[Longknife]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

Basically got into an interesting conversation with guor. Perhaps this topic will cross some lines in the eyes of some, perhaps for some it won't be viewed so much as a debate, but rather as an interesting thing to ponder over.


Anyways...

At first we were discussing different corners of the world, and the tensions between them. The different corners we basically defined as Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and the Americas.


We got to a point where we were talking about why the tension between China and the US, and this somehow lead to looking back into history. I made the point that asian cultures have sometimes had a lack of trust for western cultures, because they felt the west wanted to control or take something from them. We both thought this wasn't true, but understood where the fear came from.


We then looked at the history of the world in general.


Think of it like this: In history, the Americas (Native american cultures), Africa, and Asia have mainly kept to themselves. Yes they've had wars, but most of their wars have been in their own lands, among natives there.

Europe and the Middle East however, have often expanded into other areas.


First there's Roman times, where the Romans controlled land in both Europe and parts of the Middle East.

Then we have the Middle Ages. During this time, generally all areas kept to themselves, perhaps the exception being the coming of the Ottoman empire. This empire encroached on Africa, and tried to set a foot in Africa.

Afterwards is the period of colonialization. During this time, the Middle East slowed down a bit, whereas Europe went totally apeshit, and explored the Americas, Africa, and Asia.

Then even in today's world, it's the Europeans who have expanded, whereas Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the Americas (regarding the natives) have kept to themselves, and not discovered and taken control of another areas land.




I asked why is this, and guor jokingly answered: Blame Jesus. But after a moment, it got us thinking...



In Asia, it was Buddhism and Hindu.

In Africa, there were several varying beliefs.

The Americas also had varying beliefs.


Europe and the Middle East however, both had religions largely based on Jesus and/or Muhammad.





What guor and I basically got to, was...Other belief systems, (Hindi, Buddhism, etc) all had much...if you will, older Gods and profits that had already come into existence and left. The ones based in Europe and the Middle East, had the most recent events.


These events, however beautiful for the believers and followers, were perhaps, TOO beautiful. It gave them something to fight for, and made them feel as though they needed to spread this beauty, in some cases.

This perhaps, caused the Europeans and Middle Easterners to expand, feeling that they truly had a message and a purpose. It was no longer "fuuuuuuck Germany decided they're taking over. Ok everyone, put on your Lederhosen." It was "Forget them! I'm not giving up on my beliefs!" When a culture even got strong enough and expanded enough, they...expanded more, into another corner of the world.





Honestly, it's easy to see the Native Americans aren't happy with how devistated and destroyed their cultures have become. Africa, ended up being used in quite a few different ways. And Asia, though not nearly as affected as these other two, has carried a paranoia for Western cultures from time to time, because of it.


Really, the result is we have entirely destroyed cultures in America, a whole gabble of problems in Africa, and a sometimes very careful Asia.

That doesn't sound like a better world to me. Yes there were always wars. Native American tribes constantly fought, Africa saw some empires and powers rise and fall, and Asia had several conflicts between Mongolia, China, the Koreas, and Japan. But something about the combining of different corners takes it to a different level.



For instance, when European cultures came to the Americas, they argued that they should take control of this land, because the Native Americans were savages, and couldn't even govern themselves. They decided it was their duty to teach them more Godly ways and help bring order to this "chaotic" land.

They were not savages. They were simply a different world that didn't need many things to be happy. But Europe couldn't see that because it was so different for them, and this caused problems.

The same happened for Africa. Africa perhaps, simply saw the most flat-out, undeniable racism as well. (by this I mean, racism based of off skin color and nothing to do with the actual culture) Europe and the Middle East both came in, seeing other religions and deciding they needed to be done away with, seeing little tribes and thinking they were savages, and honestly just...yeah racism. :V

Then there's Asia. When Europe came here, they were mainly focusing on two things: Trade and religion. Of course hearing a different religion from a very different looking person will sound weird to you, and this the first time Asia saw another corner of the world being so dedicated to trade.





There was even less understanding between this very different corners of the world, than as the misunderstandings between countries in the same corner. The whole thing seemed to spiral out and get worse once Europeans showed up in new corners of the world with a Bible in hand.







So here's what I'm asking:


It seems as though, perhaps the events regarding Jesus Christ, Muhammad, and other religious figures at the time, was the thing that set the Middle east and Europe forth to explore, and honestly often times their greetings were "Hi ur religion is wrong, here's the right one," and that doesn't fly too well.



Are these religious drives behind the European and Middle Eastern cultures what caused certain tensions between very different cultures?



Was it religion that cause most tension? Or rather, was tension between very different cultures doomed to happen from the start? Or was this simply, another popular arguement, greed from the side of Europe/ the Middle East?




Personally I can't see two corners of the world being a drastic amount more greedy than the other three, so I don't think that's it.


My thoughts are more on, were certain racial tensions, hatings, and skepticisms doomed to happen, or did something about the varying religions help influence and support this??

[guorbatschow]

i am an atheist.

having said that...

i always thought polytheistic religions are actually more tolerant towards other religions than monotheistic ones.

obviously, because adding a new god to a whole set of gods isnt a big deal, but defying one of the ten commandmends (stating that there is only one god) is a huge affront.

it also means that polytheism accepts other believes more readily (roman gods were a mixture of multiple cultures) than monotheism having kind of a supriority complex with their one god.

which eventually also meant that monotheism conquered the polytheistic religions. its pretty significant that lessing wrote in the ring parable (nathan the wise) about christianity, islam and judaism as conflicting religions even when they have close roots, but fails to mention any polytheistic religion.

polytheistic cultures therefore get conquered.

[Moshineko]

Interesting topic. I've heard this mentioned in works discussing Eastern medicine and Western medicine. The consensus was, and I'm inclined to agree, that the Judeo-Christian religions, having a single god, and having one of the main tenets of their religion be "there is no god but god", predisposes them to a more conflict-based society.

For example, most times, if you're discussing religion with someone who's not Judeo-Christian, it stays pretty mellow. The thought being that everyone has an individual path to spiritual enlightenment, so that in any debate about religion for a Hindi or Buddhist, it's equally likely that both participants could be right, or wrong, and they know that.

Judeo-Christians, on the other hand, know they are right, from the start. Their religion tells them that. Thus, any religious debate will quickly turn to a war. If you're wrong, essentially, that means your whole belief system is wrong. There are a lot of "infallibles" in Judeo-Christian beliefs, so this is a theme that's pretty strongly ingrained in the religions. God is god, he created the world, Jesus was his son (or wasn't), and you go to your cleric for absolution, so on and so forth.

So, when the regions met, the Eastern countries, even the Muslim empires, were pretty laid-back about the meeting. They were used to diversity, so rather than judging the Europeans a threat, they just sort of laughed at them and thought them pretty simple-minded. On the other hand, Europeans saw the East as wrong and decadent. And we all know what God says to do to them. Remember Soddom and Gommorah?

Also why science and medicine have come so far in European and Muslim hands, and math has come so far in Southeast Asian hands. The culture of Judeo-Christians is built on fighting for "the answer", which is beneficial in science and medicine. In math, one needs a more flexible mind (thinking of higher-level math, not adding), thus more an Eastern pursuit.

Interesting fun fact: did you know why 1+1 always =2? It wasn't a math fact until after the Rennaissance. When the Rennaissance began, math was sort of hit-and-miss. It wasn't important that the numbers added up exactly, but that the theory was logical. BUT, when merchant families gained power, their children, who had seen business and accounting all their lives basically said "what the hell do you mean it could be two or it could be three? How am I supposed to do the books with a maybe?" And, catering to the money, math became more rigid, to fit in with the expectations of the merchant class, who were used to keeping accounts that were insanely accurate.

But, where your theory falls down is that it isn't good or evil that causes expansion, many of the American Indian tribes on both continents were bastards, but having a technologically advanced neighbor with differing ideals to steal from. Or, really, strife in general. If you look for the advancements in human history, they're almost invariably centered around a war or revolution. It's violence that causes progress, not morals.

[Suinia]

Wait so you're saying evil coming from good, and that religion is good?
And that evil can come from religion?

Who's to say religion is a good thing to begin with,

[guorbatschow]

Originally Posted by Suinia

Wait so you're saying evil coming from good, and that religion is good?
And that evil can come from religion?

Who's to say religion is a good thing to begin with,

well the ten commandments are pretty reasonable with one or two exceptions.

[Suinia]

Originally Posted by guorbatschow

well the ten commandments are pretty reasonable with one or two exceptions.

But that's just one aspect of religion.

Saying the ten commandments are the entire religious faith of catholics or what ever is pretty much like saying Playing flyff for 5 minutes and making a vagrant is like experiencing the whole game.

Partially true, but not entirely.

I was saying religion as a whole. Is it a good thing?

[Ninjer-sauce]

That's pretty interesting. 0.0
But, I don't think religion was the main reason for Europe branching out. I think it was more out of curiosity and being better equipped with technology.

I mean, they didn't go sailing into the unknown in hopes to find some natives they could convert. If I remember correctly (I suck at history Dx) the explorers were originally trying to find a separate naval trade route to India or Malaysia or something.

So then, why didn't everybody else go out and explore? Well, they couldn't. Africa and the Americas were undeniably less technologically advanced than Europe at the time (not sure bout Asia though :x). They were too busy feeding themselves to bother going out and exploring.

I think religion was more of a flag the explorers could wave to justify they're greed. If you think of the Conquistadors (sp?), even though they were acting in the name of God, they were not being very god-like at all. They just said, in Spanish I might add, "Hey surrender to Spain or we'll like shank you and stuff." How the bloody hell were they supposed to respond to that? 0.o
Obviously the natives couldn't really say much so they were labeled heathens, looted, and killed.

So it wasn't religion that caused the tragedies in the Americas; it was more like the abuse of its influence for personal gain.

That's my two cents. I probably get some of the facts wrong, but w/e. Correct me if I gimped something.

Random thought: Jesus ish uber roxorz, k?

[Moshineko]

Originally Posted by guorbatschow

well the ten commandments are pretty reasonable with one or two exceptions.

Well, taken out of context, sure. Just look at some of the rather strict penalties, though:

Deuteronomy 14:13
If a man also lie with man-kind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Gay? Death.

Exodus 35:2
For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death

Workaholic? Death.

Deuteronomy 13:6-9
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.

Baptist/Methodist/Leutheran/Muslim/etc.? Death.

Isaiah 13:15-18
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished. 17 See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. 18 Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children.

Not good at war? Death.

Corinthians 11:7
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering (of hair) on her head dishonors her head—she is just like one of the "shorn women." 6 If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. 7 A man ought not to have long hair

No hat? Well, we'll let you go this time.

Unless you're "evil"...

Deuteronomy 17:2-7
2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.

Then it's death.

Leviticus 24:16
16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

Oh, and saying "Jehova"? Death. OH SHI-


However, slave-beating?

Exodus 21:20-21
20 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Yea, that is cool unto the LORD.

Bible's an easy one to pick on, but most religions had death as punishment for damn near everything. Wrong god? Death. Prayers said at the wrong time? Death. Red hair? Death. Twins? Death. etc., etc., etc.

Religion isn't a nice thing.

That's pretty interesting. 0.0
But, I don't think religion was the main reason for Europe branching out. I think it was more out of curiosity and being better equipped with technology.

I mean, they didn't go sailing into the unknown in hopes to find some natives they could convert. If I remember correctly (I suck at history Dx) the explorers were originally trying to find a separate naval trade route to India or Malaysia or something.

A lot of them did. Look up the Jesuits. They were very active in Southeast Asia for a long time before most others, and got royally pissed when England came along to ruin their fun.

So then, why didn't everybody else go out and explore? Well, they couldn't. Africa and the Americas were undeniably less technologically advanced than Europe at the time (not sure bout Asia though :x). They were too busy feeding themselves to bother going out and exploring.

Actually, I think you'll find we probably stole most of our technology from the Muslims and Chinese. We be theives.

And there was some evidence that the Chinese came to the Americas before even the Vikings, but the next Emperor in line didn't like boats, so they burned them all.

[Kamui4356]

The problem is, it's not really correct that only europeans built large empires. The most obvious example would be the mongols. In terms of land area, the mongols carved out the largest empire in history, stretching from Korea to eastern Europe, though it didn't last long. Then we have the earlier example of the Chins, conquering the land that today is known as China. In the americas we have the aztecs, who carved out a huge niche for themselves in north america, as well as the Inca in South America and Maya in central America. Going back before the rise of christinaty and Islam we have the Persian Empire.

As for Why europe expanded so much further than most, my theory is it's related to geography and technology. Europe ascended at exactly the right time in history, when the technology was in place to allow trans oceanic conquest. Imagine trying to invade the americas in roman triremes. The only other powers at the time of europe's ascent with the technology to compete were in decline.

Further, if we look at the geography of Europe, there's really no where to go. The only choices to expand are to look for new territory overseas, or try to take it from other European powers. Why fight a war with a technological peer when you have whole resource rich continents to exploit like the Americas, Africa, and Australia with people who don't have the technology to put up a good fight?

If we compare it to Asian empires, they had lots of land around to conquer. Plus China peaked a century or so too soon. There is some evidence of a Chinese age of exploration a few decades before Europe's began, but by that time internal troubles doomed any possible overseas expeditions.

I'm sure there are some historic inaccuracies there, but in general I do think that the lack of technology for earlier empires and a lack of need in contemporary ones are the primary reason Europe expanded across the globe and not Asia. Religion most likely had little to do with it.

[guorbatschow]

actually the Chin conquered what became China because the territory it conquered already shared the same culture. Everything outside was considered barbaric and not really interesting.

and the technology isnt the reason imo. its a symptome. the muslims as well as chinese both were quite advanced in technology in their own way (i dont think i need to name examples here). but only the europeans pursued developing more and more advanced weapons, even when they didnt even invent gunpowder in the first place.

must be a thing of attitude and understanding of politics. in europe we always have several powers reaching out for hegemony, but always preventing each other from getting it. in china we always had one emperor accepted by everybody. the dynasty only got interupted when a revolution breaks out, but a new emperor is installed soon after. you wont find lots of periods where china is divided. not sure about musilms though...

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by guorbatschow

actually the Chin conquered what became China because the territory it conquered already shared the same culture. Everything outside was considered barbaric and not really interesting.

Except China made many attempts to expand further. For example the Han dynesty conquered parts of southeast Asia that today are parts of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Even if we discount that, we cannot write off the conquest of China itself as irrelevent because they "already shared the same culture." The fact remains ancient China was made up of several independent states that were unified by force.

and the technology isnt the reason imo. its a symptome. the muslims as well as chinese both were quite advanced in technology in their own way (i dont think i need to name examples here). but only the europeans pursued developing more and more advanced weapons, even when they didnt even invent gunpowder in the first place.

must be a thing of attitude and understanding of politics. in europe we always have several powers reaching out for hegemony, but always preventing each other from getting it. in china we always had one emperor accepted by everybody. the dynasty only got interupted when a revolution breaks out, but a new emperor is installed soon after. you wont find lots of periods where china is divided. not sure about musilms though...

Right, but my point is the technology required for overseas conquest was starting to emerge in a period where both China and the Islamic world were begining to decline. Europe on the other hand was starting it's rise out of the middle ages. Europe just came out of the dark ages at the right time to take advantage of the new technology China and the Islamic world invented. Europe in it's new ascendence was then able to further develop their technology and expand while internal problems in China and the middle east caused them to be unable to keep up.

[Punishment]

China did send some oversea expeditions during the Ming Dynasty which was in power from 1368 to 1644. Admiral Zheng He from 1405 to 1433 sailed as far as present day Kenya. This is roughly when most of the world was going through a Middle Age. Since the world at the time was less technlogically advanced then China, the Emperor decided that the world had nothing to offer China so he ended this naval expedition. To think what would have happened if China continued these explorations.

[LaLa115]

(First excuse the typos and lack of cohesive sentencing due to slowly killing brain cells in party chat)


In response to the statements of the Middle Ages era lulling in tension and/or war you have your facts off slightly. The tensions between different nations had become so strained that they were guarding their territory not "keeping to themselves"; this resulting from over 1400 years of bloody battles in the struggle to force the beliefs of overzealous Christian followers onto the people of Europe, Egypt and the Middle East.

If you were to research history through sources OTHER than the bible and biblical texts you would have a much broader understanding of the events that occurred. The tensions and wars of our long ago history originated more from personal gain. The few skirmishes documented that refer to religious beliefs did not become an issue until Egyptians changed their beliefs to where the Egyptian royalty were worshipped as god like beings second only to whichever god the current leader believed. They are actually the oldest documented area to venture out due to religion. I am referring to B.C. times of course lol.

Thus we come to the age of Jesus. Holy Hell hath cometh. Originally seen as a silly new faith that would soon be gone, Christianity gave the people that had before lived in fear of life in the physical sense a chance to see life in a spiritual otherworldly sense.

To sadistic leaders it created a new outlet to their worst desires and fears. It created wars fought in the belief of "saving" others but only achieving to dominate and control those who lived differently. People were murdered and beaten and worse for not accepting a faith that was centered on love and forgiveness of sins. (Lol go figure)

1000B.C.-1500A.D. Is a critical factor to this thread yet you chose to skim over it when it is the time when everything actually began.

The tensions will always be. You can not erase the memories of entire nations nor can you expect tension to cease between conflicting religions that teach judgement of any differential and condemn all who choose free will.

I will leave it at that as my own personal understanding from what I have learned of history because I could write a book about all this if I gave myself the time to completely respond to the originally thread posted.

To truly analyze this topic and be able to give correct and unbiased opinions you have to originate from the root of the problem and work your way outwards to the current status of each theory and stereotype you posted.

In a sense it appears you based your arguments on popular belief and US high school history books. You then coupled these with Western stereotypes and opinions without checking the validity of Western knowledge.


toodles LaLa (I R Smart Bish lol RAWR)

***It is a wonderful thread and an interesting one and sounds exactly like a friend and I when we debate on Christianity and the resulting world because of it. You just gave too many examples of such broad areas of time and location that its difficult to give good responses without getting lost in all the added topics lol**

[guorbatschow]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Right, but my point is the technology required for overseas conquest was starting to emerge in a period where both China and the Islamic world were begining to decline. Europe on the other hand was starting it's rise out of the middle ages. Europe just came out of the dark ages at the right time to take advantage of the new technology China and the Islamic world invented. Europe in it's new ascendence was then able to further develop their technology and expand while internal problems in China and the middle east caused them to be unable to keep up.

you are mistaking stagnation for decline. stable empires dont always strive for progress. the roman empire stayed basically the same for a millenium. asian and islamic countries never had any incentive to arm themselves, yet stayed stable.

this whole "progress is good" understanding only holds true if one of the players starts the progress. with no extern threads, stagnation in terms of military technology is perfectly reasonable.

now you got china and middle east believing that a strong nation defines itself by an intimidating military force. sure an arms race is the logical way since its the nash equilibrium in that situation, but id rather have everybody stagnating.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by guorbatschow

you are mistaking stagnation for decline. stable empires dont always strive for progress. the roman empire stayed basically the same for a millenium. asian and islamic countries never had any incentive to arm themselves, yet stayed stable.

Except Rome didn't stay basicly the same. Rome had quite a few advances militarily, major shifts in government, as well as constantly pushing out their borders until about 100 AD when they basicly reached the end of their logistics. At which point they stayed stable for a rather short time before beginning a slow decline that saw the retreat of the frontier, the splitting of the empire in half, oh and the eventual sacking of Rome by both the Vandels and Visigoths.

Asian and Islamic powers never had incentive to arm themselves? I'm not sure where you're getting that from, because it's clearly not true. China was unified much earilier in its history than europe, but it still had no shortage of wars and in fact had a rather large army for much of its history. Then there are the mongols who once again had the largest land empire in history stretching from Europe to Korea.

In the islamic world we had the Caliphates, who were eventually conquered by the mongols but prior to that, by the 8th century had conquered a region from modern pakistan, across the middle east and north africa, then into southern Spain.

this whole "progress is good" understanding only holds true if one of the players starts the progress. with no extern threads, stagnation in terms of military technology is perfectly reasonable.

I'm not talking about stagnation, I'm talking about decline. In the 1400s and 1500s China underwent a steady decline in military power due to shortsighted emperors. By 1592 China has declined enough that Japan was starting to think they could be conquered.

In the same time you have much of the old Islamic Caliphate still trying to recover from the mongol conquests, and was unable to pose a challange to Europe's rise. This environment would lead to the rise of the Ottoman Empire. However, while islamic, the Ottomans seemed rather politically involved in Europe. I don't want to call them a European power, but they're not exactly a middle eastern power either. The possesed territory in both Europe and the middle east and were quite expansionist. I'm not really sure where they would fit in this debate to be honest.

now you got china and middle east believing that a strong nation defines itself by an intimidating military force. sure an arms race is the logical way since its the nash equilibrium in that situation, but id rather have everybody stagnating.

Both China and the middle east have military traditions that go back at least as far as Europe's. I'm not exactly sure what you mean here, but neither region has had a shortage of wars over the centuries.