1491 and then Columbus brings Christianity to the West

The gold from the americas did not help as much as some might think because all the sudden extra gold then devalued gold....like gold inflation

The native american civilisations were not the barbarians they are often depicted as

generally people were all housed and fed whereas in europe overcrowding and open sewers in the crowded streets caused regular outbreaks of disease

You could argue that the europeans were technologically more advanced because they had adopted chinese gunpowder technology but they were socially less advanced than the natives of the americas as disease, crime, poverty, famine, war and other social ills were rife in the monarchichal systems of europe

 

I believe that our view of history can never be clear and that we import into any consideration and discussion of the past our present concerns and politics, hence the concerns about the spread of islam and Sharia law, uniquely modern, superimposed upon the past, when at the time in question western christendom had its own version of religious laws, there being no real division between political order, political life, social struggles and religious life and convictions.

While again, most people suppose that protestantism was enlightening, liberalising, individualising and a force for freedom this is again more of a modern conceit than anything else, I dont say that as a cultural conservative even, Hilaire Belloc and GK Chesterton have made able criticisms of protestantism as a cultural phenomenon but there have been radicals like Rudolf Rocker, the anarcho-syndicalist, who've made progressive critiques of history's treatment of protestantism too. At first they sought to enact and enforce religious laws on a par with the inquisition and RCC authorities, sometimes more so both in enacting laws upon laws and applying personal disciples or cultural and social norms and mores as legal statute, it was protestant congregations which most recently engaged in witch trials and burnings in Salem, for instance, and some of that tendency to apply personal values or cultural and social norms and mores as legal statutes has been carried over into both modern conservatism and liberalism in the US.

I dont see the sense in valourising native cultures, any more than villifying them. Although the idea of the noble savage reaches back to Hume and Rousseau, its way, way older than surrealism.

I'm also not sure that you can describe india or china as third world nations any longer, is Russia the second world any longer? Or the Republic of Ireland? The description or division of the world into developed and underdeveloped, northern and southern hemisphere and just about every other label has fallen from favour too but world systems theory, from which the whole first, second, third world labelling comes from, is so dated.

 

Ugh, the OP is all kinds of nasty and wrong. Seriously?

Protestant and Catholic west is as good at it gets? Firstly, those are religions, not cultures. Secondly, those "third world" countries have Protestant and Catholics too. This is most likely just a veiled attempt to say that you prefer White/Caucasians (excluding those pesky Jews) to all them brown/black people.

You love you some cheap ethnic food. I see, so the sum of other people's culture is some shitty Westernized version of their food?

There isn't any point in even trying to answer this stupid ass thread because it is all sorts of shitty. If this isn't TROLL, it sure smells like it.

 

I think [MENTION=3096]Nixie[/MENTION] has brought up several valid points. I am surprised the OP did not opine on the benefits of migration to the new world by Africans.

 

Yeah, nationalism and culture, why do you say he is a complicated case? I know that some anarchists in the US disowned him but it was later in life, having lived from early days when working people could expect nothing, that he thought the class compromise or consensus politics of the new deal were an "end of history", he wasnt alone in that respect.

 

Well is that the thread done then?

Discussion doesnt go far with you guys.

 

Private message me first and we'll try to help.

 

Hmm, no, no its not and now I suspect the other posters had a point.

 

Yeah. Muir /greenpilled the thread and then nixie /untermenschenpilled it. It's over.

Using "needing gold to contain the muslims" as one of the justifications for what was done in the early colonization of South America reveals a very imperialist mentality, even though it wasn't the primary argument. The Wahhabism and muslim neoconservativism in general is a relatively new (200 yearish, apart from the Berber invasions and some minor other stuff, which has parallels in Christianity) invention and at the time, it would be difficult to argue European culture overall was superior in any societal sense, even moral.

 

The history of the Americas is a vague subject to me, but I remember seeing a painting down in Mexico which showed a franciscan priest restraining a pagan priest atop a pyramid, who was trying to sacrifice a terrified looking indian man.

At least on a religious side, it seems from what I have read about the native religions in the more southern areas, people lived in fear of their pagan Gods and constantly sought to appease them. At the opening ceremony of the pyramid of the Sun, apparently over 80,000 people were sacrificed - having their hearts ripped out of their chests before being discarded. I think the displacement of the native religion in the southern areas was a good thing for the people there.

 

Wahhabism is supported by the royal family in saudi arabia and the royal family in saudi arabia are supported by the royal family in Great Britain and the royal family in Great Britain are supported by the Rothschild family who are called the kings of the jews (and who the british government have been in debt to since the napolionic wars)

Look here is Prince Charles doing a sword dance with his buddies the saudi arabian royal family. I wonder if its the sword they use to chop the limbs of criminals or political opponants off with?

[video=youtube;lYndJV6iepQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYndJV6iepQ[/video]

Look here is oil man george bush doing the sword dance with his best buddies the saudi royal family:

[video=youtube;t_RJg6PNm40]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_RJg6PNm40[/video]

The same saudi arabian family funds and arms the terrorists in syria and libya and they threatened the russians that if they protected the syrian government from the terrorists they would carry out terror attacks in Russia!

[video=youtube;l1Ut-wyrpxY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Ut-wyrpxY[/video]

So...let's re-cap:

The saudi royal family are behind al qaeda and other terrorist groups as well as extremist wahhabist islam

The US and UK governments and the royal family are best friends with the saudi royal family

The US and UK governments launch a 'war on terror' because they say that a bunch of saudi arabian terrorists lead by a side member of the saudi arabian royal family (osama bin Laden) crashed a bunch of planes into targets in the US

The US then tell the US public that 'al qaeda' are the enemy; they then invade and occupy lots of countries looking for 'al qaeda' and years later claim to have killed in a raid their leade Osama bin laden, whose body we never see

The US decides that as part of this 'war on terror' that it wants to destabilise Iranian ally Syria and to achieve this funds and arms al qaeda to fight against the syria government with the help of its best buddies the royal family of saudia arabia who also use their military might, gained by swapping their nations oil for US military hardware, to crush the pro-democracy uprising by the people of bahrain who are trying to overthrow their own corrupt pro-US government royal family

...are you following this?

War against al qaeda one moment, arming and funding al qaeda the next moment

maybe.....and this is gonna be a real leap for some....maybe....the US government have been funding 'al qaeda' from the beginning....

Maybe the US media (controlled by the US government which in turn is controlled by the corporations) gave 'al qaeda' the name 'al qaeda' in the first place...

 

The elements that support al qaeda are in control and they are best buddies with the US government

They're taking you for a ride

US gun running in syria:

[video=youtube;022q7iN8aXU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=022q7iN8aXU#t=1012[/video]

 

Everything i say is true

I notice you are not providing any counter evidence to support your position (just your opinion)

 

I have to add. It's a central tenet that Islam at any time until a prophet yet to come arrives, it will be distorted and wrong (each prophet successively cleaning up misconceptions and making it more like Allah's will, with additional muddling in-between), which means there is (for some groups was) an inherent progressiveness to Islam (the idea that things can be improved. that the ideal state of society is not yet necessarily known). There is also an emphasis on the will of the Ummah (religious community), and unlike apostolic successive theocracy (top down human hierarchy) emphasized by (Catholic and Orthodox) Christianity, in Islam, the religious community as a whole (as in, everyone) is supposed to be the representatives of Allah's will. Ironically, Christianity developed the offshoot branches of protestantism and most major Islamic societies became ever more like early catholicism in its structure over time... and quickly developed caliphate ideas (monarchic right to rule with religious casus belli, which also ends up becoming popular in Europe), though there does still exist less static-institutional Islamic communities in various places. In some ways one could characterize European societies as becoming more socioprogressive than Islamic societies faster as being despite the supposed core ideas of the respective religions.

TL: DR Religions are messed up and not as they were and it's all a mess and it's quite messy and seldom has to do with the qualities inherent to the actual scriptures or how the religion initially was, but is more adapted to/by cultures and agendas.

[MENTION=4235]problemz[/MENTION]
1up(+1) To "Cultural "everything is equally right" relativism" being a misguided idea without any basis. Some cultural aspects are relatively bad or good for the wellbeing of the people living in them, which necessarily means there are cultures that are better for humans than others (in a utalitarian sense).

I'm quite curious about how Islam will deal with the most ugly elements of having to face its takfiri side as militant takfiri Islamists rampage around the middle east in the vacuum created by destabilization or destruction of local secular regimes, which happened to the extreme in Libya, could/can happen in Egypt and thoroughly happened in Mali & Syria with full fledged civil wars. Happened with lower intensity in Iraq after invasion. Is currently happening as default state in several gulf monarchies. Not to mention the constant uneasiness and previous decades of viciousness by takfiri sunni groups in Lebanon. Oh, and when Afghanistan was destroyed as a relatively well-functioning society during the anti-socialist Jihad, leading eventually to Taliban rule. There's also the creeping problems in Pashtun and Balochi areas of Pakistan and the Balochi areas of Iran. Then there's Yemen... Sudan. I'm probably forgetting some other heavily affected places.

Whatever the intended effects of this by those who pour money and arms into such movements in a zero sum war against those they regard as their geopolitical enemies (read: people not under their control), the end result might be a very very violent internal showndown across the middle east that will have Islam purge itself of its currently more terrible elements when it is confronted with people who take some of those elements and push them what they regard as an extreme. A partial mirror is held up that might make some things previously regarded as moderate taboo due to its association with "those terrible people who wanted to kill or control everyone". This is, of course, assuming those terrible people don't win, like happened in Libya, which is now facing its own counterrevolution of sorts but it remains to be seen what exactly that is. If Islam is to transform at all, movements such as Hezbollah and the Sadrist movement seem like crude prototypes of what could both function in a modern world and the defeat the religioneoconservative forces that threaten their communities.


@Anglozionist axis and vassals funding intolerant takfiri thugs.
Saudi Arabia has sponsored religious schools and spread its ugly mark around the middle east, to south asia (including Malaysia), to the Caucasus (sup doku), to North Africa with its intelligence service being deeply involved. It's not some secret or anything. It's pretty out in the open. That the US, Israel, Jordan (probably under duress), Qatar, Turkey and especially Saudis having a clear policy of arming and in some cases training not only secular, but also takfiri sunni "assets" in Syria, including facilitating transport of foreign fighters from especially Libya, the Caucasus and Iraq is no secret to be revealed either. Not even western oligarchy shill publications like NYT pretend this isn't happening. The powers that be in the core countries of the anglozionist empire has a long history of supporting unsavory elements so long as they are the enemy of the enemy, and not being very ashamed of it, but rather touting it as the lesser evil for the local population with ye olde fallback casus belli of "it is necessary for the empire's security and interests (In the US, they say the security and interests of the US. In the UK, they'll say the UK, in Israel, they'll say... and so on) ". Elements inside the inner power circle of the Saudi Royal family being against supporting groups like Al Nusra must be heavily marginalized or inconsequential considering the actual implemented policies over the last several decades.

All it takes is a google search to bind them (varying publications with differing interests) all. It's right there in the open, undisputed in any other way than whether the justifications are good or not.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/26/qatar-troops-libya-rebels-support Stuff like this is more overt than one might think.

If there is anything such as a "worst" or "less bad" side of Islam, the anglozionist axis is supporting them. Just like it is supporting the economically and otherwise self-destructive Kiev regime. The people in charge don't give a shit about the local population or spreading cultural values, etc. They care about having as much control over the cake as possible, even if that means ruining a lot of the cake to sustain or achieve that. That's what humans outside their group are to them, including the 'normal' citizens in the countries they control the most.

In regards to Colombus, if he had some misguided sense of sharing his cultural superiority with the local population... who knows. It doesn't really matter much to anyone except those who think it justifies anything or are very interested in the specific person's psychology.