Facepalm

382 readers

116 users here now

Anything that makes you apply your hand to your face.

founded 5 months ago

MODERATORS

meldrik@lemmy.wtf

771

Ancient Rome? Really? (lemmy.wtf)

submitted 3 days ago by meldrik@lemmy.wtf to c/facepalm@lemmy.wtf

105 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

“The United States and Italy are bound together by a shared cultural and political heritage dating back thousands of years to Ancient Rome.”

Yeah that's not actually incorrect too badly. Well perhaps the "bound together" bit but like history for the massive systems, yeah, it is somewhat shared. Common law and whatnot. Although Italy definitely doesn'tuse common law anymore so Trump would be better of comparing US to brits in that sense.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Why promote inaccurate bullshit and ignore the actual shit he does?

Oh wait, right, propaganda and shit "journalists".

Thanks for the info on those happenings, btw.

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah that’s not actually incorrect too badly. Well perhaps the “bound together” bit but like history for the massive systems, yeah, it is somewhat shared. Common law and whatnot. Although Italy definitely doesn’tuse common law anymore so Trump would be better of comparing US to brits in that sense.

I doubt Italy ever used common law as that originated in Medieval England. It's civil law that descents from Roman law (specifically Justinian's codification of it). Since civil law is way more common around the world most countries have more in common with Rome than the US (or other Anglo countries) do.

You are right however that trying to portray the US as a modern 'Rome' is not a Trump thing but common American propaganda.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

I may have been aware of the fact that that's sort of what I was trying to say, but I didn't have enough knowledge to distinguish "common law" from "civil law", despite having the ability to actually define common law as it is. I didn't have the term "civil law" is what I'm saying. Thank you for that. There was a gap in my knowledge and you patched (at least some of) it.

I wasn't specifically aware of when common law started. I looked it up just now, and apparently "in the courts of English kings in the centuries following the Norman conquest". So... perhaps it'd be more accurate to imply common law is Nordic as opposed to Roman? In a very indirect way.