Africa Speaks Reasoning Forum

LESSONS FROM ROME: A REVIEW
============================
[Col. Writ. 11/25/03] Copyright 2003 Mumia Abu-Jamal

   I had rather be a dog, and bay the moon,
   Than such a Roman.
            -- William Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar"

   Of what worth can it be for us, at the dawn of the 21st century,
to spend our precious time in the study of ancient days?

   There is enough to study all about us; enough to fill a thousand
books, and hundreds of libraries, at least.  And yet, sometimes,
from the hoary mists of history, come moments of crystal clarity,
which reveal to us all, better than a window pane, the events
of our day.  They reveal to us the underlying forces that still
ripple through our present, often explaining why things are as
they are.

   A recent book on ancient Rome, *The Assassination of
Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome*, by
scholar Michael Parenti, is surely a well-written, and accessible
work on a subject that is quite complex.  But it is more; it
examines and uncovers the politics and classes at work in
ancient Rome, and of empires that have followed Rome, to
explain why we have been taught what we think we know
about the fountainhead of much of Western civilization.  In
short, Parenti draws into sharp question, the politics, not just
of the Roman historians who have recorded much of what we
know about Rome, but, at least as important, how modern-day
historians (whom he calls "gentleman historians") have used
their own privileged positions to project classist, and
anti-popular histories of the Roman Era.

   According to Parenti, the commonly-held view of Julius
Caesar as a tyrant, and of his murder as a tyrannicide, is
badly misplaced.  He argues that Caesar, as well as several
of his predecessors and contemporaries, belonged to a
tradition that he calls the *populares*, or those who sought
to liberalize and expand the opportunities offered by the
State.  He cites the case of Tiberius Gracchus, an elected
Tribune, who sought to pass the *lex agraria*, or land law,
which would have opened up large land holdings to the
poor, among them, the impoverished soldiers of Rome.
Upon presentation of the proposed law to the people,
the Tribune was opposed by powerful Senators, who
hated him for his popular appeals.  His words still ring
after 2,000 years:

      Hearthless and homeless, they must take their
      wives and families and tramp the roads like
      beggars.... They fight and fall to serve no other
      end but to multiply the possessions and comforts
      of the rich.  They are called masters of the world
      but they possess not a clod of earth that is truly
      their own. [Parenti, *The Assassination of
      Julius Caesar* (NY: New Press, 2003),
      p. 61]

   When one scans the faces of thousands of homeless
veterans in the cities of the U.S. Empire, one can only be
struck by this echo from history.  The Roman Senate,
composed of wildly wealthy men, did not take kindly to
the measure, and rewarded Tiberius by killing him.  His
younger brother, Gaius, would suffer a similar fate, as
did several thousand of their supporters.  The Senate,
full of men who were among the large land-owners,
squeezed the people dry, driving many off of their
ancestral holdings, to make more loot.

   The common tale that Senators opposed Caesar
because he sought the hated kingship over the Romans,
is belied by their silent acceptance of the cruel
dictatorship of Sulla before him, or the Imperium
of Augustus (Octavian) twenty years after him.  As
the Roman historian Tacitus would later write of them,
they "advanc[ed] in wealth and place in proportion
to their servility" (p. 199).

   The Senators cared about one thing: wealth.  Rome
was but a machine for wealth's manufacture. They were
not the publicminded 'republicans' as popularly portrayed.
They were a body which cared only about their own
vast privileges.  Given such history, is there any wonder
why the Americans sought a senatorial form of
government? They were a 'republic', in name only.
It was a State organized by wealth, of wealth, and
for wealth -- period.  When we look at those who sit
in today's Senate -- this millionaire's club -- how
much of a difference does 2,000 years make?  It is
a democracy, in name; or even a democratic
republic.

   Yet, who dares question that the rich still rule?

Peace.

This is a good article. indeed we have to look at the some other major revolutions in the past few hundred years, especially the French and American revolutions.

Popular history tells us that these revolutions were against tyrannical kings and for Liberty and Equality. The reality is though that these revolutions were staged by interests who felt the powerful state did not allow them enough freedom of trade, commerce and maximum exploitation. This is similar to the perspective given in this article about the rich Senators who opposed the tyrant(for purely greed based issues) and are given a glorified depiction in history.

DISSENT IN TIMES OF WAR
=======================
[Col. Writ. 11/29/03] Copyright '03 Mumia Abu-Jamal

   "... I am an anti-imperialist.  I am opposed to
   having the eagle put its talons on any other
   land..."
      --- Mark Twain, Vice-President
            Anti-Imperialist League (1900)

   If the recent anti-Bush demo in London shows anything,
it is that dissent is coming back.  If the President must
behave so sheepishly in the cities of America's closest
ally, then the Iraq Adventure really isn't going well.

   Although there have been spirited demonstrations in
the US since the start of armed conflict, they have rarely
reached the size and zest of the pre-war demos. It suggests
several things; a) most Americans felt funny about
protesting after the armed conflict began; and b) many
felt demoralized when the massive pre-war demos didn't
stop the government from going forward anyway.

   Deep in the American psyche is a nationalism that is
expressed as obedience to those in power.  The State
depends on this instinct, and draws strength from it.
The great dissenters in US life often had to do so against
popular opinion.  Also, they have been almost whited
out of history, so that we know little of their
resistance.

   Mark Twain was one of the most popular writers
in America, and his fiction is at the heart of American
literature.  Yet, he was a staunch opponent of US
military adventures at the dawn of the 20th century,
and proudly opposed such militarism.  Naturally, the
establishment questioned his patriotism.  In one
of his novels, *A Connecticut Yankee in King
Arthur's Court*, Twain gave eloquent voice to
his brand of loyalty:

      You see my kind of loyalty was loyalty
      to one's country, not to its institutions
      or its office holders. The country is the
      real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal
      thing; it is the thing to watch over, and
      care for, and be loyal to; institutions are
      extraneous, they are its mere clothing,
      and clothing can wear out, become
      ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease
      to protect the body from winter, disease,
      and death.  To be loyal to rags, to
      shout for rags, to worship rags, to die
      for rags--that is loyalty to unreason, it
      is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy,
      was invented by monarchy; let
      monarchy keep it.  [fr. Howard Zinn,
      *Artists in Times of War* (NY: 7
      Stories/Open Media, '03), p. 16]

   Twain was a prominent protester against the US
war in the Philippines.

   Most Americans recognize the name of Helen Keller,
and think of her as an exemplar of the disabled.  She too,
was a proud anti-war activist, a feminist, and a
socialist.

   The great Black poet, Langston Hughes, used his
artistic gifts to protest US militarism abroad, and
racism at home.

   Those artists and thinkers whom we admire today,
long after their passing, were criticized by the State
because they dissented from government policy.  They
did not leave important issues like war, to the likes of
politicians.

   When we look around us, we see candidates from
the Democratic Party vying for president, who sound
like they are to the right of Bush!  Several of them (as
Senators) surrendered their congressional war powers
to the president.  Several voted for the $87 billion
dollars to fund the Iraq Occupation.  They omise
a more robust military presence there.  Few have dared
to actually oppose the occupation.  They are caught
in the trap of Bush's making.  With the possible
exception of Rev. Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich,
few have announced their intention to pull out of the
Iraq debacle.  Meanwhile, a recent classified CIA
document warns that the Iraqi resistance is growing
and deepening.  According to published accounts, the
populous Shiites in the south are seriously contemplating
joining the Sunnis in the center, in guerrilla attacks
against the Americans.  This suggests a level of
nationwide resistance that the US has never seen in
the country.

   Dissent (to paraphrase the African-American
Muslim imam, Jamil Al-Amin) is as American as
apple pie.

   A needless war continues to wage in Iraq; a war
that never should have begun.

   Dissent is growing.

Copyright 2003 Mumia Abu-Jamal
===============================
[Mr. Jamal has written widely about war and other issues.
His latest work, *Faith of Our Fathers* (Africa
World Press, 2003) was named one of "The Most
Remarkable Books of 2003" by *Black Issues Book
Review* (Nov/Dec '03).]

"When a cause comes along and you know in your bones that it is
just, yet refuse to defend it--at that moment you begin to die.
And I have never seen so many corpses walking around talking about
justice." - Mumia Abu-Jamal

             
"When a cause comes along and you know in your bones that it is
just, yet refuse to defend it--at that moment you begin to die.
And I have never seen so many corpses walking around talking about
justice." - Mumia Abu-Jamal


Hmmm...such a relevent statement with regards to human/ American internal affairs. Attentions so caught up in peripheral distractions that what little resources do avail themselves do nothing more than pontificate.

I think it's going to take a little more than "dissent" to shake the doldrums...and I know it's heading our way )))