The Most Ancient Enemy. “They have no faces...”

NRO ^ | May 19, 2004, 9:02 a.m. | John Derbyshire

[anarabismybrotherinlaw]

The PRC has H-bombs, OBL doesn't. The PRC cannot ignore the "threat" that democratic Taiwan poses to them. They cannot ignore Taiwan because the average Chinese knows that the people are free and prosperous - while on the Mainland the people are ruled with an iron fist and are not nearly so well off materially per capita. The PRC propagandists cannot satisfactorily explain why two nations with a common background of language, culture, and even to some extent, geography, operate and perform so differently. Taiwan is the Achilles heel of China because the 1.3 billion Chinese on the Mainland will eventually revolt from PRC tyranny as a result of this pack of lies! The PRC, like all other Communist liars before them, cannot overcome this obvious disparity, and thus, to ensure their own survival, they know that they must destroy or intimidate Taiwan into oblivion. In effect the PRC has been, is, and will be just as barbarous as the ancient invaders discussed in this article. Based on what I read, I predict that all hell will break loose when they attack Taiwan - and I fear that that will happen soon - while the US is tied up in Iraq. We're pulling troops out of South Korea to send to Iraq. About the time we've committed all our reserves to Iraq, I believe that the PRC will strike Taiwan - ruthlessly. If and when they do, then tell me who is civilized and who is the barbarian!

[rightwingcrazy]

Whoa, I was talking about China during the 12th dynasty. PRC/Taiwan is a completely different row to hoe. Taiwan's OK by me!

[dsc]

"The Romans were more civilized than the Celts and Germans, but it is not clear to me that the Romans were any better than those barbarians."

From the article: "There you have the difference between civilization and barbarism. If you can't see it, I can't help you: You are morally blind."

[maro]

There are some terms that are not reducible to constituent elements. As Roland said in his Chanson, the paynim are wrong and the Christians are right.

[maro]

There are some terms that are not reducible to constituent elements. As Roland said in his Chanson, the paynim are wrong and the Christians are right.

[maro]

The Romans who fed Christians and others to wild animals for sport? The Rome of bread and circuses? The Rome of Nero and Caligula? You don't think there is some doubt as to who was morally worse?

[dsc]

"The Romans who fed Christians and others to wild animals for sport? The Rome of bread and circuses? The Rome of Nero and Caligula? You don't think there is some doubt as to who was morally worse"

No.

It's not valid to take snapshots of all the worst of Rome, particularly in its decadence, as your basis for comparison.

[maryz]

National Review (and NRO) is the only place I've ever seen Derbyshire; he has a regular column in the print edition. I don't know if he writes for anything else. I doubt that he does regularly.

[maryz]

So it is not always true that the civilized are to be supported over the barbarian; what matters is who is on the side of good and who on the side of evil.

The whole theme of the essay is that the civilization/barbarism distinction can be a slippery one. Civilized societies can be at once better and worse than barbaric ones, but it's only the civilized who have the relative safety and leisure to contemplate good and evil.

[maryz]

The Romans who fed Christians and others to wild animals for sport? The Rome of bread and circuses? The Rome of Nero and Caligula? You don't think there is some doubt as to who was morally worse?

The post you respond to compared the Romans to the Celts and the Germanic tribes. From what I read, the Celts offered human sacrifice. And the Germanic tribes cultivated their "natural born killers" -- those who showed signs of viciousness from an early age -- and sent them into battle first to terrify the enemy (the berserkers).

There have been societies that could be at least loosely descibed as Christian; the tiny splinter community of Christians in pagan Rome could hardly be described as a "society" in the sense under discussion.

[maryz]

As Roland said in his Chanson, the paynim are wrong and the Christians are right.

There is a certain "us vs. them" in the concept of barbarism: I recall from grad school that the word "barbarian" comes from the Greek, meaning those who speak no language, only gibberish.

[maryz]

So it is not always true that the civilized are to be supported over the barbarian; what matters is who is on the side of good and who on the side of evil.

Civilization vs. barbarism is one of those oppositions like nature vs. nurture that will never be exhausted. When John Milton was at University, the question of whether civilization is better than barbarism was one of the topics routinely assigned for the the students to debate. (Milton originally wanted to argue for barbarism, but after he thought about it, asked to argue for civilization.)

[RightWhale]

I guess we know it when we see it.