On Sunday, May 4, 2014 7:09:27 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: > > Hi ghibbsa, > > > On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 3:24 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:09:10 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:15 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:14:59 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the >>>>>> centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In >>>>>> the >>>>>> 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was >>>>>> the >>>>>> Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, >>>>>> 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The "pagan" faiths, previous to, and >>>>>> coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were >>>>>> hungry >>>>>> for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan >>>>>> Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, >>>>>> murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists >>>>>> and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as >>>>>> being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys >>>>>> for >>>>>> much of the time.. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as >>>>> destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in "Ism" seems >>>>> to >>>>> be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is >>>>> catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we >>>>> aren't >>>>> careful.) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Excusing me, but the Crusades were a nick of time defensive response to >>>> a massive ongoing Islamic aggression. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Not at all. The Crusades began when the tide was already turning in >>> favor of the western kingdoms' reconquest of European territory. This had >>> been going on for centurie >>> >> >> Well, you have voiced a summary view of one camp of historians, and I >> have voiced the summary view of another. You seem to acknowledge a "tide >> was turning" that the direction was that of Islam being pushed back having >> made inroads into Christian lands. >> Of course hit is true what comes under the Crusades header is a really >> complex long running piece of history. >> > > Ok, we can agree on this > > >> I simplified favouring Europe, and you simplified favouring Islam. >> > > I don't feel I'm favouring Islam. I just accused them of regressing to > dark ages... I am simply proposing that they had a more advanced > civilisation than Europe at a certain point in history. > You sort of mirrored my simplification back to me, which could've been the point right there, that would've been cool. I recognized you were as right as I was in that there really are basically two camps. It was an interesting idea if part of the point. Like a new Concept Art...remembering rthat modern art thing...the "is this art or is this dog shit is that a brown bag" sort of proposition...you know, things like the urinal, the dead sheep in the fish tank, the 10' motd of the plagiarized plastic child's toy; empty room flickering lightbulb that flickers out, creating the empty dark room. It wasn't art. But the so many people, art critics among them as so brilliantly exposed by loved forever for doing it Ruby Max. It was about them...they'd made the art world about themselves already...owned the art world pretty much, had got filthy rich,but the one question everyone wanted to know, and no one ever found a way to get a scientifically objective answer to, was could they know dog shit from art? Concept art was invented to finally give the answer. They didn't. That were art. sorry I digressed...suddenly gotta do something...I'll come for you man.
> I would say your simplification is much more typical these days, than >> mine. I'd also have to note that your reaction for my sin goes a lot >> further. Whereas I keep my simplification focused at the start of thde >> crusades and mention what is an unfolding disaster in Europe now, you sort >> of generalize your disfavour to this familiar - and lets face it pretty >> dominant idea that Europeans can be credited with much everything bad. >> > > Not at all. I think that all major civilisations can be credited with a > lot of good and bad things. Furthermore, I can tell you that western > civilisation is by far the closest to my values in modern times. I > criticise western civilisation because I care and hold it to a very high > standard. > > >> But not their accomplishments... >> > > The accomplishments of western civilisation are numerous and incredible, > and span centuries. I think you are assuming a disagreement that we don't > have. > > >> those are written off as accidents, thefts, or universalized so other >> peoples share equally...but strangely never have to universalize or put >> down to accidentsand thefts any of their own. Isn't it actually true, that >> Europeans currently t the opposite, only bad stuff can be associated, and >> it is, continually and spread nice and thickly. But not the accomplishments >> and good things. Europeans suddenly don't exist at all when that comes up. >> But every other people seems to get the exact opposite. The failings are >> not to be mentioned, ever. The accomplishments...these must be >> neverendingly praised and celebrated. >> >> You don't find that unfair telmo? I mean, I said nothing about any of >> that...but I did use a positive word "European" like something like that >> actually has an existence. And I did simplify the other way. Maybe that did >> it. >> > > I was just saying that the Europeans were not an organised entity in that > specific point in time. They were organised before under the Roman Empire > and became organised again later under the Vatican. So my point was simply > to question your statement that some organised entity had to take sudden > action against an external aggression. > > >> They had got as far as Spain by the time the ever dosy Europeans got >>>> their act together and realized this was now a choice betyween fighting >>>> for >>>> r survival or succumbing. >>>> >>> >>> a >>> There was no Spain at the time, and no unifying concept of "Europeans". >>> These things came later. >>> In a sense, the western world as we understand it today was forged at >>> this time. The crusades where not only a war against the arabs, they were >>> also a strategy by the vatican to consolidate its power and erase the >>> influence of older European religions. You still find many traces of these >>> religions if you visit the north of Portugal and Spain. >>> >> >> You're in a certain context, which I was already aware. But you not >> really right to suggest those terms should not be used. It's how things are >> understood now so it's reasonable. We talk about Africa, or Europe or >> America, like up to millions of years ago. It's alright to do that. >> > > Talking of "Spain" before it was formed can create a false interpretation > of history, because it implies a type of national unity that is more modern > and not present at the time. You can refer geographically to the iberian > peninsula or geo-politically to "the kingdoms of the iberian peninsula". > Also, most of the world was unknown, so the concept we have nowadays of > "Europe" does not match how people saw the world at the time. > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> You say it like it was the other way around. A very popular myth in >>>> the Muslim world of today....maybe once it was prouder than that, I don't >>>> know. >>>> >>> >>> There are several records that seem to indicate that the Muslims were a >>> much more tolerant civilisation than the several European kingdoms at the >>> time. >>> >> >> Certainly, of course. There's a lot of great architecture and art as >> well. I made no sweeping statements about Islam through history. Nor any >> sweeping statements about accomplishments of Western Civilization.....but >> since I'm there now, it's ridiculous to suggest it doesn't sit alongside >> the great civilizations humanity has produced. I mean, you wouldn't say >> that to a Chinese person or a Jew so why do you think it doesn't hurt a >> European when you so something like that to her? >> > > Ok, sorry for the assumption. Again, I'm not criticising Europe by any > means. But if I were, I would feel more comfortable doing it than > criticising other ethnicities for the simple fact that I'm European. In the > same sense that I feel more comfortable making fun of myself than other > people. > > >> >> >>> For example, they had universities in the iberian peninsula and would >>> allow non-muslims to enrol. Also, it appears that they respected local >>> religions and never attacked or destroyed their places of worship. They >>> were clearly more technologically advanced, had a much better understanding >>> of mathematics and its applications and so on.re >>> >> >> Sure,and then of course there's the Normans and all the beautiful city >> states they created up and down the coasts of Italy, once they'd bashed >> everyone to bits....where maths and art thrived and Muslims as their >> neighbours in mini- enlightenments that ran for hundreds of years. >> >> If you are going to mention these things, give a cheer for Europe too. >> Why not? >> > > Go Europe! :) > But lol saw this from the corner of my eye walking out. Luvly -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
