putting the colon back in colonization

Lynndie: Making Imperialism Fun

Good for you, Lynndie England, you chinless, inbred, runty, androgynous backwoods mutt! When you mimed a crotch-shot at that hooded detainee, you reminded us all of what Imperial service should be like: one long S&M tour of the tropics, where every man, woman and child of the conquered peoples exists solely as an object for your pleasure.

The Greeks and Romans were honest about conquest. They divided the task into two parts: first you vanquish the enemy on the battlefield, and then you rape every single man, woman and child among the conquered. They were just as systematic about this phase of the operation as the campaign that preceded it. The troops may have been weary, but somehow they found the devotion to duty to impress their tribal superiority on their defeated enemies in the most direct, practical sense: by fucking them in the ass.

Among the nations conquered and buggered by Roman civilization was Britain. They, too, knew in their colons exactly what it was to be colonized. As the inhabitants were being rogered, they learned a valuable lesson, which they passed on to their distant descendents, the founders of the British Empire: being the soldier of a victorious empire means having a free pass to a giant rape-camp thousands of miles across, crammed with submissive, trembling victims of every age and shape. And every damn one of them is yours, to do with as you please.

Tags: , , ,

25 Responses:

  1. wlylj says:

    if only the current administration had the style or grace of the Romans instead of inarticulate lies and piles of chutzpah.

    The deep hypocrisy of america is resulting in more and more visible symptoms of disease. I just wonder how much longer it can go on.

    • wlylj says:

      good read.

      somehow I managed to miss the link first time through...

    • loosechanj says:

      I give it a couple generations. What I wonder is how it will break down.

    • infrogmation says:

      "if only the current administration had the style or grace of the Romans instead of inarticulate lies and piles of chutzpah."

      And when they decimated a conqurered people, they decimated them. None of this sloppy business of killing 8.5% or 37%, no sir.

      So, are Iraqis being required to bow down to a graven image of the Halburton logo yet?

      • companyman says:

        So, are Iraqis being required to bow down to a graven image of the Halburton logo yet?

        No, as of yet, I believe that edict only applies to us Americans here at home.

        But the games not over yet.

  2. pucks says:

    Hey there I just wanted to say hi I found your journal through Daboyz.org...go figure being in Kuwait and seeing another LJ from the bay area...anyway just wanted to say hi. Which club do you own?-Tony

  3. aprilized says:

    this is a serious question...

    At what time during humanity's history did barbaric war time behavior become unacceptable...?

    • That you had to ask, and that what the article was really trying to give you a timeline for an answer I think says something of the authors skills. That is, the article was almost good but not quite.

      In part you aren't going to be able to time stamp your question definitively. As was pointed out America and western civilization has been building a sense that such activities are wrong and thus we get things like the Geneva accords. But for all that has been said and done in such meetings conflict still very much bleeds dominating behavior. It happens in africa. It may well still go on in the Balkans. In those areas where the Russians are still struggling? We don't know perhaps. You, or someone writing to you would have to witness.

      History is still pretty fresh with incidents like the rape of Nanking and the vicious use of rape on both sides whenever India and Pakistan were working things out.

      And as the Iraqi sitution seems to be showing us we might still be rather unaware of how much inpetus and leeway even US troops have been given over the course. That is that while one side of those in charge may well have been aligned to act in accord with Geneva there likely were other parts that either conveniently looked the other way or were more active in understanding the psychological impact of domination expressed in sex.


    • transgress says:

      very good question. i have no idea, but my guess would it wouldve been in semi recent history, my overall guess would be sometime after the middle ages, when man was refining himself intellectually- but even then you look and there was alot of savagery in war. Perhaps it came in with democracy representational republic? (as we know it), when the government had to at least pretend to answer to the people about its actions it could no longer declare we are attacking the country next door because we want their land, we had to be more clever? Even then though, we find Rome making excuses for its empiracial ways- i.e. they were going to attack us, So really I don't know. Surely there is a link between it and the rise of christianity. Machavelli speaks on the christianity thing a little and how it has weakened the world because it embodies humbleness instead of greatness.

      • autopope says:

        Actually, it was to some extent a reaction to the Austro-Prussian war of 1866. Led directly to the formation of the Red Cross, the first Geneva Conventions, etcetera. (In no small part because it was the first war between modern conscript armies equipped with breech-loading rifles capable of sustaining a devastating rate of fire -- and not a civil war but a war between Great Powers, with battles fought on the doorsteps of cities with journalists and photographers to document them.)

        But the tendency had been rising since the Thirty Years' War (1600's to 1630's) and then the Napoleonic Wars (during which a lot of the conventions of limited warfare between Great Powers were sorted out in an informal manner but never actually written down).

        • transgress says:

          while i can agree that most of the world powers, or the civilized powers sat down as a result of the amount of destruction they could do and devised the geneva convention- and one must realize that the red cross is a christian organization, and so on- you must also realize that in 1866 war had already changed drastically. Even in the 1400's, the italians wouldnt attack at night, in the 1700's the brittish and americans refered to the indians as savages for how they waged war and so on- war had become a much more civil place (in comparision to early centuraries) long before 1866. While torture and treatment of prisoners of war was less than humane by todays standards- they still didnt enslave who cities and such, i.e. there actually was a classification of prisoner of war. So in short, while I can agree that the formation of the red cross, the geneva convention, etc made drastic huge amounts of changes in the way war was waged- I can't agree that it was the definitive change in warfare. Although I can't quite put my finger on whhen exactly it changed, or when exactly it changed.

          Either way I mod you up +5 for being insightfull ;]

    • transgress says:

      hrm i just read the article and it ties it into christanity also- so i guess my thought wasnt as original as i had guessed.

        • transgress says:

          it always amazes me how people recognize acts here and there such as the cruscades or the inquisition that was done on behalve of Christianity [or catholocism], and neglect to realize how throughout the history of that religion it has turned lion into puppy. It's very doctrine suggests to turn the other cheek, forgive and forget, Judge not, etc- [minus the old testament, which well.. i wouldnt be allowed in church by its doctrine because im a bastard].

          Yes true much blood has been spillt in the name of Christianity, no argument there, but many times a people have endured the pain and retained humility because that is their dogma than to wage open war against their attackers/oppressors. In short, Christianity has turned war to 'kill who you want as long as you can show that it is biblically correct'.

          Again going back to Machiavelli as a reference, he claims that christians are indoctrinated in the idea to turn the other cheek because our time here is only temporary and that eventualy you will have to explain your actions before someone who will know all your deeds, that it enforces humility and suffering as a human virtu that is necessary and reinforces the idea through the illustrations of christ's suffering for the world.
          Relate this to previous religions where god's were powerful vengeful beings and that you gathered the god's praise by slaughtering your enemy, by acquiring power in their name, In short- other religions pushed the idea of strength and power while Christianity pushed the ideas of humility, suffering, patience and heaven through adherance to stated deeds.

          As any christian worth their salt will tell you, the crusades or the inquisition was the result of 'evil men' doing 'evil deeds' and are not part of the doctrine which they follow.

          If you are curious as to what referneces exactly i am citing, read discourses by machiavelli.

        • transgress says:

          also, not that i lay the credit totally on christianity- i also attribute it to advances in technology and the natural progression of time. I mean as technology advances we as a people obviously like to think of ourselves as more progressive, more advanced and more refined than our ancestors. Add that to that premise that even if technology never progressed over XXX hundred/thousand years, but that history was still taught- we would like to think we learn from our ancestors mistakes (yesterdays mistake is todays lesson). With all that summed together, it seems that there is a natural incling towards being more civilized and more refined, which among other things mean you dont cut off your enemy's head, eat his brains, display it on a spike outside his home and then partake in his wife before you burn alive on a cross. The idea that the mere passing of time leads to a more civilized way of life can be supported by the natural progression of people from hunters and gatherers to agricultural societies, to industrial societies and to wherever tommorrow shall take us. As to whether dropping a nuclear warhead and wipping out hundreds of thousands men women and children indiscriminatly in the blink of an eye is more civilized than burning someone alive in the Huxley/Brave new world sense, I'm not sure- but that isnt what my point was about.

  4. schwa242 says:

    They, too, knew in their colons exactly what it was to be colonized.

    Heh. Is their some etymological root between colonize and colon?

    -- Schwa ---

    • baconmonkey says:

      perhaps colony is really a mispelling of colonee, as in the recipient of a coloning. It's just not clear whether that implies that the colonee has their colon used and abused, or whether that means that the coloner is using their own colon, aiming it at the colonee. Also, notice how the military rank of Colonel is one letter different than coloner, despite the difference in pronunciation.

    • flipzagging says:

      According to this page, no. Colon is from the Greek for intestine. Colonize is ultimately from a Latin verb meaning to cultivate land.

  5. transgress says:

    i often think to myself i could deal with being in an imperialist nation if we were just honest about it. Fuck it if you want to run the world and never let the sun set on the american empire so be it, just don't claim to be spreading liberty in the process.

    On a side note, I like reading Livy (roman historian .. kinda [he took a bit of liberty in his history, but really all roman historians did]), and thats one thing I found interesting- the act of taking all the people of a conquered land and making them slaves was so ingrained that it was actually a sign of tremendous mercy to be conquered and not become slaves. The way livy writes about it is quite interesting, i.e. and then after the plebians squabbled with the senate there was a war with these people, rome won through the cunning leadership of this consul, and then everyone who was conquered became slaves, and then and then after the plebians squabbled with the senate there was a war with these people, rome won through the cunning leadership of this consul, and then everyone who was conquered through the great generous mercy of the consul was told to return to their families and great feasts and sacrifices were held to celebrate the mercy that the consul showed, and a holiday was made that we still celebrate today.

    But then you must consider that if there is any truth to roman history, and the founding of rome- all of the women, or most of the women were stolen from neighboring countries as rome was a land for the destitute, the vegabonds and the man with a price on his head. Interesting history none the less though.

  6. irma_vep says:

    America is in serious debt now, thanks to the Bush Administration. This will change the future for myself and millions of upcoming baby boomers and generation Xers, relying on social security for retirement. Honestly, the pilfering of Social Security went on before Bush, but his administration accelerated the process. Jobs will continue to outsource. We make progress in technological advancements and medicine, but ususally with a profit in mind. The rich and powerful always have the upper hand.

  7. torgo_x says:

    Among the nations conquered and buggered by Roman civilization was Britain.

    Pre-Roman (even pre-Grecian) ancient Mediterranean civilizations gave
    us military gang-rapes. It was left to the Romans to add a
    fouler curse to world civilization: paperwork.

  8. sodhi1981 says:

    "They, too, knew in their colons exactly what it was to be colonized. As "

    I think the "rectum" is more appropriate a term than colon.