There are 2-3 times as many Catholics as Protestants, afaik.
Texas Board of Education - Pro-Islamic, Anti-Christian Distortions
- Thread starter FriendlyFire
- Start date
does US history cover Antiquity and Middle Ages?
That's some point, but I think the importance of ME politics is overstated. If we hear about it, it's mostly because of all the troubles that are there, and because of that Europe and USA have an Israel fetish. I don't think Americans would spend extra time teaching its children / youth about catholicism just to get to know South America better anyway.
I am offended that one uses an euphemism to describe attack on any state. In this case, it offends my feelings. But I understand that calling japaneese attack on Pearl Harbour "empirebuilding" would be offensive for USA as well. So I think that, in general, such euphemisms shouldn't be used.
Uh, ancient egyptic language also exists, although it isn't a spoken language anymore. It's not the point. Do you really think that the culture of Al-Andalus wasn't destroyed, because there are people who speak arabic elsewhere? Do you think that if Israel expelled or assimilated to judaism and hebrew language all Palestinians, the culture of arabic Palestine wouldn't disappear?
Doesn't that mean that islam destroyed endless pagan cultures of Arabia, North Africa and Central Asia? Why are you holding double standarts?
Do you really believe that Spain and Russia can be treaten as separate cultures? It's getting silly.
The culture of Mayas and Aztecs is in shreds, but it exists. As I've already mentioned, mayas are a very bad example from you, because they barely lingered when Spaniards arrived. Do you think there's no influence of Aztecs on Mexico's architecture?
There are more Mayan speakers today than aramaic, and the number of aztec speakers is roughly 2/3 of that number. South Arabian language is either extinct or very close to it. When it comes to coptic, it's extinct...
It depends on the period. I think one may claim there was an effort to eradicate christianity under rules of radical Al-Muwahhidun etc. if there was an effort to eradicate the language - I dunno. What does it have to do with it, anyway?
I disagree. When it comes to USA and its indians, or Australia and Aborigens, clearly there was no hybridisation, but I believe it was because the difference of levels of development was too great for that. When it comes to developed cultures of Mexico and Peru, there certainly was a lot of hybridisation.
I thought I did. Anyhow...
One should fight bias, intentional or not.
I am not sure.
This website was quoting their stance. The website originally linked by OP, very critical of the board's opinions, didn't refute their assertion. If one side shows some - more or less convincing - proof, and all the other side can afford is silly ridicule, I am forced to incline to accept their claims.
Yes you did, which was wrong. I may be wrong in this subject, I don't really know that, but is Luther really a great authority for those protestants that do not descend from lutheranism?
And even if they were, it wouldn't change that much.
apart from nestorians, Copts, Armenians, Jacobites, old catholics, some old indian churches of syrian origin etc...
they weren't as affected, but there were many people, especially noblemen, in Poland-Lithuania (esp. Lithuania) that converted from orthodox faith to calvinian or antitrinitary protestantism.
out of 2,2 bln adherents of christianity, slightly over a half (1,13 bln) are catholics, while there are less than 0,8 bln protestants. Which means catholics outnumber protestant by almost a half. Keep in mind that it is about all protestants, not only of lutheran heritage. And that this number includes anglicans, who could be treaten separately.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
No, why should it? Classical and Medieval is covered in World.
Did the Japanese build an empire by attacking Pearl Harbor? Well, if 'losing' is considered 'building' then yes.
Sure, their culture still would persis in the same basic form. The Aztec/Native culture doesn't really any more.
Were those cultures activly persecuted, exploited, and had their languages all by eradicated?
They are differnt cultures. Spain is Romance, Russia is Slavic.
Did you use the textbook we are talking about? I don't believe so.
Fairly important. All the Protestant sects derive from Luthers idea of sola scriptura.
Paul in Saudi
Emperor
There is one obvious solution. Universities and colleges ought to stop accepting Texas' high school diplomas as sufficient preparation for undergraduate work. When a few schools do that, things will change.
Exactly. That shows that American History schoolbook can not cover the necessary emphasis on America's own culture.
they were already an empire, and anyway, they didn't lose immediately.
To what culture modern Aztecs and modern Mayas belong, then?
What do you base your conviction that Aztec and Mayan cultures were actively persecuted and exploited, on? How can one exploit a culture anyway?
there are still milions of speakers of their languages.
oh sorry, I misunderstood you
Now I understand. You actually are arguing that orthodox faith is not a part of russian culture, nor is catholicism part of spanish culture.
Why should I be sure without a proof?
and how does this make his opinions on Jews relevant for non-lutheran protestant churches?
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Why are you pontificating on a subject where any knowledge you have on it is hearsay at best? I think I know more about the American education system as applied in the classroom than you do.
The Empire lasted barely 5 more years and made no permanant gains. Clearly the attack was very sucessful at building an empire.
It is pretty common knowledge the Spaniards brutalized the natives and oppressed their culture to the point the spanish king was forced to intervene.
I base my knowledge in the subject of this schoolbook on actual quotes from this book, as well as numbers derived from it.
he attack was successful at building an empire, but not making it last
"common knowledge" is often a stereotype. Anyway, you claim yourself that Spaniards brutalised the natives. OK, but did they do it to destroy their culture, or for profit?
What do you mean by "opressing their culture, apart from converting them?
If the king intervened on the Indian's behalf, it appears that he wasn't so intent on destroying them... nor did the catholic church, which was also condemning maltreatment of natives...
Btw, you ARE aware that most people in latin America are metissos or other mixtures of indian blood with black and white, and it was even more so before massive european immigration in XIX century? Or that the conversion didn't mean resigning of local tradition at all, as proved by devotedly catholic anti-spanish Inca uprisings, for example? Or that the greatest problem Spaniards brought were diseases, which can hardly be blamed on them?
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Despite the fact the website gave no full quotes, only snippets without any clue to their full context?
In addition, as I said, American History is dealt with in the American History Class. Europe is dealt with quite extensivly in World.
Both reasons. Save the heathens and get rich. A winning combination.
The silver mining and near slavery in the cane fields weren't brought by the Spanish?
Still better than what its opponents do.
As I've mentioned, they didn't claim there's too much about ME in the schoolbook.
Didn't muslims forcibly convert people as well? Didn't they enslave people? Didn't they get rich from their conquests? Indeed, your schoolbook lacked the
"similar examples of intolerance, sexism occured in other religions and cultures as well"
that does not deny the possibility of that some acted a bit worse and some a bit better; I do think myself that Spaniards did act worse in America than muslims in Central Asia or wherever. But it's not such a difference as you seem to believe.
I've said that it was "the greatest" problem, not "the only" one... Do you think that there were no silver mines prior to Spaniards? Or that some other version of exploitation didn't exist? Sure, exploitation by a man of different culture is more likely to become brutal, and I believe that was the case here. But I don't really know why you believe that Spaniards deliberately brought doom to indian cultures.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Which is expressing their direct experiance with said text?
I would like to point out that just because that is the textbook for the class does not mean the class is taught out of the textbook. The majority of what you learn in the class is based off of teacher lectures which are not based off of the book. The book is basicaly used for terms and for test studying because of their timelines.
I never said it lacked the statement. I don't remember them explicitly saying that. I don't remember them explicitly saying the date of the First Anglo-Dutch War, but that doesn't mean they didn't.
I don't believe it was delibrate, but 'convert the heathens' was definatly a motive for the Conquistadores and early Spaniards.
You forgot Poland (
), about 88.4% of the population is Catholic (before WWII it was a varied place dominated by Catholics, but tolerant of all religions including Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox...)SO Poland, Belgium, (Andorra,) Croatia, Germany (34%), Ireland, Lithuania, (Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,) Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland.
1) Poland got invaded on in every land direction
2) Catholicism out numbers Protestantism by a healthy margin (IIRC 300 Million)
Do you consider Anglican Protestants if so you are incorrect
FYI most of the revolutions in Latin America were made possible by Catholic priests
1) Of course it is a winning combination
2) Would you rather they imported Africans slaves?
Yes, convert the heathens was a predominant part, but it didn't erase the cultures (except things like sacrifices esp. human)
It ammounts to that their stance is better supported than their opponents.
Yet, you may change that.
So the schoolbook can be biased, because the teacher will even it out?
Weren't you sure that this kind of statement was in? Now you're just saying that you don't remember there wasn't...
Anyway, my point was that you claim that there was such a statement, but you do not seem to accept it, by actually claiming that christianity destroyed many cultures, why islam, allegedly, didn't.
So it was for muslim conquerors.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
Actually this isn't true. The Muslims conquers were motivated by the same things that motivated past conquerors, primarily politics and opportunism, wealth and power. They saw that the Romans and Persians were punch drunk and fragile and decided to invade. They had seen how easily the Persians had almost conquered the Eastern Romans few decades earlier. The Arabs made a carbon copy of the previous Persian invasion, but this time they made the occupation permanent. The Muslims conquered because it was easy, they saw the opportunity to make big bucks and a lot of land and took it.
The truth is that once the Muslims conquered, they didn't suddenly massacre the clergy of the native faiths or impose an immediate ban on church building: many churches were being built, according to archeological evidence, two centuries into the Muslim rule. In fact, initially the Muslim rulers were deliberately slow to convert natives, because they wanted to keep the faith among the brothers as a sort of identifying cult of the ruling class. So, 'converting the heathens' was not the primary motive of the early and most significant conquerors.
To deny that muslim conquerors were motivated by religion is absurd. One may argue to what degree only. And Al-Qur'an states that they should fight until their opponents convert, so why should one think that the ideology was different 10 years after Muhammad's death?
Yes, muslims did engage in forceful conversions. Not always: the general rule was to let ahl al-kitab pay the gizya, while pagans had to convert. Sometimes even pagans were spared. How do you think the islamisation of arabic tribes happened, btw?
And they weren't slow about it.
Indeed it is often read that Umayyads didn't like mass conversions to islam, because it denied them of revenue (apart from 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, who actually wanted to raise the taxes in precise hope it will encourage people to convert). But even that shows that taxes for non-muslims were higher. But Umayyads weren't the first nor the last muslim rulers.
I've never heard about this "islam is for ruling class" opinion unless you mean the thing I've indeed heard, that if a convert wanted to be made free of obligations imposed on the conquered people, he had to be accepted into an arabic tribe. Thus, initially, at least until 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, the conversion didn't mean entering the ruling elite.
Arabs were it. Christian arabic tribes weren't paying gizya, but muslim taxes. Which was in fact so annoying for caliphs that eventually they had these tribes forcibly converted.
I've already mentioned how it was with church building. Muslims did ban it officially, but when - it depends. The traditional stance was that it was by Umar ibn al-Khattab already, western scholars believe it was first introduced by 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, although it was not always respected even later on.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
No. It isn't. In fact, it's far more absurd that to suggest that the Muslims conquered to spread their theology. Few people genuinely care so much about theology. In reality, the Muslims conquered for the same reasons that Alexander the Great did: they saw weakness in their enemies, and an opportunity to acquire great wealth and power. Religion isn't needed and it's an unlikely motivator. The Arabs, if so united and powerful, would've conquered either way, even if they hadn't been Muslim.
There is no need to debate about its degree as a motivator. Religion isn't needed in this equation. Of course, religion may have been used for rhetoric and propaganda as usual, but it's extremely dubious that it shaped the underlying real-world policies.
Who cares what a holy book says? Anyone can read anything he wants in a holy book. There are far worse lines and advice given in the bible, but I don't think that the bible was the motivator for the violence of the crusades.
Rather scarcely. There are occasional repressive regimes, but they are the exception. The conquest of the Arabian lands is an exception, yes i agree.
It was not merely money. The Muslims ruled over numerous non-Muslim peoples that outnumbered them greatly. Forceful conversion would never have been a wise policy. The conversion was gradual.
The early conquerors are the most important to this debate: because if the goal of their conquests had been forceful religious conversion, we should have seen signs of that. But these signs are scarce: conversion by the sword is a rare thing, not the norm. There is a better case to be made that the Muslims saw a weakness in their enemies, and opportunity to make great wealth and seize great power, to carve an empire, not to guide some faithful sheep into the true faith. Most of their important policies support this conclusion.
Archeological evidence does trump "western scholarly" speculation. And this evidence shows that churches were being built deep into the second and third century of Muslim rule and not on small scale. Muslim rule was never completely united, as their empires fragmented, so yes, you could have a hideously repressive rule in one part and enlightened rule somewhere else. Of course Muslim lands were never an harmonious paradise of all faiths, but generally, non-Muslims in the Middle East had significantly better than non-Christians in Europe. Mostly because Muslims didn't care so much about religious issues as is usually thought.
uh, so "few people care so much about theology" when it comes to conquests made by muslims, but somehow everyone does when it comes to conquests made by christians? Because that's what Ajidica claims, and you acted in his support.
Let us talk about Muhammad, because it's the most glaring example to the contrary. So Muhammad, the leader and founder of islamic faith, claimed that God wants muslims to subdue heathens and convert them, and urged armies on until entire Arabian Penisula was conquered. Do you really think he did that for profit only? I don't.
You treat "Arabs" as one entity. They weren't before Muhammad forced them to unite under himself and islam. Earlier, their biggest enemies were each other.
I do agree that the role of islam on early islamic army is overstated: these were mostly people who were barely islamised, there were many christian Arabs in the army too. But it was Muhammad who united them, in the name of a new religion. And to start the process, he had to start with actually devoted people - when he already subjued a couple of tribes and gathered a great force, the religious factor became less important in leading people. Still, the idea of one rule over many tribes was his, and it was a religious one.
I think you are too much influenced by modern way of thinking. people actually believed in God oneday. And actually believed that what he says, needs to be done. Of course, that doesn't mean there weren't other factors. If God tells you to fight infidels, you will rather chose the rich ones to fight than poor ones (greed motivation) and the weak ones rather than strong ones (rationality).
Isn't religion needed in the picture? Well, how do you explain the fact that it was Muhammad, as the first person in history, who united Arabia? What was different in him than in normal tribe leaders or traders of higazi cities? hm?
Why do you think that if there were examples of conquest when religion didn't play a role, then surely religion didn't play a role in any conquests? Even if conquests are made by religious leaders? What would have to happen that you'd believe religion played a role?
Do you think that crusades, for example, were also not religiously motivated? And that they took Jerusalem as their goal by a strange coincidence, because they didn't notice there are richer lands than Palestine in every direction?
You really do not understand religious people, do you. Your way of transphering XXI century laicised european mindset on people of every region and every historical moment is completely ahistorical.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
When Urban initialy called the crusades, it wasn't due to religous pressure. He wanted to re-assert the idea of Papal authority on Earth, get the wandering knights out of Europe (less wandering knights, less of a chance they might set up another Kingdom of Sicily), and partialy motivated by the Byzantine request.
Now, whas he in some way motivated by religion? Yes. The 'kill the heathens' thought was fairly common at the time. Did he use the Bible to justify his actions? Yes.
Did the Bible tell him to go and order the Crusade? No.
Mohammad was not one of the 4 Righteous Caliphs that lead the early expansion.
You can interpret anything you want out of a holy book. Remember the passage of Jesus in the Garden when he was about to be arrested and he told Peter to sheath his knife? One of Urban's arguments for crusade legitimacy was that Jesus intended Peter to use the knife at a later date.
Yeah. 'Nuff said.
I'm not saying the textbooks should be biased, but rather if there is any perceived bias, the teacher will compensate. If they believe the book is biased or otherwise unfit, they can put in a reccomendation to the School Board. (At least that is how it works in Minnesota. What they really should have done is before purchasing the books gone through and look to see if there was any 'bias'. The fact the book is around 10-odd years old and it is just coming out now makes me suspect on the legitimacy of their argument.)
That didn't seem to be your point.
"No. It isn't. In fact, it's far more absurd that to suggest that the Muslims conquered to spread their theology. Few people genuinely care so much about theology."
you claim here that few people genuinely care about "theology" to the point of fighting for it.
Pope Urban didn't call people in the name of re-asserting papal authority, or danger to the Papal States. You may assume that were his motives (any proof for it?), and it's possible, but that couldn't be the motive for the knights or peasants that actually went to Jerusalem.
the expansion started already in Muhammad's times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Conquest_of_Mecca
The source please?
Is that a logical or rational, or literate interpretation?
So you do mean the book can be biased (I never thought you mean it should be biased) because the teacher will compensate. I don't agree with it.
If there's the board sees bias in a schoolbook, it has right to deal with it. If it is right in that there's bias or not - it's another matter.
Yes, it is strange they only got to it now, but that doesn't mean they aren't right in that there's a bias, just that they are likely to exagerrate it.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
The First Crusade: A New History by Thomas Asbridge.
It isn't like they were theologians. They were told by the pope that they should do this and recieve a remission of some.
Attacking a city that tried to have you killed and threw you out of hardly counts as signifigant warfare. Besides, after the passages talking about attacking Mecca, th Qu'ran repeatedly mentions the value of peace and defensive war.
\
Same as above. The First Crusade: A New History by Thomas Asbridge.
Urban believed so. Considering the Bible was still read in Latin and knowledge of Latin outside the clergy or high nobles was rare, I believe. Besides, that was only one part of his justification.
If there is a bias and they didn't notice it when they were going over the book in years before, sucks to be them. They should be coming up on their 'book cycling' time where they get new textbooks (considering the book is around 10 years old) but because Texas is in effect broke (Ha! In yo face Libertarians!) they can't afford new books. They can't accomplish anything right now and all that is being achieved is perpetuating an 'OMG! Evil pro-Islam teaching in invading our schools trying to turn them against Christ!' myth. While they obviously believe there is bias, what is bias can vary drasticaly. As I have either said before or hinted at, considering the track hrecord of the Texas School Board it makes any claim of bias highly suspect to say the least.
Similar threads
