Subject:
|
Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:31:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3797 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> > In the spirit of avoiding sweeping generalizations that due a disservice to
> > one's arguments, I believe that your statements above need clarification. I'll
> > not excuse the atrocities committed in the name of religion, but a great deal
> > (and I'd wager most) of those atrocities were in fact committed in the name of
> > economic and political power.
>
> Simple question: Was the Vatican a political and economic power during the
> conquest of the Americas? You know the answer.
That is a good point; in terms of colonization, the Spanish had a more overtly
religious tone to the economic exploitation. An interesting irony is that while
the Spanish often used divine right as a justification, they also, over the
course of their conquest of New Spain, treated the natives much better than did
the English in North America who had a purely political/economic motive.
Missionary activity was just an afterthought to the British, and they really
didn't care much for the body or souls of the natives/Africans.
>
> > To say that all such atrocities were committed by
> > White Christians is to say that 1) Imperial Britain (for example) was a
> > monolithically Christian society/culture, and 2) White men are almost
> > universally Christian, and thus any crime committed by a White is in fact a
> > crime committed as a person of religious faith.
>
> You are inferring more than what I wrote. The fact remains that Christianity
> came down like an iron fist on the native peoples of the Americas and Africa.
Again, I'd say that your statement, while partially correct, needs some
moderation. Britain came down like an iron fist everywhere. France was quite
humane as things went in the 16th-19th centuries. Spain was barbaric in the
beginning, but became moderate, taking a reasonably high view of Indian life by
the 17th century. Portugal was perhaps the worst of the bunch - they began the
European slave traffic (note: slavery was alive and thriving throughout Africa,
amongst Africans, and by Arabs - slavery is a human evil, not just a European
one), without, it seems, any conscience. Of course religious belief permeated
the actions of these cultures to one degree or another - I'm not arguing
otherwise. My point is that the age of Imperialism is a terribly complex time
period, and to say that Christianity was *the* iron hammer is to really overlook
the complexities of nationalism and economic exploitation that was the real
engine of colonization. Yes, Christianity, to its shame, was part of that
engine, but any careful study of the events will show that it was the lesser
part.
Last semester I took a continuing ed. course on the age of British scientific
exploration; chiefly that of the Pacific and Australia. IMO, the worst British
atrocities in all of the Empire were committed in Australia against the
Aborigines. The professor teaching this course made the interesting point that
when the ideas of Social Darwinism really took root in the western mind, the
true atrocities began in Australia. Prior to that time, the British had indeed
seen the Aborigines as savages; but entirely human and redeemable. The ideas of
Social Darwinism, however, granted intellectual permission to the British Crown
for the wholesale slaughter and expulsion of Aborigines from their land.
Aborigines were by this time seen as a relict species of crude humanity; a
people that had survived by chance the selection of evolution and who must now
make way for civilized man to supplant them. Again, my purpose is not so much
to disagree with you, but to point out that the causes and philosophies of
imperialism are very complex, and it is simply incorrect to make the
generalization that it was the iron fist of Christianity.
> > While I'm ashamed to say that
> > many crimes have been committed by "Christians," I firmly deny your assertion
> > that it was a consensus of Christianity committing these abuses.
>
> Never asserted or meant it was a consensus. Let's talk about the leadership:
> the power behind the leadership was the church in one way or another.
> Monarchies of the time maintained that the king was appointed by God.
> Therefore, the king was only doing God's work. Think of Galileo getting
> shafted for saying the earth wasn't the center of the solar system, in fact
> just an ordinary planet circling the sun? That sort of religious ignorance
> is what I'm talking about.
Agreed. But the king often did merely his work, and religion be damned.
> > And one final point: Being born of an ethnic or nominally Christian culture/
> > heritage does not make one a Christian. By such rationale, many of us are
> > guilty of religious crimes.
>
> Well, we do what we can and help those in need. That's the best anyone can
> expect and we shouldn't have to answer for the crimes of our ancestors.
But do you hold me or Christianity in general culpable or answerable to the sins
of my/our "spiritual" ancestors? Christianity may well be indicted for its
sins, but my point is that we need to clearly identify where those sins lie;
Sift the chaff from the wheat, so to speak.
james
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
| (...) Is this the black armband view of history or what! I think it's telling that the present govenrment refuses to apologise for a policy that was so explicitly racist. Apparently Aboriginal settlements were the inspiration for South African (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.au)
| | | Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes: (big clipping) (...) Would you mind telling me why you consider Portugal was "the worst of the bunch"?? In fact, it DID start slave trade in the Atlantic; but it also began ANY sort of trade routes (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
| (...) Simple question: Was the Vatican a political and economic power during the conquest of the Americas? You know the answer. (...) You are inferring more than what I wrote. The fact remains that Christianity came down like an iron fist on the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
137 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
