palazzo Grassi's barbarians - an exhibition to support mass immigration

[Kernunnos]

The Barbarians at the Palazzo Grassi


The Barbarians at the Pallazo Grassi | The Brussels Journal

From the desk of Ernest Baert on Thu, 2008-02-28 23:33
Last month, the exhibition Roma e i Barbari, opened at the Palazzo Grassi in Venice. The curator, Jacques Aillagon, a former French minister of culture, says that the aim of the exhibition is “to illustrate centuries of conflictual co-existence leading to the cultural integration of Barbarian populations into the pre-existing Roman fabric.” Aillagon says “Europe at the start of the third millennium is living through a cultural revolution not unlike that of the first.” The Economist, which reviewed the exhibition, writes that “the Romans decided that assimilation was the best form of defence.”
The underlying but clear message is that we should not worry: if Europe assimilates all newcomers, things will be OK, even if they arrive in massive waves, because the Barbarians were nowhere as bad as historically depicted in the Roman propaganda. The Economist even comes up with the example of a seemingly peace-loving Attila forbidding his troops to sack Rome. Yet, when it comes to how much or how little things changed for the better when after the fall of Rome the Barbarians were in charge, the Economist says merely “historical evidence became scarce. Unlike the Romans, the Barbarians did not build for posterity...”
So should we rehabilitate the Barbarians and review Rome’s futile attempts to control immigration?
In How the Irish saved Civilization Thomas Cahill argues that when the Roman Empire fell apart and Europe descended into chaos, it was in Irish monasteries that classical texts continued to be copied and preserved during the dark period of the 5th and 6th centuries.
This is an interesting thesis which contradicts or complements politically correct wisdom that classical Greek texts came back to Europe via the Arabs, partly through Al Andalus – Spain. But the first half of the book, in which Cahill describes the mindset of your typical Roman and your typical barbarian around the fall of the Roman Empire is more relevant for the question above.
For almost one thousand years, Roman military technology and organisation was so superior and the Roman armies so determined to win that the mere sight of their battering rams outside city walls was usually enough to cause the besieged city to surrender. Although Roman armies suppressed uprisings brutally, the benefit of Roman occupation was that inside the Roman Empire reigned Pax Romana, a rule of law which enabled commerce and culture to blossom. People’s life expectancy was higher than ever before (and higher than for a long time after the fall of the Roman Empire). In the words of Ken Dark the Roman empire was “a Europe-wide state, […] with a single currency, a centralised military and legal system, and an elite connected to a transnational culture spanning western Europe and the Mediterranean with Latin as its official language.” Rome was the first multicultural empire: as long as he spoke Latin, any man could get to the top. Some have even called the Roman empire the first multinational corporation.
The Roman empire seemed the promised land to those outside: the Vandals and other barbarians across the Rhine and the Donau. For centuries a trickle of them had managed to cross that natural barrier. Earlier immigrants, such as the Gauls, had settled and integrated into the multicultural and multi-religious melting pot which was Rome and some prospered. But the idea that one day a trickle could suddenly turn into an uncontrollable flood, pushed by population pressures on the other side and swamping the oldest and mightiest empire ever in Europe seemed inconceivable to the Romans.
Yet by the fourth century AD, the empire was falling apart, although few realised an irreversible process had started. Its territories in North Africa had been abandoned to the barbarians. The military were by now held in low esteem and most recruits were non-Romans or half-Romanised barbarian mercenaries. Cahill observes that “Rome fell gradually and that Romans for many decades scarcely noticed what was happening.” The barbarian would-be immigrants were looked upon as riffraff, but their immigration was not perceived as a threat until it was too late.
Then during the winter of 406, the Rhine froze solid, and thousands of waiting Vandals, Alans and Suebians crossed into the Roman Empire without being stopped. In 410, Rome was sacked for the first time in 800 years. Only 23 years later an army of 80,000 Vandals crossed the Strait of Gibraltar
Rome fell because of internal rather than external weakness, primarily the loss of purpose, identity and the will to stand up, if necessary militarily. Libraries have been written about the causes. Kenneth Clark in Civilisation puts it like this: “Civilisation requires a modicum of material prosperity – enough to provide a little leisure. But, far more, it requires confidence – confidence in the society in which one lives, belief in its philosophy, belief in its laws.” Another commentator summarises it as “Reviewing the sequences of Germanic infiltration into Roman military, administration, and society, it seems that rather than falling, the Roman state in the West willingly gave up, letting day to day control of its holdings slip from its fingers without so much as a spasm, delegating itself out of existence.” Note that the invading Barbarian armies were in fact small compared to the total population. They were just more motivated.
The world which followed the fall of Rome can really only be described as “chaos” or a “world of darkness.” There was hardly any trade, no currency, no learning anymore. Cities depopulated and life expectancy dropped. The population of Rome fell to some 100,000 during the 6th century, down from one million a few centuries earlier. In Britain the population fell by 50% between 400 A.D. and 700 A.D. In Egypt, Greece and the Balkans, it took 1,000 years for population numbers to again reach the levels of the Roman empire. In Britain, for 2 centuries following the fall of the Roman empire, the minting of coins and the use of money ceased and all trade became barter trade. It is probably no exaggeration to state that the fall of the Roman empire set Europe back at least 500 years in many ways.
Cahill compares the situation of the Roman empire in its final days to that which exists between Mexico and the US: a border with, on one side impoverished masses, trying to cross into what seems the promised land. He overlooks a much more striking parallel: that of Western Europe. Forced to give up its North African colonies it successfully integrated a first wave of immigrants such as Italians, Portuguese, but then, against all evidence, came to believe that the constant flow of immigrants from Eastern Europe and North Africa can somehow be assimilated limitlessly. The loss of belief in its own civilisation, the increase in crime, the delusional faith in a multi-cultural society, payments made to foreigners in the hope they will stay at home while at the same time legalizing any immigrants that have already moved in, the reliance on immigrants in the military, these are all clear parallels between the last century of the Roman empire and contemporary Europe.
If the Vandals could transport 80,000 across the Strait of Gibraltar 2000 years ago, why do we reject the possibility that what looks like a trickle today can suddenly become a flood, encouraged by repeated legalisations of illegal immigrants? Imagine a North-African dictator lending his naval fleet to African fugitives trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea. Would European border guards dare to shoot at boats with women and children in the full glare of the international media? Probably not (anymore). So the trickle could turn into a flood sooner or later.
Will Europe end like the Roman empire? Unlikely (although not totally impossible either). But an exhibition to rehabilitate the Barbarians and the impact of immigration on the Roman Empire seems an ill-judged effort to convince us of the merits of present day immigration.

[Marcus Marulus]

The curator's views on history and his drawing ridiculous parallels between totally disparate historical situations are appalling.

[Savorgnan]

Ah, this exposition... The first half of this thread's title can be misleading. I thought it was about the modern and contemporary "art" collection of Palazzo Grassi's current owner, french entrepreneur François Pinault. This is pure modern and contemporary barbarity as well.

[Kernunnos]

Palazzo Grassi is a FIAT showcase.

The Agnelli family is known for its masonic and bilderberg affiliations ...

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Breha

Palazzo Grassi is a FIAT showcase.

Pinault bought the palace in 2006. It doesn't make any difference, Pinault is just as masonic as the Agnelli, parisian style.

Originally Posted by Breha

The Agnelli family is known for its masonic and bilderberg affiliations ...

I know, and it's worsening. The Agnelli empire's inheritants, and future heads, Lapo and John Elkann, are jews.

[Menydh]

I have been long wondering how long they would take to come up with this:

The curator, Jacques Aillagon, a former French minister of culture, says that the aim of the exhibition is “to illustrate centuries of conflictual co-existence leading to the cultural integration of Barbarian populations into the pre-existing Roman fabric.” Aillagon says “Europe at the start of the third millennium is living through a cultural revolution not unlike that of the first.” The Economist, which reviewed the exhibition, writes that “the Romans decided that assimilation was the best form of defence.”

A few months ago, while watching a documentary about the Goths and other tribes when they settled in the limes of the Roman Empire, in 376 AD, under the terms of hospitalitas offered by Emperor Valens, I realized that there were many similarities between then and now:

• For the civilized subjects of the Roman Empire, these foreign peoples were perceived in a similar way as we perceive immigrants today.
• Emperor Valens not only agreed to the plea of the Goths to cross the Danube to shelter from the Huns. He also helped them to do so. Which is what the organisms and the institutions of the establishment are doing today.
• He did not do it on humanitarian grounds. These tribes were needed and were only granted a settlement in exchange for becoming foederati to Rome, i.e. to serve as federated troops to the Roman Legions, when required. Much like immigrants are being granted residence in Europe, to serve as labour.

This first wave of migration did have precedents. Rome had been recruiting Barbarians for its Legions since earlier, at the same time as its limits were under pressure from these same Barbarians. In 260 AD a short-lived event took place: the Western part of the Empire (Galia, Hispania and Britania) split. The cause was a growing sense of provincial identity increased by the fact that Rome was abandoning the West to protect the East, but also a dislike for Rome's policies of recruiting Barbarians for its Legions.

Well, if we are at that point, perhaps it is a moment to remember that only 30 years after the Goths crossed the Danube helped by the Roman establishment, in 406 AD a larger number of Barbarians crossed the Rhine as the "security systems of the customs borders" failed (i.e., the Rhine froze allowing them to cross it), and they overran the Empire.

Note: There is no need to employ a self version of political correctness, to pretend that there are no parallelisms. There are and they are strong ones. Many of us are today, more or less, or to one extent or the other, the result of the events of those times. I mean that this does not point to modern populations in the North, since these were then home-stayers so to speak.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Note: There is no need to employ a self version of political correctness, to pretend that there are no parallelisms. There are and they are strong ones. Many of us are today, more or less, or to one extent or the other, the result of the events of those times. I mean that this does not point to modern populations in the North, since these were then home-stayers so to speak.

With that, do you mean the modern populations of France and Spain?

One thing though - the Western Roman Empire was mostly ruled by barbarian peoples, e.g. Gauls, Normans, Franks, Goths, etc. So how is there a parallel between letting foreigners rule entire parts of your empire, and letting immigrants in your country to serve practical functions?

The proportions are certainly not the same.

[Menydh]

I don't know where you get the idea that the Gauls were a barbarian people, in the time period that we are speaking. Obviously you are missing nearly 500 years of civilizational progress among the Gauls, which had been preceded by other 500 years of formation towards Romanitas.

Those Gauls, Hispanians or Britannians were in fact Gallo-Romans, Hispano-Romans or Britano-Romans. The ruling elites were the provincial senatorial aristocracies. Not foreigners. Rome, at the top, was not built upon democratic principles of blood from top to bottom, but upon aristocratic principles of elites upon the substrata of the local Gentilitas societies, which were the ones based on blood lineages. It is One Thousand years of evolution leading to the formation of Europa that you are missing.

Seneca was not an Italo-Roman. He was a Hispano-Roman. And so were Hadrian, Trajan, and others. And the same with Gallo-Romans or Britano-Romans.

For the Barbarian peoples, Rome was an ideal destination to reach. Their paradise on earth. The Goths first and latter the Franks aimed to be a part of it. The Goths failed at sustaining a Western Roman Empire, and the Franks maintained one which was a pale shadow of it, and that only after they assimilated and submitted to this very same concept of Romanitas.

And even later, the Goths in Spain only managed to stabilize the territory starting at Leuwegild's reign, with Rekhared's abjuring of the Arian heressy. It was only then that a Hispano-Roman aristocrat commands an "Hispano-Gothic" army to inflict the most serious defeat upon a Frankish ("Gallo-Frankish"?) army much superior in numbers. A great turnback since the defeat of the Goths at Voillé at the hands of the Franks, which was achieved under the military leadership of a non-Goth. And it was only then that the Gothic kingdom of Spania gives figures of intellectual excellence such as Isidore and Leander of Seville, of a Hispano-Roman father and a Gothic father.

The Hispano-Romans, like the other nations of the Western Empire, did not care for a concept of a monarchy as they were accustomed to a combined rule of imperial civil servants and local aristocracy. With the arrival of the Goths, this local Hispano-Roman aristocracy remained next to a Gothic military nobility which had come to substitute the imperial administration.

The Hispano-Roman aristocracy was not keen with this settlement, but with a few exceptions it was accepted as the best that Rome could send at that moment. The mixed marriages issues which Nordocentrists have surprisingly presented as a Gothic law denoting supremacy, that prevented them from mixing with "inferiors", was in fact a Roman law established by Valentinian and Valens and derived from Constantine's laws that prohibited mixed marriages of different social strata.

Such laws, however, were of practically null effect among the Hispano-Roman and the Visigothic common people. And at the time of Leuwegild they had more of a religious character, than racial proper. Although both races were still deeply divided by religion. The derogation of this law by Leuwegild was a first step towards the racial unification of Spania, although this was only effectively realized under the reign of his son, Rekhared, after he officially abjurated of the Arian heressy together with a number of Arian Visigothic bishops.

It is from this moment on that we refer to the Spanish as Hispano-Goths. And it is then that we can speak of a final phase in the ethnogenesis of Spania, or Spain, with the Gothic being an adstratum to the matter, the substratum of Hispania. And that is the heritage of Spaniards alone.

The case of France presents different patterns, which I'm not going to deal with since I don't know enough about it. But for one fundamental difference, unlike the Goths who were initially adept to an oriental heressy of Christianism, the Franks assumed the Catholic dogma at an early stage. And it is that homogeneity which allowed them to rule a reduced version of the imperial ideal of Romanitas.

Contrary to that, Menéndez y Pelayo in his opus magnum, Historia de los Heterodoxos Españoles, argues that the loss of Spain (the 711 AD Islamic invasion) was caused by the insincerity of a large sector of the Gothic nobility in their pretended assimilation of this Romanitas, which had preserved their barbaric temperamental character.

Well, for best or for worst it is, again, our heritage alone. We are not only the children of a father and a mother. Our lineages started long ago and they are long. Be them Celts and Iberians, Hispano-Romans, or Goths. And that is why I said that there is no need to emply any self-styled version of political correctness to avoid offending the modern populations of northern Europe. Because this has nothing to do with you, but with us.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I don't know where you get the idea that the Gauls were a barbarian people, in the time period that we are speaking. Obviously you are missing nearly 500 years of civilizational progress among the Gauls, which had been preceded by other 500 years of formation towards Romanitas.

I did not address any specific time period, but the general period of the Roman Empire and the period of the existence of Gauls as a distinctive people. Yes, after they were Romanized, one might not look upon them as barbarians - however, that does not erase the Gallic invasions dating back to 400 BC, and it does not mean that Gauls were looked upon by Graeco-Romans as a non-Barbarian people, and it was not before 212 that any significant part of the populations of the Roman Empire outside of Italy were given citizenship - which was not well looked upon by the citizens of Italia.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Those Gauls, Hispanians or Britannians were in fact Gallo-Romans, Hispano-Romans or Britano-Romans. The ruling elites were the provincial senatorial aristocracies. Not foreigners. Rome, at the top, was not built upon democratic principles of blood from top to bottom, but upon aristocratic principles of elites upon the substrata of the local Gentilitas societies, which were the ones based on blood lineages. It is One Thousand years of evolution leading to the formation of Europa that you are missing.

No, I am not missing it - you are. Rome was aristocratic, and based on blood lineages, that of Graeco-Romans.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Seneca was not an Italo-Roman. He was a Hispano-Roman. And so were Hadrian, Trajan, and others. And the same with Gallo-Romans or Britano-Romans.

Sure - they were Romans, as in citizens of the Roman Empire.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

For the Barbarian peoples, Rome was an ideal destination to reach. Their paradise on earth. The Goths first and latter the Franks aimed to be a part of it. The Goths failed at sustaining a Western Roman Empire, and the Franks maintained one which was a pale shadow of it, and that only after they assimilated and submitted to this very same concept of Romanitas.

I agree - but you are failing to mention the Barbarian Gallic invasions, perhaps out of pride or simply ignorance - likely the former. I have also noticed that you will do much to avoid admitting to any Germanic affiliations to have spawned the modern Spaniards, but it is indeniable - it also indeniable that it only constituted a component, and not a majority of the people that come to be Spaniards. It was though, the meeting of peoples with cultural differences that created the modern culture - including the meeting of Gauls with Graeco-Roman culture, and later, the installation of Germanic elites and the related cultural developments. That they have done nothing for the respective countries involved (France, Spain) is far from the truth.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Well, for best or for worst it is, again, our heritage alone. We are not only the children of a father and a mother. Our lineages started long ago and they are long. Be them Celts and Iberians, Hispano-Romans, or Goths. And that is why I said that there is no need to emply any self-styled version of political correctness to avoid offending the modern populations of northern Europe. Because this has nothing to do with you, but with us.

Matters so extentious as the Roman Empire certainly have a lot to do with all parts of Europe - or rather, had, at the time it was present. Such things affect the entire continent. You mentioned earlier that Northern populations havent been affected as you have from this period, because we were home-stayers - well, I disagree and agree. The majority of the populations (masses) of most of Western Europe is continuous since migrations that date back to 10,000 BCE, which we can trace through Y-DNA lineage and make sense of from the associated climatic changes. The difference is that the areas which were the Roman Empire were culturally transformed, into Romanitas, whereas the Northern areas (and with Northern, I mean upper Germania, Scandinavia, non-Roman Britain, AS Britain), kept true to their culture persistently, and fought the Roman Empire. But ultimately, the difference is merely chronological - for the northern populations have at some point also had some cultural developments comparable to Romanitas, and that is both Christianity and every aspect of our cultural progress, something which is distinctively marked in things such as architecture. You could perhaps call movements such as Protestantism a step away from any kind of Romanitas, because the Christian/Catholic church was exactly that.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I did not address any specific time period, but the general period of the Roman Empire and the period of the existence of Gauls as a distinctive people. Yes, after they were Romanized, one might not look upon them as barbarians - however, that does not erase the Gallic invasions dating back to 400 BC, and it does not mean that Gauls were looked upon by Graeco-Romans as a non-Barbarian people, and it was not before 212 that any significant part of the populations of the Roman Empire outside of Italy were given citizenship - which was not well looked upon by the citizens of Italia.

You are overlooking at a few facts: Rome was not founded upon a one only people. Other than the Italic Latins, the non Indo-European (Middle Eastern) Etruscan element was central to the construction of Roman Culture and Civilization, as well as other Italic and Celtic (Gaulish) elements.

But most important, the time period of the clash between Rome and the Gauls coincides with the medium to late stages of a Celtic culture known as the Civilization of La Tène.

In fact it is with two different civilizational forces that Rome has to meet in its early stages: the Celts and the Carthaginians.

No, I am not missing it - you are. Rome was aristocratic, and based on blood lineages, that of Graeco-Romans.

I'm afraid that you are confusing the concept of aristocratic here, strangely enough with the concept of democratic. You should look into the adoption figures of adoptio and adrogatio in the Roman society, which were common in the Senatorial class and which crossed the borders not only between patricians and plebeians, but also with libertos (freed slaves).

Personally, I know of one case of adoptio minus plena (the adopted remains in the potestas of his biological family, but he acquires a legal succession in the family of the adopter including the right to use the cognomen), in an old Roman family.

This should give you an idea of the legal terms involved: LacusCurtius • Roman Law — Adoption (Smith\'s Dictionary, 1875)

I agree - but you are failing to mention the Barbarian Gallic invasions, perhaps out of pride or simply ignorance - likely the former.

Actually, out of consistency as you can figure from my response farther above.

These clashes between Rome and the Celts (and Carthage) belong to a momentum of civilizational change, or releave.

I have also noticed that you will do much to avoid admitting to any Germanic affiliations to have spawned the modern Spaniards, but it is indeniable - it also indeniable that it only constituted a component, and not a majority of the people that come to be Spaniards.

This is indeed my prerogative. Please, allow me to explain.

For a start, germanicness is too vast and too generic a concept to be truly meaningful when referring to the identity of peoples of solid and ancient heritages. Often used as a meta-linguistic and meta-cultural concept, its impact over those peoples is the contrary to the impact over other peoples which are today considered as Germanic.

But most important, with the particular case of the Goths and Spain, one must take into account a number of important details. One such is that the Goths (and, in general, all or most other tribes of an East Germanic origin) had forged their character and their identity through a long and legendary wandering that set them apart enough from their primitive (in the sense of primigenial, but not assuming it as an absolute primigenial origin) Germanic character and identity.

Indeed they had evolved away from what it is the Germanic Urheimat, for a time enough to mark a character and an identity of their own. A Gothic one.

And they continued to do so until they settled in Hispania, and beyond until the days when they were assimilated in the ethnogenesis of the Hispanic peoples.

It was though, the meeting of peoples with cultural differences

Which I admit, providing that you admit the differences between the Goths and the bulk of the Germanic peoples.

that created the modern culture - including the meeting of Gauls with Graeco-Roman culture, and later, the installation of Germanic elites and the related cultural developments. That they have done nothing for the respective countries involved (France, Spain) is far from the truth.

I'm sure that it must be merely coincidential that you are mentioning the "installation" of "Germanic elites" in a general context, when we are speaking of Spain.

I mean that I'm sure that you do not ignore that it was a whole people that migrated and settled in Spain, and that the military nobility that was established lived side by side with the true local aristocratic elite.

As for the related cultural developments, I take it that you refer to cultural stagnation as well as to the lack of ability to administrative efficiency of the Roman Empire, which crystalized in the "loss of Spain". But before you jump to conclusions, let me tell you that I assume that as part of our heritage (the Gothic part) and that I do not make responsible for it to a wide and generic supposed Germanic character. And less so to the largely unrelated modern Germanic peoples.

Matters so extentious as the Roman Empire certainly have a lot to do with all parts of Europe - or rather, had, at the time it was present. Such things affect the entire continent. You mentioned earlier that Northern populations havent been affected as you have from this period, because we were home-stayers - well, I disagree and agree.

You are mixing up things here. The home-stay bit that I've mentioned points to something non related to the particular issue that you are dealing with here.

The majority of the populations (masses) of most of Western Europe is continuous since migrations that date back to 10,000 BCE, which we can trace through Y-DNA lineage and make sense of from the associated climatic changes. The difference is that the areas which were the Roman Empire were culturally transformed, into Romanitas

It is more complex than a simple "were transformed into Romanitas". They were a dynamic part of what came to be Romanitas. Do translate the concepts of adoptio, from individual stirpes to gentis.

whereas the Northern areas (and with Northern, I mean upper Germania, Scandinavia, non-Roman Britain, AS Britain), kept true to their culture persistently

The Roman Empire was not a homogenous as you might think. There was, always, an underlying feeling of what was called provincial identity apart from the central Roman administration. Further, this identity resurged after the fall of Rome in the less romanicized areas.

and fought the Roman Empire. But ultimately, the difference is merely chronological

Absolutely. The long centuries long conquest of Hispania and the conquest of Gallia took place at a time when Rome was a young, dynamic and expansive force.

for the northern populations have at some point also had some cultural developments comparable to Romanitas, and that is both Christianity and every aspect of our cultural progress, something which is distinctively marked in things such as architecture.

I have never denied that the northern populations assimilated Romanitas. I believe that I've pointed to that as a fact, several times.

It is in fact others who do so, through a primitivistic neo-tribalism which they wrongly call folkism, which constantly contradicts itself when it pretends not to be related to it at times, while other times it pretends to be central to it.

[Lutiferre]