Page 5 of 5 [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Amaltheia
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 154
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

12 Nov 2016, 4:27 am

cyberdad wrote:
In this sense the Romans (ironically) were actually more enlightened than modern Americans in that anyone who pledged allegiance to Rome became a citizen, they didn't classify Romans into whites, blacks, Hispanics etc...

So you're saying the Romans had two baskets: one labelled "citizens" who got to be treated with respect, and one labelled "non-citizens" or "allies" or "barbarians" who didn't.

The thing is the Romans only extended the citizenship reluctantly. Originally, only inhabitants of Rome could be citizens. Then, a form of second-class citizenship was extended to the Latin tribes (after the Latin War), then to the Italian allies (after the Social War). It wasn't until Julius Caesar became dictator that citizenship was extended outside of the Italian peninsula, when he granted it to the inhabitants of Gaul and Hispania. Note how often the extension only came after a war in which the non-citizens demanded a change to their status — and demonstrated they were willing to fight for it.*

So, as far as I can tell, modern-day America is very much like Rome. There are two baskets: one of enlightened individuals, who get to engage in "primitive tribalism"; and one of deplorables, who don't and get denounced if they do.

Possibly, it would be best to move beyond putting people in baskets.

* Just as an interesting aside, the Latins and Italian tribes fought for the citizenship because, as part of the growing Roman Empire, they were providing the bulk — some two-thirds — of the Roman army. That also matches modern-day America, where the bulk of the US military is made up of recruits from the basket of deplorables.



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,267
Location: Palestine

12 Nov 2016, 11:16 am

cyberdad wrote:
Speaking on CNN during the wee hours of Wednesday morning, CNN contributor Van Jones claimed that this year's election (and Republican candidate Donald Trump's unexpected rise) ultimately came down to something entirely unrelated to candidates' policies or their speeches at rallies. Instead, Jones claimed the root of this year's wild election was something he called "whitelash."

Trump's rise and his surprising surge in votes on Nov. 8, Jones reasoned, came down to "whitelash" — essentially, backlash from white Americans against other races. Backlash (or whitelash) against immigrants entering the country, backlash against refugees who were welcomed into the United States, backlash against African Americans and (of course) a backlash against 8 years of a black president

https://www.romper.com/p/what-does-whit ... bout-22274



CNN is worse than FOX. The facts prove far more non whites voted for Trump than expected. Hillary thought she could fool people into thinking she was for blacksmexicanswomengbltqingersminoritiesnoncisblahblah, but perhaps more people studied her background and emails than they expected. They know that she's a racist, a liar and a user.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,451

12 Nov 2016, 7:21 pm

Amaltheia wrote:
So, as far as I can tell, modern-day America is very much like Rome. There are two baskets: one of enlightened individuals, who get to engage in "primitive tribalism"; and one of deplorables, who don't and get denounced if they do.


I don't subscribe to propaganda or rhetoric. Even Clinton regretted using the "deplorables" tag as she lost an opportunity to appeal to republican voters.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,451

12 Nov 2016, 7:22 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Speaking on CNN during the wee hours of Wednesday morning, CNN contributor Van Jones claimed that this year's election (and Republican candidate Donald Trump's unexpected rise) ultimately came down to something entirely unrelated to candidates' policies or their speeches at rallies. Instead, Jones claimed the root of this year's wild election was something he called "whitelash."

Trump's rise and his surprising surge in votes on Nov. 8, Jones reasoned, came down to "whitelash" — essentially, backlash from white Americans against other races. Backlash (or whitelash) against immigrants entering the country, backlash against refugees who were welcomed into the United States, backlash against African Americans and (of course) a backlash against 8 years of a black president

https://www.romper.com/p/what-does-whit ... bout-22274



CNN is worse than FOX. The facts prove far more non whites voted for Trump than expected. Hillary thought she could fool people into thinking she was for blacksmexicanswomengbltqingersminoritiesnoncisblahblah, but perhaps more people studied her background and emails than they expected. They know that she's a racist, a liar and a user.


Whatever her personal views it's not going to matter does it. Flogging a dead horse.



LadyRocketRide
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 7

12 Nov 2016, 9:49 pm

Van Jones is a Communist and one of the biggest race-baiters in the country. Did you expect him to say anything else?