2005: Year of the Walrus

10 nov 05

This won't work in browsers other than IE and konqueror. here's the dirt on it. For users driving one of those two browsers (most of you), the scrollbars guiding that little text area are green and oddly-shaded.

In the second century of the Christian Aera, the empire of
Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most
civilized portion of mankind.  The frontiers of that extensive
monarchy were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valor. 
The gentle but powerful influence of laws and manners had
gradually cemented the union of the provinces.  Their peaceful
inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and
luxury.  The image of a free constitution was preserved with
decent reverence: the Roman senate appeared to possess the
sovereign authority, and devolved on the emperors all the
executive powers of government.  During a happy period of more
than fourscore years, the public administration was conducted by
the virtue and abilities of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the two
Antonines.  It is the design of this, and of the two succeeding
chapters, to describe the prosperous condition of their empire;
and after wards, from the death of Marcus Antoninus, to deduce
the most important circumstances of its decline and fall; a
revolution which will ever be remembered, and is still felt by
the nations of the earth.

The principal conquests of the Romans were achieved under
the republic; and the emperors, for the most part, were satisfied
with preserving those dominions which had been acquired by the
policy of the senate, the active emulations of the consuls, and
the martial enthusiasm of the people.  The seven first centuries
were filled with a rapid succession of triumphs; but it was
reserved for Augustus to relinquish the ambitious design of
subduing the whole earth, and to introduce a spirit of moderation
into the public councils.  Inclined to peace by his temper and
situation, it was easy for him to discover that Rome, in her
present exalted situation, had much less to hope than to fear
from the chance of arms; and that, in the prosecution of remote
wars, the undertaking became every day more difficult, the event
more doubtful, and the possession more precarious, and less
beneficial.  The experience of Augustus added weight to these
salutary reflections, and effectually convinced him that, by the
prudent vigor of his counsels, it would be easy to secure every
concession which the safety or the dignity of Rome might require
from the most formidable barbarians.  Instead of exposing his
person and his legions to the arrows of the Parthians, he
obtained, by an honorable treaty, the restitution of the
standards and prisoners which had been taken in the defeat of
Crassus. ^1

[Footnote 1: Dion Cassius, (l. Liv. P. 736,) with the annotations
of Reimar, who has collected all that Roman vanity has left upon
the subject.  The marble of Ancyra, on which Augustus recorded
his own exploits, asserted that he compelled the Parthians to
restore the ensigns of Crassus.]

His generals, in the early part of his reign, attempted the
reduction of Ethiopia and Arabia Felix.  They marched near a
thousand miles to the south of the tropic; but the heat of the
climate soon repelled the invaders, and protected the un-warlike
natives of those sequestered regions. ^2 The northern countries
of Europe scarcely deserved the expense and labor of conquest. 
The forests and morasses of Germany were filled with a hardy race
of barbarians, who despised life when it was separated from
freedom; and though, on the first attack, they seemed to yield to
the weight of the Roman power, they soon, by a signal act of
despair, regained their independence, and reminded Augustus of
the vicissitude of fortune. ^3 On the death of that emperor, his
testament was publicly read in the senate.  He bequeathed, as a
valuable legacy to his successors, the advice of confining the
empire within those limits which nature seemed to have placed as
its permanent bulwarks and boundaries: on the west, the Atlantic
Ocean; the Rhine and Danube on the north; the Euphrates on the
east; and towards the south, the sandy deserts of Arabia and
Africa. ^4

[Footnote 2: Strabo, (l. Xvi. P. 780,) Pliny the elder, (Hist.
Natur. L. Vi. C. 32, 35, [28, 29,] and Dion Cassius, (l. Liii. P.
723, and l. Liv. P. 734,) have left us very curious details
concerning these wars.  The Romans made themselves masters of
Mariaba, or Merab, a city of Arabia Felix, well known to the
Orientals.  (See Abulfeda and the Nubian geography, p. 52) They
were arrived within three days' journey of the spice country, the
rich object of their invasion.

Note: It is the city of Merab that the Arabs say was the
residence of Belkis, queen of Saba, who desired to see Solomon. 
A dam, by which the waters collected in its neighborhood were
kept back, having been swept away, the sudden inundation
destroyed this city, of which, nevertheless, vestiges remain.  It
bordered on a country called Adramout, where a particular
aromatic plant grows: it is for this reason that we real in the
history of the Roman expedition, that they were arrived within
three days' journey of the spice country. - G.  Compare
Malte-Brun, Geogr. Eng. Trans. Vol. Ii. P. 215.  The period of
this flood has been copiously discussed by Reiske, (Program. De
vetusta Epocha Arabum, ruptura cataractae Merabensis.) Add.
Johannsen, Hist. Yemanae, p. 282.  Bonn, 1828; and see Gibbon,
note 16. To Chap. L. - M.

Note: Two, according to Strabo.  The detailed account of
Strabo makes the invaders fail before Marsuabae: this cannot be
the same place as Mariaba. Ukert observes, that Aelius Gallus
would not have failed for want of water before Mariaba.  (See M.
Guizot's note above.) "Either, therefore, they were different
places, or Strabo is mistaken." (Ukert, Geographic der Griechen
und Romer, vol. I. P. 181.) Strabo, indeed, mentions Mariaba
distinct from Marsuabae.  Gibbon has followed Pliny in reckoning
Mariaba among the conquests of Gallus.  There can be little doubt
that he is wrong, as Gallus did not approach the capital of
Sabaea.  Compare the note of the Oxford editor of Strabo. - M.] 
[Footnote 3: By the slaughter of Varus and his three legions. 
See the first book of the Annals of Tacitus.  Sueton. In August.
C. 23, and Velleius Paterculus, l. Ii. C. 117, &c.  Augustus did
not receive the melancholy news with all the temper and firmness
that might have been expected from his character.]

[Footnote 4: Tacit. Annal. L. Ii.  Dion Cassius, l. Lvi. P. 833,
and the speech of Augustus himself, in Julian's Caesars.  It
receives great light from the learned notes of his French
translator, M. Spanheim.]

Happily for the repose of mankind, the moderate system
recommended by the wisdom of Augustus, was adopted by the fears
and vices of his immediate successors.  Engaged in the pursuit of
pleasure, or in the exercise of tyranny, the first Caesars seldom
showed themselves to the armies, or to the provinces; nor were
they disposed to suffer, that those triumphs which their
indolence neglected, should be usurped by the conduct and valor
of their lieutenants.  The military fame of a subject was
considered as an insolent invasion of the Imperial prerogative;
and it became the duty, as well as interest, of every Roman
general, to guard the frontiers intrusted to his care, without
aspiring to conquests which might have proved no less fatal to
himself than to the vanquished barbarians. ^5

[Footnote 5: Germanicus, Suetonius Paulinus, and Agricola were
checked and recalled in the course of their victories.  Corbulo
was put to death. Military merit, as it is admirably expressed by
Tacitus, was, in the strictest sense of the word, imperatoria
virtus.]

The only accession which the Roman empire received, during
the first century of the Christian Aera, was the province of
Britain.  In this single instance, the successors of Caesar and
Augustus were persuaded to follow the example of the former,
rather than the precept of the latter.  The proximity of its
situation to the coast of Gaul seemed to invite their arms; the
pleasing though doubtful intelligence of a pearl fishery,
attracted their avarice; ^6 and as Britain was viewed in the
light of a distinct and insulated world, the conquest scarcely
formed any exception to the general system of continental
measures.  After a war of about forty years, undertaken by the
most stupid, ^7 maintained by the most dissolute, and terminated
by the most timid of all the emperors, the far greater part of
the island submitted to the Roman yoke. ^8 The various tribes of
Britain possessed valor without conduct, and the love of freedom
without the spirit of union.  They took up arms with savage
fierceness; they laid them down, or turned them against each
other, with wild inconsistency; and while they fought singly,
they were successively subdued.  Neither the fortitude of
Caractacus, nor the despair of Boadicea, nor the fanaticism of
the Druids, could avert the slavery of their country, or resist
the steady progress of the Imperial generals, who maintained the
national glory, when the throne was disgraced by the weakest, or
the most vicious of mankind.  At the very time when Domitian,
confined to his palace, felt the terrors which he inspired, his
legions, under the command of the virtuous Agricola, defeated the
collected force of the Caledonians, at the foot of the Grampian
Hills; and his fleets, venturing to explore an unknown and
dangerous navigation, displayed the Roman arms round every part
of the island.  The conquest of Britain was considered as already
achieved; and it was the design of Agricola to complete and
insure his success, by the easy reduction of Ireland, for which,
in his opinion, one legion and a few auxiliaries were sufficient.
^9 The western isle might be improved into a valuable possession,
and the Britons would wear their chains with the less reluctance,
if the prospect and example of freedom were on every side removed
from before their eyes.

[Footnote 6: Caesar himself conceals that ignoble motive; but it
is mentioned by Suetonius, c. 47.  The British pearls proved,
however, of little value, on account of their dark and livid
color.  Tacitus observes, with reason, (in Agricola, c. 12,) that
it was an inherent defect.  "Ego facilius crediderim, naturam
margaritis deesse quam nobis avaritiam."]

[Footnote 7: Claudius, Nero, and Domitian.  A hope is expressed
by Pomponius Mela, l. Iii. C. 6, (he wrote under Claudius,) that,
by the success of the Roman arms, the island and its savage
inhabitants would soon be better known. It is amusing enough to
peruse such passages in the midst of London.] 
[Footnote 8: See the admirable abridgment given by Tacitus, in
the life of Agricola, and copiously, though perhaps not
completely, illustrated by our own antiquarians, Camden and
Horsley.]

[Footnote 9: The Irish writers, jealous of their national honor,
are extremely provoked on this occasion, both with Tacitus and
with Agricola.]

But the superior merit of Agricola soon occasioned his
removal from the government of Britain; and forever disappointed
this rational, though extensive scheme of conquest.  Before his
departure, the prudent general had provided for security as well
as for dominion.  He had observed, that the island is almost
divided into two unequal parts by the opposite gulfs, or, as they
are now called, the Friths of Scotland.  Across the narrow
interval of about forty miles, he had drawn a line of military
stations, which was afterwards fortified, in the reign of
Antoninus Pius, by a turf rampart, erected on foundations of
stone. ^10 This wall of Antoninus, at a small distance beyond the
modern cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, was fixed as the limit of
the Roman province.  The native Caledonians preserved, in the
northern extremity of the island, their wild independence, for
which they were not less indebted to their poverty than to their
valor.  Their incursions were frequently repelled and chastised;
but their country was never subdued. ^11 The masters of the
fairest and most wealthy climates of the globe turned with
contempt from gloomy hills, assailed by the winter tempest, from
lakes concealed in a blue mist, and from cold and lonely heaths,
over which the deer of the forest were chased by a troop of naked
barbarians. ^12

[Footnote 10: See Horsley's Britannia Romana, l. I. C. 10.  
     Note: Agricola fortified the line from Dumbarton to
Edinburgh, consequently within Scotland.  The emperor Hadrian,
during his residence in Britain, about the year 121, caused a
rampart of earth to be raised between Newcastle and Carlisle. 
Antoninus Pius, having gained new victories over the Caledonians,
by the ability of his general, Lollius, Urbicus, caused a new
rampart of earth to be constructed between Edinburgh and
Dumbarton.  Lastly, Septimius Severus caused a wall of stone to
be built parallel to the rampart of Hadrian, and on the same
locality.  See John Warburton's Vallum Romanum, or the History
and Antiquities of the Roman Wall.  London, 1754, 4to. - W. See
likewise a good note on the Roman wall in Lingard's History of
England, vol. I. P. 40, 4to edit - M.]

[Footnote 11: The poet Buchanan celebrates with elegance and
spirit (see his Sylvae, v.) the unviolated independence of his
native country.  But, if the single testimony of Richard of
Cirencester was sufficient to create a Roman province of
Vespasiana to the north of the wall, that independence would be
reduced within very narrow limits.]

[Footnote 12: See Appian (in Prooem.) and the uniform imagery of
Ossian's Poems, which, according to every hypothesis, were
composed by a native Caledonian.]

Such was the state of the Roman frontiers, and such the
maxims of Imperial policy, from the death of Augustus to the
accession of Trajan.  That virtuous and active prince had
received the education of a soldier, and possessed the talents of
a general. ^13 The peaceful system of his predecessors was
interrupted by scenes of war and conquest; and the legions, after
a long interval, beheld a military emperor at their head.  The
first exploits of Trajan were against the Dacians, the most
warlike of men, who dwelt beyond the Danube, and who, during the
reign of Domitian, had insulted, with impunity, the Majesty of
Rome. ^14 To the strength and fierceness of barbarians they added
a contempt for life, which was derived from a warm persuasion of
the immortality and transmigration of the soul. ^15 Decebalus,
the Dacian king, approved himself a rival not unworthy of Trajan;
nor did he despair of his own and the public fortune, till, by
the confession of his enemies, he had exhausted every resource
both of valor and policy. ^16 This memorable war, with a very
short suspension of hostilities, lasted five years; and as the
emperor could exert, without control, the whole force of the
state, it was terminated by an absolute submission of the
barbarians. ^17 The new province of Dacia, which formed a second
exception to the precept of Augustus, was about thirteen hundred
miles in circumference.  Its natural boundaries were the Niester,
the Teyss or Tibiscus, the Lower Danube, and the Euxine Sea.  The
vestiges of a military road may still be traced from the banks of
the Danube to the neighborhood of Bender, a place famous in
modern history, and the actual frontier of the Turkish and
Russian empires. ^18

[Footnote 13: See Pliny's Panegyric, which seems founded on
facts.]

[Footnote 14: Dion Cassius, l. Lxvii.]

[Footnote 15: Herodotus, l. Iv. C. 94.  Julian in the Caesars,
with Spanheims observations.]

[Footnote 16: Plin. Epist. Viii. 9.]

[Footnote 17: Dion Cassius, l. Lxviii. P. 1123, 1131.  Julian in
Caesaribus Eutropius, viii. 2, 6.  Aurelius Victor in Epitome.] 
[Footnote 18: See a Memoir of M. D'Anville, on the Province of
Dacia, in the Academie des Inscriptions, tom. Xxviii. P. 444 -
468.]

Trajan was ambitious of fame; and as long as mankind shall
continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than
on their benefactors, the thirst of military glory will ever be
the vice of the most exalted characters.  The praises of
Alexander, transmitted by a succession of poets and historians,
had kindled a dangerous emulation in the mind of Trajan. Like
him, the Roman emperor undertook an expedition against the
nations of the East; but he lamented with a sigh, that his
advanced age scarcely left him any hopes of equalling the renown
of the son of Philip. ^19 Yet the success of Trajan, however
transient, was rapid and specious.  The degenerate Parthians,
broken by intestine discord, fled before his arms.  He descended
the River Tigris in triumph, from the mountains of Armenia to the
Persian Gulf.  He enjoyed the honor of being the first, as he was
the last, of the Roman generals, who ever navigated that remote
sea.  His fleets ravaged the coast of Arabia; and Trajan vainly
flattered himself that he was approaching towards the confines of
India. ^20 Every day the astonished senate received the
intelligence of new names and new nations, that acknowledged his
sway. They were informed that the kings of Bosphorus, Colchos,
Iberia, Albania, Osrhoene, and even the Parthian monarch himself,
had accepted their diadems from the hands of the emperor; that
the independent tribes of the Median and Carduchian hills had
implored his protection; and that the rich countries of Armenia,
Mesopotamia, and Assyria, were reduced into the state of
provinces. ^21 But the death of Trajan soon clouded the splendid
prospect; and it was justly to be dreaded, that so many distant
nations would throw off the unaccustomed yoke, when they were no
longer restrained by the powerful hand which had imposed it. 
[Footnote 19: Trajan's sentiments are represented in a very just
and lively manner in the Caesars of Julian.]

[Footnote 20: Eutropius and Sextus Rufus have endeavored to
perpetuate the illusion.  See a very sensible dissertation of M.
Freret in the Academie des Inscriptions, tom. Xxi. P. 55.] 
[Footnote 21: Dion Cassius, l. Lxviii.; and the Abbreviators.]

Chapter I: The Extend Of The Empire In The Age Of The Anoninies.

Part II.

It was an ancient tradition, that when the Capitol was
founded by one of the Roman kings, the god Terminus (who presided
over boundaries, and was represented, according to the fashion of
that age, by a large stone) alone, among all the inferior
deities, refused to yield his place to Jupiter himself.  A
favorable inference was drawn from his obstinacy, which was
interpreted by the augurs as a sure presage that the boundaries
of the Roman power would never recede. ^22 During many ages, the
prediction, as it is usual, contributed to its own
accomplishment.  But though Terminus had resisted the Majesty of
Jupiter, he submitted to the authority of the emperor Hadrian.
^23 The resignation of all the eastern conquests of Trajan was
the first measure of his reign.  He restored to the Parthians the
election of an independent sovereign; withdrew the Roman
garrisons from the provinces of Armenia, Mesopotamia, and
Assyria; and, in compliance with the precept of Augustus, once
more established the Euphrates as the frontier of the empire. ^24
Censure, which arraigns the public actions and the private
motives of princes, has ascribed to envy, a conduct which might
be attributed to the prudence and moderation of Hadrian.  The
various character of that emperor, capable, by turns, of the
meanest and the most generous sentiments, may afford some color
to the suspicion.  It was, however, scarcely in his power to
place the superiority of his predecessor in a more conspicuous
light, than by thus confessing himself unequal to the task of
defending the conquests of Trajan.

[Footnote 22: Ovid. Fast. L. Ii. Ver. 667.  See Livy, and
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, under the reign of Tarquin.]

[Footnote 23: St. Augustin is highly delighted with the proof of
the weakness of Terminus, and the vanity of the Augurs.  See De
Civitate Dei, iv. 29.

Note *: The turn of Gibbon's sentence is Augustin's: "Plus
Hadrianum regem bominum, quam regem Deorum timuisse videatur." -
M]

[Footnote 24: See the Augustan History, p. 5, Jerome's Chronicle,
and all the Epitomizers.  It is somewhat surprising, that this
memorable event should be omitted by Dion, or rather by
Xiphilin.]

The martial and ambitious of spirit Trajan formed a very
singular contrast with the moderation of his successor.  The
restless activity of Hadrian was not less remarkable when
compared with the gentle repose of Antoninus Pius.  The life of
the former was almost a perpetual journey; and as he possessed
the various talents of the soldier, the statesman, and the
scholar, he gratified his curiosity in the discharge of his duty. 
Careless of the difference of seasons and of climates, he marched
on foot, and bare- headed, over the snows of Caledonia, and the
sultry plains of the Upper Egypt; nor was there a province of the
empire which, in the course of his reign, was not honored with
the presence of the monarch. ^25 But the tranquil life of
Antoninus Pius was spent in the bosom of Italy, and, during the
twenty-three years that he directed the public administration,
the longest journeys of that amiable prince extended no farther
than from his palace in Rome to the retirement of his Lanuvian
villa. ^26

[Footnote 25: Dion, l. Lxix. P. 1158.  Hist. August. P. 5, 8.  If
all our historians were lost, medals, inscriptions, and other
monuments, would be sufficient to record the travels of Hadrian. 
     Note: The journeys of Hadrian are traced in a note on
Solvet's translation of Hegewisch, Essai sur l'Epoque de Histoire
Romaine la plus heureuse pour Genre Humain Paris, 1834, p. 123. -
M.]

[Footnote 26: See the Augustan History and the Epitomes.]

Notwithstanding this difference in their personal conduct,
the general system of Augustus was equally adopted and uniformly
pursued by Hadrian and by the two Antonines.  They persisted in
the design of maintaining the dignity of the empire, without
attempting to enlarge its limits.  By every honorable expedient
they invited the friendship of the barbarians; and endeavored to
convince mankind that the Roman power, raised above the
temptation of conquest, was actuated only by the love of order
and justice. During a long period of forty-three years, their
virtuous labors were crowned with success; and if we except a few
slight hostilities, that served to exercise the legions of the
frontier, the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius offer the fair
prospect of universal peace. ^27 The Roman name was revered among
the most remote nations of the earth.  The fiercest barbarians
frequently submitted their differences to the arbitration of the
emperor; and we are informed by a contemporary historian that he
had seen ambassadors who were refused the honor which they came
to solicit of being admitted into the rank of subjects. ^28 
[Footnote 27: We must, however, remember, that in the time of
Hadrian, a rebellion of the Jews raged with religious fury,
though only in a single province.  Pausanias (l. Viii. C. 43)
mentions two necessary and successful wars, conducted by the
generals of Pius: 1st.  Against the wandering Moors, who were
driven into the solitudes of Atlas.  2d.  Against the Brigantes
of Britain, who had invaded the Roman province.  Both these wars
(with several other hostilities) are mentioned in the Augustan
History, p. 19.]

[Footnote 28: Appian of Alexandria, in the preface to his History
of the Roman Wars.]

Part II.

The terror of the Roman arms added weight and dignity to the
moderation of the emperors.  They preserved peace by a constant
preparation for war; and while justice regulated their conduct,
they announced to the nations on their confines, that they were
as little disposed to endure, as to offer an injury. The military
strength, which it had been sufficient for Hadrian and the elder
Antoninus to display, was exerted against the Parthians and the
Germans by the emperor Marcus.  The hostilities of the barbarians
provoked the resentment of that philosophic monarch, and, in the
prosecution of a just defence, Marcus and his generals obtained
many signal victories, both on the Euphrates and on the Danube.
^29 The military establishment of the Roman empire, which thus
assured either its tranquillity or success, will now become the
proper and important object of our attention.

[Footnote 29: Dion, l. Lxxi.  Hist. August. In Marco.  The
Parthian victories gave birth to a crowd of contemptible
historians, whose memory has been rescued from oblivion and
exposed to ridicule, in a very lively piece of criticism of
Lucian.]

In the purer ages of the commonwealth, the use of arms was
reserved for those ranks of citizens who had a country to love, a
property to defend, and some share in enacting those laws, which
it was their interest as well as duty to maintain.  But in
proportion as the public freedom was lost in extent of conquest,
war was gradually improved into an art, and degraded into a
trade. ^30 The legions themselves, even at the time when they
were recruited in the most distant provinces, were supposed to
consist of Roman citizens. That distinction was generally
considered, either as a legal qualification or as a proper
recompense for the soldier; but a more serious regard was paid to
the essential merit of age, strength, and military stature. ^31
In all levies, a just preference was given to the climates of the
North over those of the South: the race of men born to the
exercise of arms was sought for in the country rather than in
cities; and it was very reasonably presumed, that the hardy
occupations of smiths, carpenters, and huntsmen, would supply
more vigor and resolution than the sedentary trades which are
employed in the service of luxury. ^32 After every qualification
of property had been laid aside, the armies of the Roman emperors
were still commanded, for the most part, by officers of liberal
birth and education; but the common soldiers, like the mercenary
troops of modern Europe, were drawn from the meanest, and very
frequently from the most profligate, of mankind.

[Footnote 30: The poorest rank of soldiers possessed above forty
pounds sterling, (Dionys. Halicarn. Iv. 17,) a very high
qualification at a time when money was so scarce, that an ounce
of silver was equivalent to seventy pounds weight of brass.  The
populace, excluded by the ancient constitution, were
indiscriminately admitted by Marius.  See Sallust. De Bell. 
Jugurth. C. 91.

Note: On the uncertainty of all these estimates, and the
difficulty of fixing the relative value of brass and silver,
compare Niebuhr, vol. I. P. 473, &c.  Eng. Trans. P. 452. 
According to Niebuhr, the relative disproportion in value,
between the two metals, arose, in a great degree from the
abundance of brass or copper. - M.  Compare also Dureau 'de la
Malle Economie Politique des Romains especially L. L. C. Ix. - M.
1845.]

[Footnote 31: Caesar formed his legion Alauda of Gauls and
strangers; but it was during the license of civil war; and after
the victory, he gave them the freedom of the city for their
reward.]

[Footnote 32: See Vegetius, de Re Militari, l. I. C. 2 - 7.]  
     That public virtue, which among the ancients was denominated
patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our own interest in
the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which
we are members.  Such a sentiment, which had rendered the legions
of the republic almost invincible, could make but a very feeble
impression on the mercenary servants of a despotic prince; and it
became necessary to supply that defect by other motives, of a
different, but not less forcible nature - honor and religion. 
The peasant, or mechanic, imbibed the useful prejudice that he
was advanced to the more dignified profession of arms, in which
his rank and reputation would depend on his own valor; and that,
although the prowess of a private soldier must often escape the
notice of fame, his own behavior might sometimes confer glory or
disgrace on the company, the legion, or even the army, to whose
honors he was associated.  On his first entrance into the
service, an oath was administered to him with every circumstance
of solemnity.  He promised never to desert his standard, to
submit his own will to the commands of his leaders, and to
sacrifice his life for the safety of the emperor and the empire.
^33 The attachment of the Roman troops to their standards was
inspired by the united influence of religion and of honor.  The
golden eagle, which glittered in the front of the legion, was the
object of their fondest devotion; nor was it esteemed less
impious than it was ignominious, to abandon that sacred ensign in
the hour of danger. ^34 These motives, which derived their
strength from the imagination, were enforced by fears and hopes
of a more substantial kind.  Regular pay, occasional donatives,
and a stated recompense, after the appointed time of service,
alleviated the hardships of the military life, ^35 whilst, on the
other hand, it was impossible for cowardice or disobedience to
escape the severest punishment.  The centurions were authorized
to chastise with blows, the generals had a right to punish with
death; and it was an inflexible maxim of Roman discipline, that a
good soldier should dread his officers far more than the enemy. 
From such laudable arts did the valor of the Imperial troops
receive a degree of firmness and docility unattainable by the
impetuous and irregular passions of barbarians.

[Footnote 33: The oath of service and fidelity to the emperor was
annually renewed by the troops on the first of January.]

[Footnote 34: Tacitus calls the Roman eagles, Bellorum Deos. 
They were placed in a chapel in the camp, and with the other
deities received the religious worship of the troops.

Note: See also Dio.  Cass. Xl. C. 18. - M.]

[Footnote 35: See Gronovius de Pecunia vetere, l. Iii. P. 120,
&c.  The emperor Domitian raised the annual stipend of the
legionaries to twelve pieces of gold, which, in his time, was
equivalent to about ten of our guineas.  This pay, somewhat
higher than our own, had been, and was afterwards, gradually
increased, according to the progress of wealth and military
government.  After twenty years' service, the veteran received
three thousand denarii, (about one hundred pounds sterling,) or a
proportionable allowance of land.  The pay and advantages of the
guards were, in general, about double those of the legions.] 
     And yet so sensible were the Romans of the imperfection of
valor without skill and practice, that, in their language, the
name of an army was borrowed from the word which signified
exercise. ^36 Military exercises were the important and
unremitted object of their discipline.  The recruits and young
soldiers were constantly trained, both in the morning and in the
evening, nor was age or knowledge allowed to excuse the veterans
from the daily repetition of what they had completely learnt. 
Large sheds were erected in the winter- quarters of the troops,
that their useful labors might not receive any interruption from
the most tempestuous weather; and it was carefully observed, that
the arms destined to this imitation of war, should be of double
the weight which was required in real action. ^37 It is not the
purpose of this work to enter into any minute description of the
Roman exercises.  We shall only remark, that they comprehended
whatever could add strength to the body, activity to the limbs,
or grace to the motions.  The soldiers were diligently instructed
to march, to run, to leap, to swim, to carry heavy burdens, to
handle every species of arms that was used either for offence or
for defence, either in distant engagement or in a closer onset;
to form a variety of evolutions; and to move to the sound of
flutes in the Pyrrhic or martial dance. ^38 In the midst of
peace, the Roman troops familiarized themselves with the practice
of war; and it is prettily remarked by an ancient historian who
had fought against them, that the effusion of blood was the only
circumstance which distinguished a field of battle from a field
of exercise. ^39 It was the policy of the ablest generals, and
even of the emperors themselves, to encourage these military
studies by their presence and example; and we are informed that
Hadrian, as well as Trajan, frequently condescended to instruct
the unexperienced soldiers, to reward the diligent, and sometimes
to dispute with them the prize of superior strength or dexterity.
^40 Under the reigns of those princes, the science of tactics was
cultivated with success; and as long as the empire retained any
vigor, their military instructions were respected as the most
perfect model of Roman discipline.

[Footnote 36: Exercitus ab exercitando, Varro de Lingua Latina,
l. Iv. Cicero in Tusculan. L. Ii. 37.  [15.] There is room for a
very interesting work, which should lay open the connection
between the languages and manners of nations.
 
    Note I am not aware of the existence, at present, of such a
work; but the profound observations of the late William von
Humboldt, in the introduction to his posthumously published Essay
on the Language of the Island of Java, (uber die Kawi-sprache,
Berlin, 1836,) may cause regret that this task was not completed
by that accomplished and universal scholar. - M.]

[Footnote 37: Vegatius, l. Ii. And the rest of his first book.]  
[Footnote 38: The Pyrrhic dance is extremely well illustrated by
M. Le Beau, in the Academie des Inscriptions, tom. Xxxv. P. 262,
&c.  That learned academician, in a series of memoirs, has
collected all the passages of the ancients that relate to the
Roman legion.]

[Footnote 39: Joseph. De Bell.  Judaico, l. Iii. C. 5.  We are
indebted to this Jew for some very curious details of Roman
discipline.]

[Footnote 40: Plin. Panegyr. C. 13.  Life of Hadrian, in the
Augustan History.]

Weird, eh? A lot of these "web designer kiddies" style their scrollbars. I don't know how to precisely describe a "web designer kiddy"'s page (i think they might be referred to as "personal domains," even though that's not terribly exclusive or descriptive), but I know them when I see them:

one or two large stylish scribbly images that incorporate a photograph and rasterized text in obscure fonts, small html text, weird colors, modified cursors, styled scrollbars, etc. Basically, every conceivable use and abuse of CSS, and sometimes (rarely) javascript. Some "about me" or "likes and dislikes" stuff, a few links to other designers, and maybe a few blog entries. Contact info, of course. A lot of them include a blurb about the domain they've purchased (often fattening the economy of the island of niue with their top-level domains), illustrating that a creative domain registered is "part of the project," as it were. Also, WDKs do expressive things with the text in their ~~///>><<|----------page titles--|<<~.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for "design as content." it's just that WDKs' pages all look more or less alike. If your web-design is going to be art in and of itself, than at least put some thought into it, and do something original.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh; I suppose there's nothing wrong with creativity within a bounded environment. Ie, the pages don't all use precisely the same photoshop image -- some creative originality is obviously going into them. For whatever reason, this cultural template grew up, and people are expressing themselves within those parameters. Who am I to sneeze at it?

Doubly interesting is that many of these youngsters have a lot of technical knowledge. However, they don't grovel before the w3c (web publishing standards), let along 508 compliance or even an intuitive usability standard. But the information content is really an afterthought here -- as I said, the design IS the content. I think this is fine, really; w3c and usability standards, and even information content, are intended for pages that serve some informational purpose, which these WDKs' sites do not. And the WDKs are the first to admit it.

Let me find you a few examples:

Even though I turned apologistic there, it's still hard not to be sort of shocked at just how similar these pages are. In their defense, there's only so much you can do within a browser window. But still...THEY ALL LOOK ALIKE. There are a few arty, non-info sites out there that don't correspond to this template; an older (but nonetheless post-degree) project of mine, for instance. Haha.

I'm incredibly hungry.

There are all kinds of spelling and typographical errors in this entry. 0092.html is getting too long anyway (look at the size of the scroll-thingy square thing that you drag around that scrolls the page, that I don't know the proper gay computer name for), and the next entry will probably jump into 0093.html.

This is how I do it, by the way: when the scroll-thingy on a browser pointed at a given blog page reaches a certain degree of smallness, I start a new page. I just eyeball it, but I think it's pretty consistent. Sometimes I overshoot, because the thingy won't be all that small, but then the next entry I do winds up being staggeringly colosal, and then the scroll thingy becomes truly microscopic.

I could probably do more entries on a page, but this way they're kept small enough so that all five people in the world with dial-up can download them. Sorry, that was a sort of "let them eat cake" statement -- I'm aware of the digital divide, thank you very much. Also, when the scroll thingy (I'm going to have to look up the proper name) gets too small, it's hard to grab with the mouse and drag about. But really, it's pretty arbitrary when I start a new page.

Man, I haven't blogged about my blog in a long time. I think I have a pretty good track record there -- a lot of bloggers blog about their blogs, and cause the already-sneering, information-seeking web community to sneer even harder at blogs in general. And yeah, "metablogging" (groan) is pretty stupid. But it's hard not to think about them while you're doing them, at least when one is first starting out. I've reached the point now that I don't really think about the mechanics of it. All I think about is my leering readers, and of course my own pathological self-absorption.

Of course, the above paragraph constitutes "metametablogging" (i guarantee you that others have written similar paragraphs) or blogging about metablogging. If I refer to blogging about metablogging, then that's "metametametablogging."

Speaking of self-absorption, check this out; pay special attention to the bottom, where you'll find the daily schedule under the header "THE COURSE TIMETABLE." in a previous entry, I mentioned that I'm going on this meditation "retreat" (more like boot camp), driving up to massachusetts in January (!) with a friend.

The "code of conduct" I linked to above makes the retreat seem harsher than it really is. It's not like you're sitting there in the lotus position, for the entire day, with some bald master in a kung-fu robe hovering over you with a bamboo staff, waiting for you to twitch your eyelid. Do you see all of those lines that read "meditate in the hall or in your room"? Well...of course one can sit in the lotus position for those whole time slots if one wants to. But, more likely, for us beginners, much of this time will be more a reflective period, just sort of sitting around, experimenting with thought, and so on. It's dead-quiet, no reading material, etc, so it's just about impossible NOT to meditate, unless you sit there thinking about all the animals whose names begin with "m," or planning a dinner party, or something.

Meditation has a bad reputation for being difficult. But really, all you need to do is sit there without sensory distractions, not doing anything, and let your mind do what it wants to do without pushing it in any direction. Obviously, don't do things like work arithmetic problems in your head (i did this once at a meditation group, because they pissed me off with their east-asian paraphernalia and affected cultural ritualism, and I wanted to rebel), but don't worry that you're not meditating "right." your mind will sort of flutter around, and you eventually get to the point, after a few minutes of fluttering, that you can sort of sit there and watch it flutter about. When you stop meditating, you always feel calmer and better.

By the way: meditation has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with buddhism. This is why that one meditation group annoyed me so much. They had all of this buddha-porn on the walls, and they made us take a little bow before we were allowed to speak, and blah blah. The whole ambiance was taken out of "the karate kid." I was probably being too hard on them, but I can get in a mood (all the time) when I just don't give any leeway whatsoever for ingenuity. Meditation is more like exercise, or a therapeutic massage for the mind. There's nothing ritualistic or religious about it (or at least there doesn't have to be).

I've never done it for more than a few minutes; several hours a day for ten days, while observing complete silence and eating little bean-pies will be quite interesting. Basically, I expect it to be very much like a 10-day drug trip. And apparently, that's sort of reminiscent. I'm always wondering where I can experience something totally odd, something that doesn't consist of trees, cars, buildings, people walking around and roads, short of eating a pound of LSD, and I think this qualifies, along with deep sea diving. It'll be a unique experience.

It's notable how we can blame everything on our parents. Whether it's genes or upbringing that's to blame for behavior, fault goes back to them. Of course, they can say the same thing about their parents, their parents of course being responsible for poor parenting. And so on, back through generations, until one reaches the unescapable conclusion that there really isn't any accountability, and that circumstances are thrust upon us.

"but no! I've done something with my life! I've worked really hard, and overcome adverse circumstances to build a satisfying existence for myself!

Yeah, because you were endowed with the resources to do so. Not resources like money and support-network, but rather just the way your brain works -- genetic determinism. I've always wanted to have this conversation:

"i haven't had the advantages you've had."

"yeah? Like what?"

"proper neural configuration."

But then we have the problem that one can (supposedly) physically change one's "neural configuration" with different cognition and different behavior. Of course, one could argue that whether or not one is able to change this behavior is contigent upon "proper neural configuration" to begin with, but from there we'd have to reason that the universe is utterly deterministic, something I'm not 100% sure about.

It's sort of a silly problem, really, and it's amazing that so many people {including myself) have spent so much time and mental energy on trying to "resolve" the "problem" of free will versus determinism. Sone people take relatively new knowledge about elementary particles to be evidence for free will. According to a strictly deterministic viewpoint, everything that happens (including brain activity) is determined by pre-existing conditions in the fundamental properties of matter, including those that make up the brain and its processes. Of course hardly anything is known about the brain, but it's safe to say it's a piece of reality, composed of the same fundamental buildings blocks that everything else is.

The thing about these elementary particles, of course, is that they've been found to behave non-deterministically -- they jump and bounce around in ways that are inherently impossible to predict, even within perfectly controlled conditions. I don't have the background (or a home particle accelerator -- home depot, $69.99), so I'm taking a scientist's word for it. Contrary to some estimates, they aren't out to hoodwink us as part of some kind of conspiratorial cabal.

Anyway, the random behavior of quanta tells us that you can't predict anything, and that things can go any which-way at any given moment. So, strict determinism is wrecked. HOWEVER (here's the rub), how does this translate into free choice? How are neurological processes somehow able to direct this randomness along a particular path, such that "we" are in control of our behavior? It's a frustrating question.

The intuitive answer is "yeah, obviously we're in control...at any given moment, we can do something completely screwy and unexpected, like suddenly decide to raise your left hand -- try it!." but that "decision" came about via brain activity and neurochemicals, which are of course composed of elementary particles, which of course behave in a random way. The question is: are "we" in control of this randomness? One could no longer call it "randomness" if this were true.

The structure of the brain is a genetically-determined, matter-composed thing. When you come out of the womb, the brain is right there. That's more easily described as a machine of sorts, and it's easier and less offensive to say that "the brain" works the way it does because it was built that way. Things start getting less intuitively true when "mind" is created; when a lifetime of memories and experiences alter the physical brain. But these experiences and remembered events are part of the grand scheme of reality themselves, and their activity had causal agents (regardless of which path those causal agents took, based on the random behavior of quanta).

Today, I'm leaning towards "quantum determinism" (even though I'm necessarily a "free will agnostic") -- the behavior of reality isn't predictable, and "anything can happen;" however, this randomness is, indeed, randomness, and has nothing to do with conscious choice or will. A decision takes place because of chemical and electrical activity that has a causal agent which have a causal agent which have a causal agent etc, all of which being governed by the same laws that govern an quark bouncing about unpredictably.

Even if free will is an illusion, then it's still a convincing one -- it seems very much up to me whether or not I pick up a rock lying on the ground, even though this "decision" is just a series of chemical and electrical processes that are governed by physical laws -- the laws of quantum mechanics, ultimately. Our minds are locked into this interpretation of reality, since our "consciousness" (whatever that is -- might be important) leads us to believe that we're in the drivers seat. So it might make sense to believe there's such a thing as free will, even though there's not. Of course, whether or not we believe it might be beyond our control.

Quantum mechanics might not support free will; instead, all it might do is substitute "beyond our control" for "is pre-determined." no one is saying that the future is precisely mapped out -- it's not. It's just that any decisions we make, any will we exercise, is necessarily a part of ("determined by") the one reality, which moves in accordance with the laws of quantum mechanics.

The buddha says (double-groan) that cause and effect are responsible for a great deal of what one terms one's successes or failures -- outside circumstances. thich nhat hahn echoes this. As far as practical, non-theoretical application goes, we can strike a balance: attribute some things to causality, and some things to autonamous action. Both strict and quantum determinism, while perhaps ultimately true, are irrelevant in considering "what to do next," because a comforting, convincing illusion of free will is still present.

The statement "we can change the structure of our brains" (to, according to one interpretation, alter causality with will) or even "I'm thinking about something" are pretty strange. What is "we"? What is this entity that is apart from our physicality?

Have you ever heard of e-prime? I bet most of you haven't. E-prime is a revision of the english language that eliminates the verb "to be" as being dogmatic and undescriptive. And true -- that verb most often is used to name, define and categorize, which often isn't terribly descriptive. I think we can take it a step further and devise "e double prime," which also elimiates the subject/object "i, "we," "us," etc.

Assignment (10 points): translate the following into e-double-prime: "i think, therefore I am."

thought occurs, therefore an entity or entities apart from obvious physicality move(s) through reality.

I'm inclined to think of the "i" in that objectionably sentence to be a way of referring to consciousness. When I'm in a particular mood, I equate consciousness with sort of an ultimate driver's seat -- one great consciousness, that is all being. I derive a sort of "proof" of this from reality being composed of self-directing quanta, and this self-direction being another word for consciousness, or in a sense, ultimate free will. Of course, another way to say "ultimate consciousness" is "god." the last part of an enormous, confused paper I wrote, patched together from of a dozen scribbling-sessions, talks more about ultimate consciousness and how it relates to quantum mechanics. Quantum consciousness would resolve free will vs. Determinism, since each one of "us" IS the reality (the only proper use of "to be"?) that self-directs via quantum randomness. The god gene at work.

So, we can't really blame our parents for anything. I'm trying to figure out the chords for "my only," as sung by danielle brisebois in the movie "as good as it gets," and it's just impossible. I have the first few, but after that the progression modulates crazily, the guitar plays these partial chords and minimalist licks, and the bass isn't that audible and doesn't always play the root note. Yeah, it's impossible. Maybe if I were locked for 1,000 years in a room with a CD player and a guitar, I'd get it eventually, via process of elimination: 13 root notes, let's say 10 functional chords (should be enough), and 20 changes within the song. Then every possible combination, consider how long the song is, etc. Maybe only 100 years.

09 nov 05

I'm sort of forcing myself to blog here, just because I can't stand the thought of "08 nov 05" sitting there, languishing for days and days. But I just don't have anything non-stupid to say. Sorry. Go back and read some old entries! I've always wondered why people don't do that. If you want, I can recycle them, just moving them to the front of the queue and putting new dates on them. I guarantee there are entries you haven't read. I hope.

I've sort of given up. Since the IBM gig fell through, I haven't really seen the point of anything. California, of course, didn't work out, either. There are only a certain number of failures one can take before one just says "fuck it." I could do something drastic, like take off in my car or on a bus for canada, but I realize that once I get there it'll just be more of the same: cars, buildings, people, trees, roads, and the sounds they make. The world doesn't stop being shitty just because one is in a different corner of it. At least here, I'm comfortable, and don't have to wade through my inordinately long adjustment period for any new circumstances.

If I left for some romantic city to "seek my fortune," my world would consist of a squalid apartment, and the route from that to some horrible job. I'd see the same buildings every day on my way to work. I blogged about this before, while I was in california -- how the world is largely the same, and how it just doesn't matter where you are. The problem is one of "attitude," or in the way I think about things. I don't know how to correct it, though, or even if it's possible. Generally, if something is difficult to do, it's not worth doing.

The trick, as I've said before, is to forge satisfying, pleasant relationships and do satisfying, pleasant work. Love and work, just as freud said. Not an easy thing, but something that's maybe worthwhile pursuing. A shitty world is almost bearable with love and work. A miserable job(s) and/or miserable relationship(s) are going to play hell with world-view and happiness.

Enough of this eeyore crap. I slashed my deceased punching bag, and let the sand drain out onto the floor. The next step is anyone's guess. Here are pics, as always. I took some of the sand as it poured out:

There are now a 250 pound pile of sand sitting my laundry room. Interestingly enough, I still haven't given up on the punching bag idea. Next step is to get another one, and fill it with something other than sand. Either that, or get some kind of chain-male bag that will hold up to being filled with sand and being kicked.

08 nov 05

I broke my punching bag again.

A big gash split in the top of the bag, and some sand pooped out all over a hoody that was lying on the ground beneath. Not too much, though.

I discovered a great new kick, which lead to this tragedy: the high straight kick. If you aim a straight kick high (uppermost chest, neck, face), then it not only pushes, but strikes hard, with at least as much force, snap and speed as a side kick. It requires some flexibility. If you bring your knee up high enough to get the foot high, it also provides enough spring to pop the heel out hard. A straight kick aimed lower at the midsection is just going to push an opponent, albeit pretty hard. But the kick aimed high is going to break something.

Now that I look at the forensic photos again, I can see what happened. I'll draw a diagram:

The kick not only hit straight on, but also carried the target upwards. My foot simultaneosly pushed the bag back and lifted the whole structure such that one of the suspending chains jumped out of its S-hook. My foot came in contact with the bag at a relatively weak area (right above that leather seam), and the "stickiness" of my foot pulled the contacted section of canvas up and pushed it forward too hard and too fast for the seam to hold.

So, the split was formed, the ring flew out of its S-hook, the bag coming down those few inches tore the gash even nore, and then my blue hoody gets covered with a pile of sand./p>

Oh well. I'm tired of buying $30 bags from overstock.com. I think maybe the next one (if there is a next one) won't be filled with sand. I'll either buy it already assembled, or fill it with something else. Sand is so easy, though, and it helps engineer your strikes such that you're not going to break any bones of your own. How am I going to accumulate 250 lbs worth of rags? Rice might work better.

But for now, I give up. But it's nice to know my kicks are so mighty. In the bag's defense, it wasn't really designed to take upward/forward hits so close to that upper seam. It more had in mind mid-section, forward pummeling. It probably also had "not being filled with 250 pounds of sand" in mind.

07 nov 05

The difference between the phrases "people are x" and "humans are x" is that the second lends itself to generalization. Consider this: "racoons feed at night." this is no problem. Now, substitute "racoons" with "humans," and keep the structure but not the content ("humans like water"). Using "humans" instead of "people" implies that we are animals, and nothing more -- we are our bodies, which are mechanical devices "programmed" to operate in a particular way. "humans are bipedal." "humans' sexual behavior is complicated, more so than most other animals."

Contrast this with "people's sexual behavior is complicated." this seems wrong, if not a little offensive -- who is the speaker to say that EVERY person exhibits "complicated" sexual behavior? Maybe some people are simple-minded in their approach. But to generalize like that about "humans" is acceptable.

There is a great deal of variation in behavior among other animals. For instance, one could say "most racoons are afraid of people," and not exhibit a stereotyping, generalizing, or even "racist" attitude towards racoons. The less descriptive one is, the less precise in statistical analysis, the less potential for offense. For instance, "some racoons are afraid of people" is good, "some racoons are sometimes afraid of people" is better, "some racoons are sometimes afraid of people to an extent" is even better, and "racoons exhibit diverse behavior" is best.

One could say "racoons are afraid of people," but are we sure we're being precise in our description? Perhaps significantly so, because, by "accepted" definitions, all racoons behave "shyly" around humans to a "significant" degree. This statement probably isn't going to encounter any political resistance, even though it is in fact a generalization, or a stereotype. We have our "realm of ideas" racoon, one that's afraid of humans, and then we assume that all other entities who are considered "racoons" fit into this template, stereoptype, or generalization.

This has critical implications for racism, although "ethnocentricism" might be a better word, because "race" is on its way out as meaningfully descriptive. "ethnicity" is enough of a broad-stroke to begin with that it's really impossible to take offense at it or quibble with the definiton -- one can practically define an "ethnic group" any way one wants to. Let's check out a dictionary definition:

ethnic group. N : people of the same race or nationality who share a distinctive culture.

"nationality" is easy to define -- "citizenship," a legal term; legality is based on firm and sharp categories (who was born where, who has a passport, who has paper x in slot y in vault z). However, it's odd to talk about the "american ethnic group," or the "laotian ethnic group," because there are groups of people living within each of them who share more traits with each other than they do with other groups. I question the validity of applying nationality to ethnicity.

Culture is hard to define in the first place -- I defined it once before as "any activity that doesn't pertain to reproduction," even though the selection of flavored condoms is certainly a cultural behavior. Furthermore, "culture" becomes more difficult to define when it's applied to "ethnic group." different families have different cultures. Does this mean that family x of white people are of a different ethnic group than family y of white people?

Finally, we have the term "race" within the definition. "people" isn't really under the lens of deconstruction here, unless you count the humanzee, a supposed chimp/human half-breed, or if you go back in time to ca. 6,000,000 years ago, when the human species's lineage diverged from some other primate form (again, no clear line/point here). "race" is the biggest are of difficulty, and it brings us back around to our rejection of the term in the first place, and our substitution of it with "ethnicity." does "race" exist? Yeah, in a sense, but it's hard to see it clearly. Does culture exist? Yeah, in a sense. Does nationality exist? Yeah, but that's probably a bad thing to apply to "ethnicity." do people exist? Yeah, most definitely. So there are problems with even that word ("ethnic"). But, as I said it's fuzzy enough so that it's useful. I won't even get into "share" and "distinctive."

"race" is a form of human cateogry. Of course, the lines are fuzzy. Of course, these things aren't meaningful on a deep genetic level ("races" can interbreed). But, let's say in 80% of cases, if you see a person walking down the street, you can identifiy him as "white," "black," "asian," etc. This is not to say that there aren't differences within each group -- but certain traits are consistently different, regardless of the degree of difference, from group to group. We can break it down, though. We can go by tribe, or otherwise subdivide groups like "white" or "black." and no-one remembers what tribe they came from. Americans are often a little fuzzy on exactly which european country their family hails from. Brazil has given up entirely, being a weird mix of japanese, native south american, asian indian, black and white. People there have interbred so much that assigning race to them is pretty laughable. But in some places, perceptible lines still exist.

In neolithic times, we had groups like the modern-day khoisans (formerly hottentots), who have pretty much kept to themselves (no interbreeding) for x centuries. As a result, you can be pretty damned sure who's a khoisian and who's not. The khoisans have greater genetic diversity than any other "group" on the planet (or so I read, somewhere), which implies that the khoisans have been making babies for so long that those babies are really dissimilar to each other, genetically.

Of course, the problem here is that you're going to find just as much disparity between an inuit (formerly eskimo) and a bayaka (formerly pygmie), if not a lot more. But, these aren't part of the same "group." why not? I don't know. Why are khoisans all considered to be "khoisans"? Why is that a meaningful group, whereas the imaginary group that contains "inuit and bayaka" is not meaningful? On what are we basing this? It's pretty simple, really -- khoisans all live in the same place, and are more bayaka each other than an inuit is like a bayaka. But, within the subgroup of "inuit," there is less genetic diversity than there is within the "khoisans." from this, we infer that the khoisans are just about the oldest "race" on the planet, and probably resemble early man. I wrote about this before, and even put it into an essay in the writing section.

We don't have any issue with identifying different races of racoons, all of whom can and do interbreed, even though in many cases identifying this race of racoon might be a fuzzy or even difficult issue. But most, let's say 95%, of taxonomists will agree that X racoon is a member of Y racoon-race.

And of course this is applicable to humans, although perhaps to a lesser degree due to centuries-old interbreeding. Racoons just don't have the range for it. Humans, on the other hand, have been trekking around the globe mating with each other for a few million years. But still not to the point where one can't tell a black man from an asian man; shaquille o'neale isn't easily confused with yao ming (even though they guard each other -- I believe yao schooled shaq).

Let's take skin color as a genetic trait, just because it's so often used, and people are familiar with it. True, saying some people are red, some people are yellow, some people are brown, and some people are beige is ultimately innacurate -- if you look on a color map with a range of all human skin color, these shades are on an easily and smoothly navigated spectrum and are severely blurred, and it's literally impossible to draw a "sharp" line between a brown person and a yellow person. However, there are greater concentrations in some places than in others:

Yeah, the boundaries are blurry, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about categories at all. This is the old boundary problem: categories are blurry, but does this mean they don't "exist"? Do we throw out all subdivisions, all generalization, and all stereoyping because we can't make a definitive cut? Or do we do as good as job as we can? The reason we draw these lines (I'm talking in general now, and not in race) is because they're useful in getting things done. However, drawing these lines across human phenotypes doesn't serve any useful function, and probably even serves a harmful function, but it doesn't mean it can't be done.

Back to the map: one can call those areas between lines "race." or, whatever you wnat to call them, of course, if "race" is debilitatingly offensive or politically counterproductive, both of which it probably is.

I'm not interested in this because I'm pushing an agenda -- I'm not some kind of racial purity nazi or something. It's just an interesting category problem, which I enjoy. Another good one is psychiatric disorders -- man. If you thought boundaries were blurry and/or created in race, then you're in for a treat when you hit autism and mental retardation.

Some categories are better deliniated than others -- it's pretty easy to reach a consensus on where your computer monitor ends and where the air around it begins. But, if you look at things closely enough, the boundaries are just as blurred. Racial boundaries get more questionable the more interbreeding occurs. For instance, in north america, what are usually referred to as "blacks" and "whites" have been having children for centuries. So, you get a lot of people in various shades of beige running around. This has led the law, which as we've established, is necessarily obsessed with categories, to implement such silliness as the "one drop rule," which applied the legal defnition of "negro" to any white with one drop of negro blood. Furthermore, we still have something like this going on today. For instance, college applications require the applicant to indicate their "race." but instead of being a legally enforced issue, it's turned to self-identification. Of course, if I told vassar college that I was black, there might be some ensuing problems.

Which leads me to agendas, and some hypocrisy that goes on there, not to say these aren't universally good agendas to be pursuing. When it's beneficial, we call the category of race into existence (affirmitive action, college quotas). When it's harmful (racial discrimination, or preferential treatment), we abandon it. But affirmative action and college quotas ARE preferential treatment of one "race" over another. Why is this acceptable? Because some "races", "cultures" or "ethnicities" have a unique history of shabby treatment by others, and this treatment, over time, has lead to some really horrible, glaring inequity and injustice that can be partially rectified and balanced-out by treating one group better than another in certain situations (jobs and schools). This is a temporary measure, until the under-group catches up. And, there's some evidence that affirmative action is working in this regard.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter that the group didn't exist to begin with, if that's your belief. The group existed based on our ideas -- we created it -- and then people were assigned into this group, and treated poorly. So, we take this same group of people, and treat them preferentially.

If you don't care if you're offending anyone, race is fun to talk about, just because categories are just about the funnest thing to talk about. Well, write about. I don't like talking to people, except to say "PASS THAT THAR JAM." I don't like having to think on my feet -- I'm sort of slow. Not dumb, necessarily, but just slow. I'd make a bad lawyer, I think.

mentally shift gears to a topic that might be weirdly related, but probably not. Maybe.

I equate language with the one innate human technology; our technology is inside of us. Language is what LAREGELY seperates us from other animals -- we have more of it. We have sartre, and chimps have "want food." we have supercomputers, and chimps have sticks they use to fish termites out of their mounds. Now, this isn't to say anything of their usefulness -- collecting termites and demanding food can be argued to be just as, or even more, useful than calculating and trying to predict, imperfectly, weather patterns, or establishing the meaning of life (which might just be to get as many termites as possible).

Clearly our society and its "progress" is defined by technology. And, "we" are defined by our technology. Langauge is a technology because it's an intricate tool used to simplify work. It's a machine. Since language is supposedly locked into the brain, I'd like to call language our "innate technology." technology is locked into us, and is always going to be there. We can't return to an agrarian state, or reverse it except temporarily, despite what the unabomber and other luddites/anti-technologists advocate and try to bring about. Technology is always going to be "progressing."

We can't get away from technology. There's no going back -- it's in our brains, permanently. No matter how many nuclear bombs go off, it will still be there (if humanity isn't wiped out entirely, which seems unlikely, if not impossible), and is going to grow, either like a flower or like a cancer. I'm inclined to believe that technology isn't a good thing or a bad thing -- I just exists, like everything. It's not some unnatural evil, a picture some people like to paint. On the contrary, it's about as natural as a thing can get; as natural as our standing on two feet or living around 80 years. Even if evil robots take over, we'll be so intricately tangled in with this technology at that point, that we may as well call ourselves the evil robots.

"scrollbar handle" seems to be in relatively common use.

< >