Sweeslamistan

[useless]

In any case Muslim colonialism caused more harm and more deaths than European colonialism and European colonial genocides.

Apart from harm caused by European colonialism there were also benefits.

For example Black population of Rhodesia increased from 0,2 million to 4,5 million during 80 years of European colonialism there.

The country was also modernized under European colonial rules, as this funny video illustrates:

Moderator Action: video removed
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

[Citation Needed]

At least you've put the facade of not trying to defend (strictly white, european) colonialism behind you

 

[Domen]

In Mexico Spanish conquest brought an end to oppressive Aztec regime (the oppressive nature of the Aztec regime and their ritual mass slaughters regularly perpetrated on populations of subjugated realms was the reason why over 100,000 native warriors supported Cortez in his siege of Tenochtitlan in 1521). Aztec regime was replaced by - also oppressive - Spanish regime, but the main cause of deaths were epidemic diseases, not direct Spanish actions:

"The Peopling of Mexico from Origins to Revolution":

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxpoprev/cambridg3.htm

There is consensus among historians that smallpox struck central Mexico in 1520, the first of a series of devastating, multi-year epidemics that erupted in the sixteenth-century. A few months before January 1, 1521, when Hernán Cortes began his third trek to Tenochtitlan, now intent on subduing the Aztec capital by siege and sword, smallpox erupted in the heartland of the most powerful empire in Mesoamerica, killing the emperor Cuitlahuatzin, many caciques and warriors, and many women and children. The epidemic was particularly severe because, unlike in Europe, where the virus was a childhood disease, in Mexico it found "virgin soil," striking entire households, adults as well as children, in one massive blow. With almost everyone ill at once, there was no one to provide food, water, or care so that many who fell ill died, not of smallpox, but of hunger, dehydration, and despair.

(...)

Measles hit for the first time in 1531. When smallpox returned in 1532 and 1538, mortality was lessened because many adults, now immune from having survived an earlier attack, were available to provide care to those who fell ill. A second great multi-year epidemic struck in 1545 (cocoliztli, typhus?, hemorrhagic fever?—the identification of sixteenth-century epidemics is almost as contentious as the dispute over the number of natives at contact) and a third in 1576 (matlazahuatl, perhaps typhus carried by human lice). Although a lively debate continues over which was most severe (the German scholar Hans Prem favors the first, that of 1520-21), it is clear that the effects of each were catastrophic.

(...)

Recovery of the native population began, nonetheless, by the middle of the seventeenth-century according to most accounts. Rosenblat places the nadir at 3.4 million Indians around 1650, but, as noted above, Aguirre-Beltrán reckons the figure at only 1.3 million (plus 400,000 non-Indians). It is surprising that the Argentine linguist’s figures are more than double those of the Mexican anthropologist-historian even though both cite the same source, Juan Diez de la Calle.

Recovery was accompanied by a great mixing of peoples of different ethno-racial backgrounds. The only comprehensive figures on the subject for the entire colonial period were crafted by Aguirre-Beltrán. Figure 2 roughs out the evolution of the three principal ethnic stocks—Indian, African and European—and their intermixtures from conquest to the last decade of colonial rule. Indians always made up the overwhelming majority of the population of colonial Mexico, and people of solely African or European origin were always only minor fractions. The second largest group by the end of the sixteenth-century was the "Euromestizos," that is, Spanish-speakers of mixed Indian and European stock. Within a century of conquest Indo-mestizos (mixed stock Indian speakers) and Afro-mestizos (Spanish-speaking mixed groups with an African component) also made up a sizeable fraction of the population.

=============================

BTW - not many people know that Cortez in Mexico behaved in similar way as Alexander the Great in Persia.

Cortez embraced native cultures and encouraged marriages and good relations between Spanish people and natives.

Cortez himself had affaires with Tecuichpo Ixcaxochitzin - daughter of Moctezuma II - and with Malintzin.

He also left native aristocrats in power, except of those of the Triple Alliance (Aztecs), of course.

 

[Funky]

dude that is not what "empirical data" no means not even close just stop you're embarrassing yourself and everyone else.

Polls don't constitute empirical data? Interesting...
Just for the record, when the Pew Research Center conducted a global survey in 2002, they went into the countries in which Islam is the dominant religion and asked 38.000 people for their opinion about various topics regarding aspects of their religion. One could live a hundred years in the Middle East and would not achieve anything close to what Pew did. The results were shocking. In many countries a majority of people were in support of suicide bombing, for example. It should be noted that the countries with the most extreme religiosity were not even included in the poll, since they wouldn't allow the polling to take place.

Why the hell would muslims want to speak out when you would condemn them, their religion and other practioners in one sentence then appeal to them in the next?

I invite you to look at my first post in this thread in which I pointed out at the very beginning that I am not condemning people. I am criticizing ideas which have proven to be detrimental to societies and human well-being. Please note that I have not shied away from criticizing other bad ideas too, such as those of Christians who take the bible literally.

So what kind of Islam do you think moderate Islamic societies subscribe to?

Fortunately, a majority of Muslims don't hold a literal understanding of their scripture. They have found a way to reconcile their beliefs with the values of secularism and modern societies. Yet while they have re-interpreted or simply ignore many of the horrendous passages of their holy book, they still adhere to the Koran and regard it as sacred.

Really? You don't think that Western imperial ambitions have been a huge contributing factor to the division, conflict and hence extremism in the Muslim world?

As I said before, Western foreign policy can be criticized on many fronts. In particular, the war against Iraq in 2003 was a disaster which did more harm than good, and led to a destabilization of the Middle East. There are doubtlessly enemies we have made. But the the problem at its core is not caused by the West. The people suffering the most under Muslim extremism are other Muslims. Take the West, the big Satan, out of the picture. You see Shiites drilling holes into the heads of Sunnis, and Sunnis suicide bombing Shiite hospitals. You see women being treated like chattle and homosexuals being stoned to death. And it is virtually impossible for Jews to reside in countries like Saudi Arabia. These are not problems caused by the West, they result directly from Islamic scripture.

I do suspect you are wading into this thread to promote your own brand of hatred under the veneer of polite debate - in other words, you're in the honourable company of so many conservatives whose presence have graced this place.

Please show me where I have promoted hatred. As I responded to useless, I am not criticizing people, I am criticizing bad ideas.

Let us do a quick thought experiment.
Imagine for a moment that a political party comes into being in your home country. Its political program promotes antisemitism and laws against homosexuals. It regards women as second-class citizens. It states that everyone who doesn't follow the party should be killed. And it claims to be led by an all-powerful, infallible leader. Would you not oppose such a party with vigor? Would you be impressed if some members, even a majority of the party, say that they don't take their program all that seriously? Wouldn't you still view the core doctrines of the party as unacceptable and dangerous?

That is all I am doing here, the only difference being that Islam is a religion instead of a political party. But bad ideas are bad ideas, regardless of their scource. If you regard fighting for freedom and tolerance as being conservative, then so be it. I prefer to look beyond such labels and deal with the actual arguments people make.

 

[Quackers]

Moderator Action: video removed
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Omg, the lefties are going to hate that!

 

[Agent327]

And you obviously know nothing about colonial history of Muslim colonization and slavery in Africa:

"The death toll from 14 centuries of the Muslim slave trade in Africa is estimated at over 112 million. Historian Robert Davies estimates that North African Muslim pirates abducted and enslaved more than 1 million Europeans between 1530 and 1780."

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31E1gHowYcA#t=255

You are getting your 'science' from youtube now?

 

[Senethro]

Omg, the lefties are going to hate that!

What a spiteful little sheetstain you are. Someone makes a low effort "funny" video making light of colonialism and apartheid and you get your jollies thinking about how those lefties will be trolled.

Go make a holocaust joke loudly in public if thats what you're seeking. Alternatively grow up.

Moderator Action: Flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Domen]

You are getting your 'science' from youtube now?

If you don't like it, google "Islam and slavery" or "Muslim slave trade" and you will find tons of non-YT info about this.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What a spiteful little sheetstain you are. Someone makes a low effort "funny" video making light of colonialism and apartheid and you get your jollies thinking about how those lefties will be trolled.

I used to be irritated by these people as well. And it's funny if you look at the number of times the words "The Right", or "righties" is used in comparison to it's opposite.

But a couple of weeks ago I realised that the people who use those terms hardly ever defend ideas. I'm sure it's an unconscious process many on the right have that they realise their own ideology is so demonstrably bancrupt, all that remains is to ridicule an imaginary Left ideology they have invented themselves so the nothingness seems superior. Once I noticed this I started seeing this everywhere. In case of Fox it's so amplified and bullhorned it's like hiding in plain sight. But there have been many posts the last couple of weeks which are each a clear case in point. And sure enough, every single time, without exception, when I read posts about talking about "The Left" or "lefties" the content speaks for itself. There is no need to act like I used to. I used to try to discuss with these people. I wanted to know what gave them the idea I had such ideas. And I always drew a blank, because that is not the point. They are not arguing against a prevalent left-wing idea or ideals. It's about contrast.

Now I'm sure this is so bloody obvious to most they're reading this and nudging each other and going: oh look, Ziggy's penny dropped at last. And if it's not, start judging for yourself. Or look back in threads as I did. And this trend becomes so very clear it kind of makes you sorry for them.

To give an example, one of them described progress as a mythical monster. That tells you everything right there.

 

[useless]

It shouldn't really be that much of a shock that his politics is based solely upon spite, Senethro.

 

[Borachio]

I think there's a lot in what you say, Mr Dust. But the archetypal conservative is just someone who's afraid of change, aren't they? And, in a sense, they must be right. The certainty of the present is more alluring than an uncertain future, I think.

The "Left" and "lefties" just want to go charging into what they think might be the Promised Land, blindly. With some often catastrophic results.

I really don't know where the Nazis, and Fascists generally, fit in to all this. They seem an oddball lot.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Note: I wasn't talking about the archetypal conservative. I was talking about a mentally challenged subspecies.

Many conservatives who are able to realise there is no such thing as "The Left" and have the ability to defend their own views.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Most political parties want to go into the Promised Land, where they'll be rulers for all eternity, and everyone will live in blissful happiness.

They don't usually accomplish that, but they do manage to make a few hills of dead bodies, instead.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Note: I wasn't talking about the archetypal conservative. I was talking about a mentally challenged subspecies.

Many conservatives who are able to realise there is no such thing as "The Left" and have the ability to defend their own views.

I think The Lefties ('mentally challenged subspecies'?) usually describe these people as bigots, racists and fundamentalists rather than Righties.


I presented a number for the Swedish asylum immigration earlier in the thread. Is there, iyo, an upper limit for sustainability, or do you believe there is none? Is my concern for the Swedish immigration policies valid or not?

 

[jackelgull]

In any case Muslim colonialism caused more harm and more deaths than European colonialism and European colonial genocides.

Apart from harm caused by European colonialism (especially in cases such as German or Belgian genocides), there were also benefits of it.

For example Black population of Rhodesia increased from 0,2 million to 4,5 million during 80 years of European colonial rules there.

The country was also modernized under British colonial rules, as this funny video illustrates:

Moderator Action: Racist video removed, infraction issued for major trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

The population of Egypt increased under Arab rule, so what does that prove, besides that people made babies whether they were colonized or not. And as for the Arabs, the native peoples kept most of their local rulers and elites. A new foreign administration was not heavily imposed on them. Sure they had to pay a heavy tax, but if that is the worst of the systematic abuses that can be said of the Arabs, that isn't as bad as European colonialism which promoted he idea of exploitation of the "savage other".

And as for the slavery example you give, I did the math out- 112 million slaves in 14 centuries is 80,000 slaves per year. Europeans according to estimates I found bought and sold roughly 22 million slaves in about 200 years, leading to a rate of 110000 slaves a year, so in total volume the slave trade may have been greater with Arabs but not in actual rate. Have you also considered that slavery was defined differently by Arabs as not something that should be a permanent condition? Race based hereditary slavery was a purely European invention. That said, it is a good thing that systems of unfree labor are universally condemned.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think The Lefties ('mentally challenged subspecies'?) usually describe these people as bigots, racists and fundamentalists rather than Righties.

Do The Lefties now?

That's interesting. Tell me more

I presented a number for the Swedish asylum immigration earlier in the thread. Is there, iyo, an upper limit for sustainability, or do you believe there is none? Is my concern for the Swedish immigration policies valid or not?

I don't know, no, maybe.

 

[luiz]

And as for the slavery example you give, I did the math out- 112 million slaves in 14 centuries is 80,000 slaves per year. Europeans according to estimates I found bought and sold roughly 22 million slaves in about 200 years, leading to a rate of 110000 slaves a year, so in total volume the slave trade may have been greater with Arabs but not in actual rate. Have you also considered that slavery was defined differently by Arabs as not something that should be a permanent condition? Race based hereditary slavery was a purely European invention. That said, it is a good thing that systems of unfree labor are universally condemned.

A lot of systems of slavery were hereditary, that's not uniquely European. And slavery in the New World was not race-based so much as it was based on African and Amerindian labor.

I don't think we should relativize the evils of any form of slavery, and Arab slavery was indeed extremely brutal, pervasive and long lived.

 

[Farm Boy]

Do The Lefties now?

Some people do. Not so much you. Not sure if they consider themselves capital-L-lefties. Dunno man, my experience might be too much with this particular forum but 2 or 3 posters have tried the "you're slut-shaming the women!" schtick on me as a reaction to my assessment that casual sex probably causes problems out of proportion to the value that comes from it. Which seems a pretty knee-jerk attempt to scrawl "hater" across a viewpoint more conservative(ew) than the speaker likes.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Some people do. Not so much you. Not sure if they consider themselves capital-L-lefties. Dunno man, my experience might be too much with this particular forum but 2 or 3 posters have tried the "you're slut-shaming the women!" schtick on me as a reaction to my assessment that casual sex probably causes problems out of proportion to the value that comes from it. Which seems a pretty knee-jerk attempt to scrawl "hater" across a viewpoint more conservative(ew) than the speaker likes.

I must admit that most of my ire may come from ignorance.

I don't share much of the sentiments that are attributed to Lefties, but I know I'm left wing. So why do they deserve the capital L? I feel my leftwinginess is mot less pure than theirs. I'm left of center. How much purer does it get?

2 or 3 eh? On a predominately left wing forum.

Out of curiosity, where you also slut-shaming the men? Or is that left wing? Or Left Wing? Are you even right wing? Do I care? Then why did I ask?

This issue raises so many questions.

 

[gay_Aleks]

But Ziggy, you're forgetting there's two flavours of lefties: the boring lefties, that banter around but do nothing, i.e Social Democrats, and the cool lefties that kill people and take down countries into revolutions.

 

[Farm Boy]

Out of curiosity, where you also slut-shaming the men?

Given that it sounded like a pretty dumb assertion to me, I guess I'm not sure.