Occidental exceptionalism

Submitted by Debanjan Banerjee (India), Nov 6, 2011 at 09:29

"The last conquests were those under Emperor Trajan in Dacia (for which today's Romanians are infinitely grateful to him and very proud of him ) "

My Answer --- What is the scientific proof that the Romanians of today are infinitely grateful for being subjugated by a Roman tyrant a millenia or two ago ? Is it again your exceptional viewpoint that suggests that any land which have had been under Western culture for some time should always be grateful for the same till eternity ?

I said --- > Then you should understand that as an empire Rome survived and thrived based upon her ability to conquer more and more territories and incorporate as many slaves as possible into her economic system.

You said --- > "The last conquests were those under Emperor Trajan in Dacia (for which today's Romanians are infinitely grateful to him and very proud of him ) and Mesopotamia. The latter were soon lost, the former abandoned after circa 150 years under Aurelianus. Yet the Empire continued to live on losing or voluntarily abandoning territory after territory."

My Answer ---> It seems that you did not read my answers carefully. I did not say in my first statement that Rome ceased to existence straightaway after it stopped expanding her empire. What I mentioned that Rome was not thriving at her best when she gradually started losing her empire. The biggest argument for the argument that Rome started to lose her glorious days after she gradually started losing her empire was in the way how Rome gradually turned from being Republic towards under the rule of a tyrant. If you

"And you imply you understand them, don't you ?"

My Answer ---> OK if you understand so much more about Rome then please give me two solid reasons why Rome turned from being a republic to being ruled by a dictatorial empire ? And also tell me if there are any lessons to be learned from this by the so-called Enlightened democracies of modern World ?

I said ---> Romans never forced anybody to become a Roman citizen simply because no Roman citizens could be made a slave and put into gladiatorship.<

You said --> First, there was a difference between being a free citizen and a Roman citizen.You could be a free citizen without being a Roman citizen as was usually the case in the Roman province. As a free citizen you couldn't be made a slave. And as to gladiators it involved much more than just being a captive or a slave. The institution developed from the ancient Etruscan funeral duels and you needed to go through a long course of special training before you were allowed to fight on the arena. Do you believe that Roman spectators were interested in trembling exhausted human wrecks fighting each other ?

My Answer --- > Sorry your argument did not refute my viewpoint. What I said was that Rome did not offer citizenship to her conquered people becasue she feared that doing so would deprive her of many slaves who were the lifeblood of Roman economy.

You just give the argument about the difference between Free citizens and Roman citizens and look the other way regarding gladiatorship since Romans may have invented them from their erstwhile Etrsucan rulers.

Tell me this simple fact , do you believe that the whole practise of gladiatorship was pure evil or not ? This barbaric practise took the lives of thousands of innocent lives through centuries whereby men were well trained in killing techniques and then sent to fight and kill and maime their own fellow human beings as well being devoured by Lions , tigers , Panthers and bears. Do you consider that this barbaric and inhuman acts were civilized that you make excuses for them ? I am proud that Ottomans or for that matter no other Muslim dynasty ever practised a macabre spectacle of death in an industrial form like your glorious Roman empire did.

Your overall arguments suggest to me that you are blinded by an Westen exceptional and superior attitude which denies even the very basic humanity of Turks and Muslims in general. I do not know how do you reconcile this to your so-called enlightened and civilized attitude ?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".