Roman Gladiators

Most people know about the Roman Era, how they used the coliseum as theatre with gladiators dueling to the death and Christians being slaughtered. Focus for a moment on the crowded seats of spectators though. Could you call them bloodthirsty? Certainly there was no risk to their life or limb, protected as they were by the walls of separation and their paid ticket to view the spectacle.

Imagine how the spectators cheered, actually becoming part of the event, not just viewing the carnage but cheering on the slaughter and offering an up or down vote on whether the vanquished loser should live or die. Imagine their exhilaration as the up or down vote was followed and the losing gladiator was executed; blood gushing from the killing wound.

Very few of the Gladiators actually enjoyed what they did or had much of a choice about it. And many stories have tried to illustrate the gladiator’s perspective, showing rebellions and their quest for freedom. Few stories place the focus on the spectator and how (gory? uncivilized? bloodthirsty?) they seemed. But when I thought about it, it parallels today’s attitudes about the situation in Iraq.

We have the spectators; those who "support the war," want to "stay the course" and feel very protected in their high offices. We also have those that openly oppose the choices being made and want to end this country’s presence there. It is all too easy to draw a parallel with the troops as the gladiators and this administration as the spectators. But the reality is that we are all spectators! The question is "What type of spectator are we?"

As I see it. . . If we really believe that "fighting them over there" is the solution to this undeclared "War on Terror," if we support this occupation in Iraq, we are the bloodthirsty type and enjoy the carnage and gushing blood. If we believe that the military has done its job by removing Sadam Hussein and "major military action has ended," then we are the thumbs up type of spectator that respects life and says it is right and honorable to re deploy the troops as Murtha has suggested. It is not "Cutting and running."

I wonder if the spectators fought amongst themselves? Can you imagine, "Kill him! Kill him!" While another spectator says, "No. He fought nobly. Let him live!"

And then the Emperor has to decide. . . Party of life? or Party of Death?

Is our discourse similar?

How do you see it?