Western Civilization...a history of emotional dysfunction...

It's a nice, neat theory to draw a line from Rome to the present, but if you apply the model to Britain, it's almost certainly inaccurate. Of all the influences on present-day England, none is weaker than Rome; there's no effect left there, and never has been, of Roman law, architecture, or language, except indirectly, second-hand if you will, from the Norman Conquest. The longest lines you can draw are to ancient Wessex, which was of course an Anglo-Saxon entity. The Isles were invaded by Germanic tribes that displaced the existing Celto-Roman civilization completely; that's how Wales and Ireland came about.

Historically, it was precisely Anglo-Norman England, with its homegrown traditions of law, religion and commerce, that stood as a counter-model to the Romanized continent. Louis XIV, Napoleon and Hitler found that out to their cost. These homegrown traditions - Magna Carta, for example - also gave rise to the anti-slavery movement, which abolished slavery in Britain in 1772, the slave trade in the British Empire in 1807, and slavery in toto in 1833. Further reading is here.

So while your theory is attractive intellectually, it doesn't pass muster in historical terms. Sorry.

You weaved time and space into where we exist. It's late and I can't do it justice. So I'll just say thank you and I hope to see more from you.

the way we weave will to power in our every day life is.

people of european ascendancy live as if the somehow they were immune to the very physical and anymic woes of prejudice ...and black people in this country live as if they were the only ones affected by those woes.

i like the way DD weaves the abstract into a very present and physical reality.

it's late and i am tired but will definitely come back to this.

There is a touch of mischaracterization of Roman Imperial attitude. First off, you are probably right regarding the marching of gung-ho, macho men across the Empire. But...

Rome was never in the habit of imposing much other than a tax system on most of the Empire. As long as you paid taxes, you could largely worship what you liked (maybe with a token temple to the Imperial Cult tacked on) and even speak your own language (as long as you knew enough Latin to send in your denarii and solidii). Roman influence was strong in the cities (which were largely Roman from foundation on) and weak in the countryside. This was the case to the degree that Latin dropped completely out of use after Roman withdrawal in places like Britain and North Africa quite rapidly. You even had a resurgence of old languages and culture. This was not the case in Spain and France because they had become far more Romanized largely because Romanization was their ticket to power and prosperity.

Roman Imperial power did reinforce slavery (though pretty much everyone had slavery as part of their system throughout history). And once Rome became Christian their decisions to interefere with local culture became far, far, FAR more pervasive. In that sense it is Christianity that made Roman rule oppressive rather than the original Roman conquest.

Interesting ideas though. Colonizers pass along their dysfunctional behavior. I think this really is grossly oversimplified, but I wonder...it does bring to mind some more recent examples. The behavior of African dictators in the aftermath of the collapse of European colonial rule (discussed in King Leopold's Ghost, a book well worth reading). And makes me wonder how far back you CAN trace the chain of cultural dysfunction.

Given that most conclude human beings are not really civilized, why should we expect to be other than dysfunctional in our cultural intercourse? Civilization is a process, not a done deal. Some grosser outrages may be softened but not to the point where we stop discussing them. Slavery, oppression of women and children, murder, and mass murder (aka, war) come to mind. If we resort to national affiliation, we beg the question of the global scope made graphic in DD's story.
The broad landscape painted by her is, to me, a way of understanding how the power establishment dujour can move peoples and practices from one part of the earth to another. As I finished reading the article, I began to think of those documentaries which prove how similar all peoples' DNA is. It was almost like watching the human genome story, except this time it was being told by an observer of the universe.
Before I can understand more thoroughly what brought this essay to light, I would like to hear from its author. Critics, including me, need to put the piece in context.

I like this essay; historical accuracy be damned, I like the metaphor you're getting at. When I read through this, I was reminded of something from Thucydides, in his The Peloponnesian War. It is, to my mind, still one of the strongest definitions of what empire eventually does both to the conquered and the conqueror. I quote just a bit. The island of Melos was threatened by the Athenians. This was the "dialogue" that took place as they were trying to negotiate. It is known as the Melian Dialogue, and it's in Book 5 of the history.

Council of the Melians: No one can object to each of us putting forward our own views in a calm atmosphere. That is perfectly reasonable. What is scarcely consistent with such a proposal is the the present threat, indeed the certainty, of your making war on us. We see that you have come prepared to judge the argument yourselves, and that the likely end of it all will be either war, if we prove that we are in the right, and so refuse to surrender, or else slavery.

a few paragraphs later:
Athenians: Instead we recommend that you should try to get what is possible for you to get, taking into consideration what we both do really think; since you know as well as we do that, when these matters are discussed by practical people, the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept.

The entire dialogue is a masterpiece of strong Athens explaning, with arms to back itself up, that justice is always a matter of who holds power and who does not.
You might want to look at the dialogue because these arguments pre-date the Romans, and for me, have always represented a bald-faced admission about what empire really is all about.

DarkDaughta refers to Fanon. As themes of good and evil were being discussed during the VN war by ecumenical Christian groups, Fanon was on the reading list. I had already heard it mentioned by one of my African-American students who was a convert to Islam.
But she also mentioned Toni Morrison, who I learned to love before either the Nobel Committee or Oprah had her in their sights.
Morrison gave a series of three lectures (Harvard I believe), seriously discussing the part played by African-American culture in all US literature. Perhaps I can find it later. It will be on an old floppy disk and my computer is stuttering tonight. Later.
Which brings up another aspect of conqueror and conquered. There is a saying that the oppressed oppress the oppressor. In the past few years I think of it as media tallies up the new vocabulary. Jihad and fatwa. New language comes with new relationships.

some fascinating thoughts in here.