Rome: The world's greatest civilization or the most barbaric?

Many renown Rome as one the of worlds greatest, most advanced civilizations of the ancient world. However, I don't think that they deserve all the credit that they get. It's easy to see Rome's accomplishments, but if you dig a little deeper, it's also easy to see that Romans borrowed many things from the Greeks: many of their cultural achievements can be traced back to that civilization. For example, they copied Greek architechture. Not only this, but I think that the Romans were rather savage. After all, commoners spent their extra time at Bread & Circuses, finding entertainment in men fighting to the death against animals and other humans. The wealthier also enjoyed this, with no value for human life. They treated gladiators (slaves and/or prisoners) worse than what philosopher Aristotle believed slaves should be treated as: "living pieces of property". When commoners weren't enjoying public murders, they were working. But what about the wealthy? They were probably gorging themselves. Many rich Romans loved to eat. With tables full of food, they and their friends would recline on couches and eat.....and eat......and eat until they threw up. If they didn't, they would make themselves vomit so that there would be room in their stomach for more food, which they would, glutonously, continue to eat. This cycle would continue for as long as food was still on the table. For these reasons, I think that the Romans were rather disgusting and I don't like them, or their civilization, much at all. They may have had high cultural acheivemnts, especially during their Golden Age, but that was also when their inhumane habits flourished. Therefore, I view Rome as more barabaric than great.

Religion's Link to Politics Today

As Mr. Shrinsky's question in his post: Think back to the beginning of the year where we saw the natural connection with religion and power. Has this changed at all? I think to our current, and however ridiculously early, presidential race. The struggle among the Republican candidates seems to center on who is more religious. This even goes way back in our nation's history, but has become increasingly more dominant in national politics. Think of the 2000 and 2004 elections - "values" voters (code for relgious) clearly favored one side over the other. Why this connection? Is this still relevant in the age of democracy?
I responded to this question by commenting on his blog, because I believe that power can still be linked to and found in religion. For example, many topics in the Republican debate, like abortion, tie back to reilgious morals and values. Therefore, religious values can effect power. Also, even though Barrack Obama's family is Muslism and he grew up in Africa, he has become a popular Democratic candidate of late: maybe it is because of his diversity. I believe that religious is still key & can effect the leaders that we choose.

P.S.
Go Hillary!!!!

Syncretism

Last class, we discussed syncretism: the reconciliation/blending of different ideas between cultures. Not to be confused with cultural diffusion, syncretism is most often recognizable in religion and holidays. For example, Christmas. It's date was a compromise between Pagean and Christian leaders, and was celebrated on the Pagean winter solstice. Even today, many Americans are "expected" to celebrate Christmas and recognize it as a major holiday. Similarly is the Pagean holiday of Halloween, which has gone from a day of Satanic worship to one in which is it odd if we don't dress up or leave candy for trick- or-treaters. And coming back to Christian holidays are those of Valentine's and St. Patrick's Day. Although both of these hlidays are used to recognize Saints, they have syncretised into our society so much that everyone celebrates them, even if you aren't Christian. This discussion of religion and syncretism went right along with our weekend's homework, which was a reading on how Buddhism adapted to China and it's culture. Continuously spreading through trade, Buddhism became accepted when it allied with China's other religions and was used as a kind of state-religion when Buddhist emporers ruled. Whether being discussed through Christianity or Buddhism, syncretism is recognizable in all religions all throughout world history.

Development and Interaction of Cultures

After studying interactions between humans and their enviornments, we completed a unit of the development and interaction of cultures. The latter mainly included study on world religions, philosophies, and ideologies: in general, belief systems. For example, in AP World History (and, of course, Global) we learned about the ancient belief systems in Asia/the east. These belief systems included Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Legalism, and Daoism. Hindus belived in reincarnation, dharma, and karma, as did Buddhism. These two belief systems were similar and grew off of each other. Hinduism stayed in India after it's creation, and though Buddhism started there, it soon spread into China. Also in China were the philosophies of Confucianism, Legalism, and Daoism. Confucianism's dominating effects on China can still be seen today, one example is the Chinese's respect for elders. Also, Legalism left its mark on China by being used in Qin Shaungdi's rule to build the Great Wall of China and the Tomb of the Terracotta Soldiers. In AP World History we learned the many different ways in which countries in which these religions originated. Countries's social structues, hierarchy, gender roles, arts and architechture, culture, and even more were effected and shaped by main religions, which still effect our world today. My class has learned that religion is key in and can effect everything, from daily lifestyles to the world.