|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-12-25 22:21, Woland wrote: Yes, but do you have evidence to back up this claim, or is it just a feeling you have? Was the hospitality the Muslims had for the Jews any better or worse than their Christian counterparts in Europe? Quote:
Too bad these Bishops weren’t nearly as active in 1209 during the Albigensian Crusade where 20,000 to 70,000 Christians were killed on the orders of Pope Innocent the Third. Who famously said "Kill them all, God will recognize his own" Their crime? Daring to practice their own form of Christianity. Quote:
Yes, a horrible and senseless act. As horrible and as senseless as the 4500 Saxons Charlemagne had beheaded in 782 because the were unwilling to convert to Christianity. Quote:
The treatment of the Jews was no better, and some scholars believe it was worse in Christian Europe. In 1391 4,000 were killed Jews in Seville, 25,000 sold as slaves. Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear. The Fourth Council of the Lateran of 1215 ruled that Jews and Muslims must be distinguishable by their dress. The Muslims may had instigated the marking of Jews but the Christians had no problems adopting the practice. The spread of Christianity through Europe was just as violent and devastating as the Muslims expansion into north Africa. Between 315 and the 6th century thousand of European pagans were slain in the name of this new religion And of course let us not forget what happened in the New World when Christians encountered the Noble Savage. Hispaniola’s population of eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out. Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other Caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. The Caribbean's millions of native people were liquidated in barely a quarter of a century. Pretty much the same scenario was to be played out over and over again on the north and south American continent for the next few centuries. So atrocities were not just limited to those pesky Muslims. It was a cold cruel world and horrible acts were committed on both sides. To rewrite history and deny that there was a Golden Age of Islam in which knowledge and discoveries were made that was eventually to benefit Christian Europe not only is a disservice to their accomplishments but also to their place in history. Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Diminishing or discounting the contributions made by Islamic Scientists and Philosophers because a posthumous dissertation published at the height of German nationalism puts forth a theory that the Germanic Tribes could have kept civilization from falling into decline after the fall of the Roman Empire had it not been for the Muslim invasion of Northern Europe serves no purpose but to cloud the issue. The decline of Islam and the propagation of the Dark Ages in Europe had one overriding factor. The suppression of knowledge by the establishment. Europe eventually overcame this because of the renaissance and the reformation. It was only when the blinders and restraints of the dogmatic religion of the period were cast off that science, philosophy and art began to move forward at breakneck speed. The church in history did contribute much to society and science over the years. But they were also a tremendous hindrance to the free thought and inquiry needed to make scientific advancement possible. Unfortunately many Muslim nations have not been able to cast off the shackles of their theocratic states. So they remain seemingly stuck in the past. But this is slowly beginning to change. However rewriting their history and discounting the contributions they once made to science and art is in no way beneficial in helping them cast off these shackles of fundamentalism regain their place in the world.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Hi Payne,
Thanks for continuing this discussion. Note that I don't deny that atrocities were committed by Christians. My point is merely to suggest that you romanticize dhimmitude under the mistaken impression that Muslims treated Jews and Christians much better than Christians treated Jews and Muslims. If Christians forced Muslims to live in a status of dhimmitude, you would be up in arms about it. For some reason, you give the Caliphs and the Emirs a pass. Quote:
Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Diminishing or discounting the contributions made by Islamic Scientists and Philosophers because a posthumous dissertation published at the height of German nationalism puts forth a theory that the Germanic Tribes could have kept civilization from falling into decline after the fall of the Roman Empire had it not been for the Muslim invasion of Northern Europe serves no purpose but to cloud the issue. The decline of Islam and the propagation of the Dark Ages in Europe had one overriding factor. The suppression of knowledge by the establishment. If you are referring to Henri Pirenne's thesis, I think you have grossly mis-stated it. Although I admit that you haven't read his work, or anything seriously discussing it. However, for the record, far from putting forth a theory that "the Germanic Tribes could have kept civilization from falling into decline after the fall of the Roman Empire had it not been for the Muslim invasion of Northern Europe," Pirenne advanced the notions that (1) the replacement of the Roman Empire by the (Germanic) barbarian kingdoms did not mean the end of Imperial institutions, and did not cause any damage to the economy of the former Empire, but that (2) it was the Arab conquest of the Levant and of North Africa that ended Mediterranean trade, causing the collapse of the European economy. (Moreover, may I add that contrary to your statement, the Muslim's never really invaded Northern Europe, and the last of the great Muslim raids on northern France was decisively turned back by Charles Martel, at Poitiers, in 732.) With respect to whether these events from the Middle Ages are relevant to the world situation today, you note: Quote:
Unfortunately many Muslim nations have not been able to cast off the shackles of their theocratic states. So they remain seemingly stuck in the past. But this is slowly beginning to change. If only that were true! But unfortunate as it may be, the opposite is the case. Look at this speech by the late Gamal Abdel Nasser, recorded 60 years ago, subtitled here. Watch how he ridicules the Muslim Brotherhood and its leader. Listen to how enthusiastically the audience joins him and cheers him. They laugh at the very idea that women might be compelled to wear a hijab. Look at his self-assurance, and his confidence in modernity. And then realize that the Muslim Brotherhood now controls Egypt. It is enough to bring tears to your eyes. The change sweeping the Arab world is a return to the extremism of the Almohads. So I guess that their society is actually "regressing" to the Middle Ages. |
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-12-26 15:24, Woland wrote: I don't give Muslims a pass. Their treatment of Woman and non Muslims is appalling. Unfortunately change comes from within. As much as we would like the theocratic states of the Middle East to cast off the restraints of their dogmatic ideology and become viable Representative democracies or republics. We can't force them to do so. Half of the problems there are in the middle East can probably be traced back to western interests mucking about with their countries. The fact that many of the countries only became the countries they are today because of the way the Ottoman Empire was sliced up by Europeans after World War One is a contributing factor in the mess that is the Middle East. Would Iran be the Theocracy it is today if the US and Britain hadn't removed the democratically elected Prime Minister back in 1953 and replaced him with the Shah? would Syria be in the state it is in today if we hadn't toppled it's government in 1949? A lot of the current state of the middle east is blow back from very poor policy decisions that were driven by the desire to keep the oil flowing and in western control. However, as appalling as their current regimes are. This is no reason to rewrite history. And yes, most everything I've read supports the fact that Muslims treated Jews and Christians better than the Christians treated the Jews and Muslims. Not by much. But most everything I've read would make me rather be a Jew in the Ottoman Empire than a Jew in the Holy Roman Empire. Quote:
I talked a bit to my Archaeologist friend last night and she told me that no serious historian gives Mr. Pirenne's Thesis much consideration. The current archaeological evidence doesn't support his claims. Maybe at some future date a find will be made that will help to substantiate his ideas. But so far one hasn't been made.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
w_s_anderson Inner circle The United States 1226 Posts |
Sorry Payne, I did misunderstand one of your points. This has been my favorite read of the year. I have spent a few hours now looking up these people and subjects. Thanks again and keep it up!
|
|||||||||
Dreadnought Special user Athens, Georgia 836 Posts |
I have to say Payne, the Catholic Church is certainly ashamed of it's part in the Crusades and the Inquisition, however, as I learned as a police officer, there are, at the very least, three sides to every story, what he says, what she says and what really happened. You only seemed content with one side. The facts are that on the Muslim side, they launched the attack on Jerusalem, they invaded Europe, they launched the attack on Constantinople and the Iberian Peninsula (SPAIN)and later France all well before the call of the first Crusade and all of this done with the explicit reason for the expansion of Islam and it was, most certainly, convert or die. All of this during the "Golden Age" of Islam, in fact it ushered in the "Golden Age." Up to and including the First Crusade, everything that happened was due to Muslim hostility.
As I sadi the Catholic Church is ashamed of Her role and does not try to hide it. The Muslim side, they deny it and throw the blame around to everyone else. The last ten years of Muhammad's life was dedicated to conversion and the spread of Islam at sword point. Peace and Godspeed.
Peace
"Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum..." Scott Would you do anything for the person you love? |
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Thanks, Payne. If you're satisfied with your friend's opinion, that's good enough for me.
But all kidding aside, did you look at the clip from Nasser's speech? He was quite a performer, and it was quite an historical moment. Only a moment, though. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Woland, how much of this progress/regress relies upon foreign money?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-12-26 18:05, Dreadnought wrote: So Muslim expansion of empire bad. But Christian expansion of empire good. I see. You do realize that just as many pagans were slaughtered by a Christian sword when they declined to convert as were killed by Muslim Blades. Probably more so when you add in the genocide committed in the Christian God's name trying to bring the indigenous peoples of the New World into the fold. Alexander conquered the known world. The Romans build an Empire. The Normans invade England. The Mongols take China. Visigoths rampage, Vikings plunder. Yet out of all this the Muslims are the only hostile aggressors? The history of the world is filled with invasion, war and hostility. Your Bible is filled with tales of war, murder and mayhem. All of it done in the name of your god for the sole purpose of making its religion the dominate one. Yet the Muslims are the only hostile aggressors. Yes, they invaded North Africa and killed lots of innocent people. It was the Dark Ages and that's what people did back then. Was it a bad thing to do. Yes, but was it really worse than any other invasion or occupying force of the day? Probably not. So perhaps you could explain to me exactly why the Muslim expansion was any worse than qany other empire building at the time?
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
Dreadnought Special user Athens, Georgia 836 Posts |
And that is what you took out of what I said. I didn't say any of that. I never said Muslim expansion was any worse than any other. I was only correcting your account of history, that being that the Muslims from the 8th-13th centuries were not the peace loving people you claim. They had their peaceful moments, as did everyone. However As usual you avoid the point that was made and twist it to your own view. Let me replay what I said for you:
Quote:
You only seemed content with one side. The facts are that on the Muslim side, they launched the attack on Jerusalem, they invaded Europe, they launched the attack on Constantinople and the Iberian Peninsula (SPAIN)and later France all well before the call of the first Crusade and all of this done with the explicit reason for the expansion of Islam and it was, most certainly, convert or die. All of this during the "Golden Age" of Islam, in fact it ushered in the "Golden Age." Up to and including the First Crusade, everything that happened was due to Muslim hostility. But I'll play your game. You talk about the slaughter of the Native Americans. I am Native American. I know my history. As for the Spanish conquistadors running amok in the new world on papal order, which was not the case, you fail to mention what was happening on the other side of the world in accord with Papal order and that was the Jesuits converting the East, notably India. Yeah there were a few hiccups there as well, but St. Francis Xavier converted most of India in peace. I can only think that you a "Student of History" knew about this and conveniently forgot it or you just avoided it all together, or, even worse, you just didn't want to research the other side. A question for you why did the the Fourth Lateran Council state that Jews and Muslims needed to wear different clothing from Christians? Who specifically were they speaking to? You, like others, tend to overlook the good the Church has done. But why would you ever accredit anything good to them. As I said, the Church recognizes their errors and lays it out for all to see. I never said the Muslims were the only hostile aggressors. I just corrected your checkered view of world history. The Muslims on the other hand, don't do that. They are quick to play the oppressed religion card, in spite of them attacking Jerusalem, Iberia, France, Constantinople and everyone else they ran across. AND AGAIN, it was conversion at sword point. As for "My Bible" I know what it says. I hold a PhD in Theology with that PhD comes an indepth study of the Old and New Testament. However, please enlighten me what does "My Bible" say? Peace and Godspeed.
Peace
"Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum..." Scott Would you do anything for the person you love? |
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Hi Jonathan,
Quote:
Woland, how much of this progress/regress relies upon foreign money? Do you mean over here, or in Egypt? Now, or then? |
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-12-27 02:46, Dreadnought wrote: And where did I say that the Muslims of the period were "peace loving"? I was just pointing out that they weren't any more violent or aggressive than the Europeans of the time and that to diminish their contributions to science and art because they have been made the Bogey-man du jour by some of our ruling elite was rather unfair. Quote:
There might not have been a Papal Bull commanding the Conquistadors to run amuck but Alexander the VI Bull Inter Catera decreed "Among other works well pleasing to the Divine Majesty and cherished of our heart, this assuredly ranks highest, that in our times especially the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself. We command you to instruct the aforesaid inhabitants and residents and dwellers therein in the Catholic faith, and train them in good morals." Which pretty much gave license to those Conquistadors to kill those who failed to convert. Quote:
Yes, there were a few hiccups "Religious persecution took place by the Portuguese in Goa, India from 16th to the 17th century. The natives of Goa, most of them Hindus were subjected to severe torture and oppression by the zealous Portuguese rulers and missionaries and forcibly converted to Christianity. In 1567, the campaign of destroying temples in Bardez met with success. At the end of it 300 Hindu temples were destroyed. Enacting laws, prohibition was laid from 4 December 1567 on rituals of Hindu marriages, sacred thread wearing and cremation. All the persons above 15 years of age were compelled to listen to Christian preaching, failing which they were punished. In 1583 Hindu temples at Assolna and Cuncolim were destroyed through army action. The fathers of the Church forbade the Hindus under terrible penalties the use of their own sacred books, and prevented them from all exercise of their religion. They destroyed their temples, and so harassed and interfered with the people that they abandoned the city in large numbers, refusing to remain any longer in a place where they had no liberty, and were liable to imprisonment, torture and death if they worshipped after their own fashion the gods of their fathers." wrote Filippo Sassetti, who was in India from 1578 to 1588. An order was issued in June 1684 for suppressing the Konkani language and making it compulsory to speak the Portuguese language. The law provided for dealing toughly with anyone using the local language. Following that law all the non-Christian cultural symbols and the books written in local languages were sought to be destroyed. Methods such as repressive laws, demolition of temples and mosques, destruction of holy books, fines and the forcible conversion of orphans were used" I failed to mention St. Francis Xavier because I had never heard of him. After doing a bit of research I discovered that this was because he had been mostly ineffectual in his attempts to convert the heathen in India and the Orient. Quote:
As I said, the Church recognizes their errors and lays it out for all to see. I never said the Muslims were the only hostile aggressors. I just corrected your checkered view of world history. The Muslims on the other hand, don't do that. They are quick to play the oppressed religion card, in spite of them attacking Jerusalem, Iberia, France, Constantinople and everyone else they ran across. AND AGAIN, it was conversion at sword point. Partly because the Muslim church isn't set up like the Catholic. they haven't got a single titular head comparable to the Pope who can issue edicts and apologies for the Mother Church. Not that apologize made centuries after the fact really make up for the atrocities that took place. I don't think it's my view of history that is particularly checkered. I see the good and the bad both the Muslim and Christian peoples have done. You seem to be obsessed with only the bad side of the Muslim faith. this is evident by your final sentence. You are fixated on their invasion of Jerusalem, Iberia and so forth. Even though it's been pointed out that these invasions were no different than the ones performed in the name of the Christian Church. and just as many conversion to Christ were made at sword point. Or did all those pagan Saxons heads just simultaneously fall off? Quote:
You're Bible Say's nothing, you have to read it Which of course is the problem and why the Catholic Church so vehemently opposed the printing and distribution of their Holy Text. Because once the common man could read the text by himself he could come up with his own interpritation of it and the Mother Church would lose control. Which is percisely what happened and why we have 33,000 denominations of the Christian belief system in existence today. Oh, and I almost forgot. the edicts on sumptuary for Jews and Muslims put forth in the Fourth Lateran Council were done so to keep good Christian men from fraternizing with Jewish and Saracen Women. "In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses [Numbers 15:37-41], that this very law has been enjoined upon them." After all, we can't have good Christian blood mixing with that of the inferior infidels.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Quote:
Which pretty much gave license to those Conquistadors to kill those who failed to convert. I don't think that Fray Bartolome de las Casas would have looked at it in quite that way. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-12-27 07:08, Woland wrote: What I mean is simply: How much of what's being called progress over there is something other than top down cultural imperialism (western) enforced by influx of money from the top and arms from the bottom? What government and social structures would these peoples have of their own political will if their elites were not given dollars, lawyers, guns and butter?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-12-27 13:32, Woland wrote: True, but he was, as most reformers are, pretty much a lone voice in the wilderness. To be fair. It really didn't matter what the Pope said. The destruction of the inhabitants of the Americas would have happened even if he had decreed that they should all follow the teachings of Christ and live in peace. There was just far too much money to be made and those pesky "Indians" were just in the way. As with most heinous acts of this magnitude. Religion is simply the justification used to cover our rather reprehensible behavior. If they actually followed the tennants of their Holy Books none of this would have happened
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Payne, you forgot. They just gave it a name like "Manifest Destiny" so it takes all the heinousness out of it. Please try to keep up.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for clarifying: Quote:
What I mean is simply: How much of what's being called progress over there is something other than top down cultural imperialism (western) enforced by influx of money from the top and arms from the bottom? What government and social structures would these peoples have of their own political will if their elites were not given dollars, lawyers, guns and butter? From all the available evidence, the historical record as well as the experience to which we can attest in our own time, they would be governed by the cruelest sort of tyranny, by the most ruthless of the tyrants to emerge from their society. Where an hereditary monarchy could be established, they would enjoy some sort of stability, but those monarchies would be more or less constantly threatened by the emergence of would-be tyrants even crueler than the monarchs themselves. The underlying and most prevailing social structure would be the clan, an extended kinship group, more or less like a tribe, and in practice there would be very little loyalty to any institution or to any person or persons outside of the clan. (More than half of all marriages in this part of the world involving the union of first cousins, that is, preferential patrilineal parallel cousins.) At times, during the 20th century, the monarchies and tribal clan societies were displaced by fascist or socialist military dictatorships. But as we have seen in Turkey and Egypt, for example, those structures have proven to be unable to last very long. The dream of a pan-Arab Caliphate remains alluring, even in its dressed-down secular avatar (the U.A.R. of the 1950s and early 1960s.) Hi Payne, You would undoubtedly protest if I suggested to you, based on Emmet Scott and Henri Pirenne, from which cultural-historical experience the Spanish conquistadors learned religious intolerance, fanaticism, the violent suppression of unbelievers, and the cruel austerity of domination. One other thing, however. Hernan Cortes overthrew the Aztec Empire with only 150 Spanish soldiers. It seems that the Aztecs were not very popular with the peoples, tribes, and nations they ruled, either. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
One might argue then, that we are attempting to evolve an even more cruel sort of tyranny which can endure endure alien cultural invasion - ie refining the bronze age fundamentalism.
If "we" wanted the locals to be a part of our culture we could simply invite those who wish to leave theirs to join ours. if we wanted to offer our technology - we could learn their language and teach those who would take interest. What do you believe we are doing? That is in terms of action and results - never mind the paved road of presupposed intentions.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-12-27 14:47, Woland wrote: Kind of hard to behave the way the Aztecs did and maintain any form of popularity with your neighbors. Still though I wonder at what the Spanish Conquistadors thought as they walked through Tenochtitlan and marveled at one of the largest cities in the world.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Yes, Payne, it appears to have been better organized, with better plumbing, and markets teeming with better merchandise, than any contemporary city in Europe.
Jonathan, your questions are very deep. I am not sure what to say. Are you thinking of a culture that functions almost like the Borg? I think there was a time when "we" invited "them" to adopt our culture and become part of "us." I think the biggest problem "we" have now, is that our own elites - our intellectual, scholastic, artistic, scientific elites - despise themselves and our own culture. I think that the message of "oikophobia" is transmitted to "them" and "they" (just like so many of "us") fail to see what we have and how it got that way. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Is our society regressing back to the Middle Ages? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.15 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |