I often need to cut whole sections of an article, either because it’s too long, or it’s a diversion that distracts from the flow of the argument. I will put any coherent segment here for anyone interested.
This one comes from an article on the collapse of history and historical reasoning in the 21st century. To illustrate victory of a counter-indicated, constructed reality that gutted history of its value, I went a couple of paragraphs down the “Fall of Rome, Fall of Europe” rabbit hole.
In my own field of medieval history, for example, the Roman Empire didn’t fall, it transitioned, and the invading Germanic tribes were mere Roman wannabe’s who may have accidentally broken the civilization they wanted to govern.[1] And even for those willing to acknowledge a problem, it was unthinkable that one might “other” the ?Germanic tribal warriors by blaming them for their wanton destruction of the very civilization they coveted.
…the barbarian figure serves as a veil between the observer and the Real… an empty sign that can be filled by anyone: the Jew, the Algerian, the Muslim, the Mexican. The important task facing the study of this period today is to rip that veil away.[2]
Rather violent language for so delicate an operation.
And certainly, whatever happened then, it has no relationship to the current crisis of Western civilization.[3] Douglas Boin, an academic historian, responded to politicians drawing parallels between today and Rome’s fall in the pages of Time:
As a historian of the Roman Empire, I’d like to suggest there’s really no need for alarm. One of the most well-known moments in history, the “Fall of Rome,” is not a historical event. It’s not even a series of unfortunate mistakes. It’s more akin to a theological idea, and the time has come to stop screwing up the way we talk about it.
Again, note the dismissive, sneering tone. The matter is decided for the grand publique, no matter what puddles of scholarly disagreement remain.
And if there is a link between Rome and today, then, as with the Roman imperial ignorance about their neighbors, it’s the West’s fault if Jihadis don’t like us. In the immediate aftermath of 9-11 Morris Berman wrote in the Guardian:
The response of the empire is to regard the attackers as the ultimate Other… In the main, the Romans had no understanding of non civilisation: of different values, nomadic ways of life. Similarly, America views Islamic terrorism as completely irrational; there is no understanding of the political context of this activity, a context of American military attack on, or crippling economic sanctions against, a host of Arab nations – with unilateral support for Israel constituting the central, running sore.[4].
Note how for Boin we need to understand religion better, while for Berman, Westsplaining Jihad, it’s not about millennial religious imperialism, but the West’s fault).[5] Neither the misunderstood Germans nor the Caliphators are at fault in anyway. They’re empty ciphers for the “Other” whom we should embrace. So even as Berman deplores Roman imperial ignorance, he contributes to our lethal ignorance.
[1] Goffart, “Rome’s Final Conquest: The Barbarians,” History Compass 6.3 (2008): 855–883; et multa alia. Brian Ward-Perkins led the resistance: The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (Cambridge: 2006).
[2] Guy Halsall, “Why do we need the Barbarians?“ Historian on the Edge, July 15, 2011.
[3] Douglas Boin, “The Fall of Rome and All That,” History News Network, April 3, 2015.
[4] “Waiting for the Barbarians,” Guardian, October 6, 2001.
[5] Cf. R. Landes, “The Fall of Rome, the Fall of Europe,” Augean Stables, January 6, 2006; “Caliphaters: A 21st Century Millennial Movement,” MERIA, September 19, 2019.
Leave a Reply