I just want to predicate this by saying that while I do not think there will be absolute chaos after the Zombie Apocalypse; I do, however, believe that there will be some chaos in the immediate forefront. Only for a short period of time... and that's it.
The most popular idea about the Zombie Apocalypse is that society will fall and all of hell will break loose. "If the Zombies don't get me, someone will." False, I say. Why do I say so? Here's why.
While there might be a brief period of time where people might be thrown for a loop because the ZA has thrown off their normal routine, I highly doubt such an event will revolutionize the cultural norms that have dictated the way we execute moral and ethical decisions. The most practical example I can think of that can help bring light to this topic is The Fall of the Roman Empire.
I'd just like to say one thing before I dive right into this. I read Henri Pirenne's Mohammed & Charlemagne (I will attach a link to a book review down below, and I highly recommend Google Searching a PDF copy for it if you can't get a hard copy), and it has definitely influenced my opinion on this subject - and that is that the Dark Ages did not exist. The Dark Ages is described as this period of time when there was chaos and disorder following the fall of the Roman Empire.
So why do I believe the Dark Ages didn't exist? It's quite simple, really. That's because the Roman Empire didn't truly fall...
The historical narrative of the fall of the Roman Empire is that it took place in 476 AD.
False. Rome did not fall. The central government fell, but Rome did not truly fall. The Barbarians "invading" were a mere consequence of fighting conducted by Atila the Hun. According to Pirenne, the Barbarians were merely seeking to avoid Attila the Hun, which forced their hand to conduct two different sieges of Rome: they needed resources after facing Attila and other hordes. (Only one of these sieges would be responsible for its down fall.) And what a lot of people didn't really understand is that the Barbarians were actually great admirers of the Roman Empire. They liked it as it was.
So the Barbarians didn't truly invade: that's my first major counter-argument to the Fall of the Roman.
My second major counter-argument is that while the central government fell, the socio-economic infrastructure of the Roman Empire maintained its course. Roman roads were still being used. The main form of currency was still being exchanged. Even Governors still maintained power over their respective regions. (This is what would lead to serfdom.)
So really -- life didn't change for the every day person. Prior to 476 AD, Rome wasn't homogenous in terms of language. There were multiple cultures within its rule. The lynch pin, though, was the fact that the population was vastly Christian, which is why prior to Protestanism Europe was referred to as Christendom (especially during Crusader campaigns), and it's capital would be none other than Rome.
What does any of this have to do with the Zombie Apocalypse? Going back to the Roman Empire example, while the central government fell at the hands of a few "invaders", Rome was very much still in tact. Norms established previously had held the test of time, which was buffered by a unity of religion. Similarly, if the Federal Government disintegrates in the presence of a Zombie Apocalypse, the Constitution still has its value. It's a pure document, and is a great outline for how a free society should live. In the immediate scheme of things, the ones who try to fall towards chaos will be ajudicated properly because this doesn't mean that judicial system doesn't exist and it also doesn't mean that law enforcement doesn't exist. I don't believe there will be mass hysteria -- especially if people know there's a fighting chance of winning, and especially if we have institutions still in place. Afterall, our country has experience with controling movements that can get out of hand. Look at the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. Los Angeles is still where it is today, is it not? It wasn't a ZA, although I do believe that a ZA would be easy to control. Especially if you have Napalm handy.
CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO MAIN BLOG
BOOK REVIEW
------------------
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/personal/reading/pirenne-mohammed.html
The most popular idea about the Zombie Apocalypse is that society will fall and all of hell will break loose. "If the Zombies don't get me, someone will." False, I say. Why do I say so? Here's why.
While there might be a brief period of time where people might be thrown for a loop because the ZA has thrown off their normal routine, I highly doubt such an event will revolutionize the cultural norms that have dictated the way we execute moral and ethical decisions. The most practical example I can think of that can help bring light to this topic is The Fall of the Roman Empire.
 |
| Henri Pirenne: Not Sigmund Freud |
I'd just like to say one thing before I dive right into this. I read Henri Pirenne's Mohammed & Charlemagne (I will attach a link to a book review down below, and I highly recommend Google Searching a PDF copy for it if you can't get a hard copy), and it has definitely influenced my opinion on this subject - and that is that the Dark Ages did not exist. The Dark Ages is described as this period of time when there was chaos and disorder following the fall of the Roman Empire.
So why do I believe the Dark Ages didn't exist? It's quite simple, really. That's because the Roman Empire didn't truly fall...
The historical narrative of the fall of the Roman Empire is that it took place in 476 AD.
False. Rome did not fall. The central government fell, but Rome did not truly fall. The Barbarians "invading" were a mere consequence of fighting conducted by Atila the Hun. According to Pirenne, the Barbarians were merely seeking to avoid Attila the Hun, which forced their hand to conduct two different sieges of Rome: they needed resources after facing Attila and other hordes. (Only one of these sieges would be responsible for its down fall.) And what a lot of people didn't really understand is that the Barbarians were actually great admirers of the Roman Empire. They liked it as it was.
 |
| Attila the Hun: Not a Zombie |
So the Barbarians didn't truly invade: that's my first major counter-argument to the Fall of the Roman.
My second major counter-argument is that while the central government fell, the socio-economic infrastructure of the Roman Empire maintained its course. Roman roads were still being used. The main form of currency was still being exchanged. Even Governors still maintained power over their respective regions. (This is what would lead to serfdom.)
So really -- life didn't change for the every day person. Prior to 476 AD, Rome wasn't homogenous in terms of language. There were multiple cultures within its rule. The lynch pin, though, was the fact that the population was vastly Christian, which is why prior to Protestanism Europe was referred to as Christendom (especially during Crusader campaigns), and it's capital would be none other than Rome.
What does any of this have to do with the Zombie Apocalypse? Going back to the Roman Empire example, while the central government fell at the hands of a few "invaders", Rome was very much still in tact. Norms established previously had held the test of time, which was buffered by a unity of religion. Similarly, if the Federal Government disintegrates in the presence of a Zombie Apocalypse, the Constitution still has its value. It's a pure document, and is a great outline for how a free society should live. In the immediate scheme of things, the ones who try to fall towards chaos will be ajudicated properly because this doesn't mean that judicial system doesn't exist and it also doesn't mean that law enforcement doesn't exist. I don't believe there will be mass hysteria -- especially if people know there's a fighting chance of winning, and especially if we have institutions still in place. Afterall, our country has experience with controling movements that can get out of hand. Look at the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. Los Angeles is still where it is today, is it not? It wasn't a ZA, although I do believe that a ZA would be easy to control. Especially if you have Napalm handy.
CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO MAIN BLOG
BOOK REVIEW
------------------
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/personal/reading/pirenne-mohammed.html
No comments:
Post a Comment