were re-conquered without too much fuss. However, Italy was ruled by a fairly strong Visigothic Kingdom.

Now, the Visigothic King *nominally* ruled in the name of the Emperor, but was actually independent. However, Justinian had the option of signing Treaties with the King and perhaps gaining permission for the formation of a Roman foothold in Italy. Instead, he attempted to re-conquor Italy. After much bloodshed, he succeeded. However, in doing so he exhausted the Imperial treasury and failed to rebuild North Africa. Italy was only held for about fifty years.

My point? Well, this mirrors the modern situation. You *can* try to build an empire, but you're better off establishing a "mutually beneficial" trade or military alliance with a strong nation.

Ahh, the Visigoths... There was a lovely bunch...
Makes you all misty-eyed, doesn't it?

There was a recent, revisionist, TV program about the Barbarians arguing that they were often a cultured, intelligent people. They took the Visigothic King I mentioned above, Theodoric, as an example of this. They neglected to mention that Theodoric, whilst a cultured man, was despised by his fellow Visigoths as Romanised and more interested in reading than fighting. I think he was murdered by his subjects and replaced by an old warrior King when the Romans started cutting a swathe through Italy.

I think the epitomy of the 'Imperial Presidency' existed during the Nixon administration. He had his Praetorian Guard, he had his Brutus, and he had his character assasinated in the Senate.

Ambling back to the topic, doesn't it all depend on what an empire is for?

Surely it is to ensure a 'good' life in your home country?

In the days when might was right and men were men and savages were scared then the way to achieve this was by military conquest.

These days it can be done by MTV, Coca Cola and MacDonalds. If you are the US, that is.

No?

B

Oh, and bombing Iraq, of course...

The Romam Empire grew because the Romans always had some problem on their increasing land borders and so invaded and occupied. It shrank for the same reason.

The USA has land borders only with Canada and Mexico and has fought both, but not occupied. Anywhere the USA has invaded, it has either withdrawn from as policy or been forced out one way or another. They always claim NOT to be an empire. Coca-Cola and Macdonalds have never denied it, but call it a franchise.

Cultural imperialism then. Maybe it's not a deliberate, conscious thing, but it's a reality.

America does'nt have a culture, it just sits in front of the television and saying that they have a Westen culture, some Americans think Shakesphere was American!!!

Well, actually, for years, I thought John Hillerman was English, as well as the Ramones and Cheap Trick.
Growing up in the armpit of the midwest, I thought nothing American could be as good as anything German, because Scorpions were German, or Swedish, as Golden Earring and Focus were Swedish, or Canadian, because Rush was Canadian....

But I twuwwy agwee, outside of Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck, Amewica does seem to wack a wittle in the cultuwe depawtment....

Santa Claus brought to you by Coca-Cola.
Norman Rockwell brought to you by The Saturday Evening Post, which exists soley to sell advertising.
Lady's Home Journal, pornography for the kleptomaniac, dipsomaniac and just plain shopaholic.
Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck brought to you by Time/Warner Inc., who are exploiting forever the handiwork of some overworked, underpaid artists of the forties and fifties...

but then there's that little matter of Pokemon...

Having dreams of Sailor Antimony....

Hey, nobody, but *nobody* does exploitative mass marketing like the Japanese. I mean, Pokemon is a triumph of capitalism if ever there was one.

I'm worried about this seeming obsession with dodgy mittel-European rock bands though, TR. I mean, The Scorpions...You have to be joking.

Right?

Now playing- Accept- Restless and Wild

I don't like listening to bands that play better than me. <guitarsolo.

It is a common enough idea that American's lack culture. I would have to disagree heavily with this.

Take away the Fast-Food hamburger and pizza (no pun intended). Take away Hollywood, The Internet, Friends and The Simpsons. Take away Emimem and Limp Bizkit.

The American culture influences millions of people worldwide, it's just us English like to associate it with low, base culture that appeals to the 'lowest common denominator'.

Anyone ever read any of Gramsci's writings about ruling by 'cultural hegemony'? I can't remember exactly the argument, but it ran something along the lines of this.
Basically, where previous societies have been ruled by coercion and force, today's society is ruled by this notion of hegemony. This means a set of ideas passed down culturally to the people, compelling them to behave in a certain way. This saves the state having to act forcefully upon its people which would not be tolerated by many societies in the modern age.

Needless to say, these ideas didn't go down too well in Fascist Italy and he eventually died in a prison cell. I still think his ideas are pretty interesting and quite relevant to today's political climate. I'm sure someone could provide a better description of his ideas than this though - I'll try and dig out some information so you don't have to rely on what I can remember from a sociology class 2 years ago.