/his/ - History

no.

The book in a nutshell is:

>When whity does it he took from the POC and he is a devil

>When a shitskin does it he did it with hard work and dedication

>>25470

I've read it and it barely talk about "Muh wite privilege" though.

>>25470

You've obviously never read, I don't necessarily agree with the book's hypothesis but that characterization uninformed strawman nonsense.

>Rhodesia flag

Fucking /pol/ astroturfers.

>>25472

>Rhodesia

>Automatically /pol/

I don't like /paul/ too, but is this meme?

>>25474

Nah, the Rhodesia flag just confirmed my suspicions.

The thesis of the book is that Europeans were successful due to location/geography, not culture, and that other groups (particularly blacks) were less successful for the same reasons. None of his arguments are original to him, since he's not a professional historian. The book is a regurgitation of partisan historiography, and a horrible read. 3/10 would not recommend.

If you want a well-written counter-thesis, I suggest Ricardo Duchesne's "The Uniqueness of Western Civilization": http://www.bibotu.com/books/2012/Th%20e%20Uniqueness%20of%20Western%20Civilization.pdf

>>25478

thank you

>>25477

>there could be no question of a non-european army successfully resisting a European army

Except for the Turks, the Ming, the Tartars, all those native american nations which resisted conquest for hundreds of years. What an ignorant comment.

>epidemic diseases didn't become a factor until after colonization

When they returned to Peru in 1532, a war of the two brothers between Huayna Capac's sons Huáscar and Atahualpa and unrest among newly conquered territories—and perhaps more importantly, smallpox, which had spread from Central America—had considerably weakened the empire. Pizarro did not have a formidable force; with just 168 men, 1 cannon and 27 horses, he often needed to talk his way out of potential confrontations that could have easily wiped out his party.

>>25478

Arguably, the devlopment of culture is linked to the conditions of life, and African conditions of life aren't great. IIRC, there are very few practicable rivers in subsaharian Africa, water is a scarce ressource.

While western civilization is unique in many ways, Africa had great city-states during the middle ages, but they failed to grow because, among other things, the continent was shit.

Meaning, the book is shit, but so is /pol/.

>>25502

Agreed. Plus, even those rivers that were practicable usually were breeding grounds for all sorts of diseases and plagues due to the tropical climate.

On the other hand, I've been wondering whether the lack of proper "seasons" (especially winter) may have inhibited the development of agriculture in equatorial regions because food stockpiles simply weren't necessary. There are many counter-arguments against this in the form of equatorial regions in Asia and Mesoamerica that did develop agriculture on a grand scale, but I can't help but think that water scarcity can not be the only factor.

>>25477

The problem with the Zebra pulling carts argument is that the issue is domestication, not taming. There's a reason why dogs and cats were domesticated, but not foxes, deer, bears, or lions despite mankind trapping and capturing these animals for a long ass time.

>>25504

Seasons may have forced europeans to learn food planning indeed.

>>25477

Many of those are good points, which makes it a wonder why you posted that oversimplified "whitey is the devil hurrdurr" nonsense first.

>>25501

>Except for the Turks, the Ming, the Tartars, all those native american nations which resisted conquest for hundreds of years. What an ignorant comment.

Remember what the colonial empires did to them?

>izarro did not have a formidable force; with just 168 men, 1 cannon and 27 horses, he often needed to talk his way out of potential confrontations that could have easily wiped out his party.

Also, this is similar to how the muslims conquered Spain.

>>25505

Some animals can and can't be domesticated, like some people can and can't make civilization.

>>25511

I was playing CS and I didn't want to lose the match.

>>25512

>some people can't make civilization

>what is Mali empire?

>what is Toucouleur Empire?

>what is Bamana Empire?

>what is Songhai Empire?

>what is Massina Empire?

>>25513

Civilization, by what definition? Just because Tyrone waked Jamal on the head and made him his slave does not mean he made a civilization.

>>25515

He'll keep saying whites are better, lmao mudhuts XDDD instead of argue like mature person, just look his writing style. I advice to you don't take too serious those kind of people

>>25514

>I don't know what this anon is talking about

>I'll just pretend it fits my narrative

Flagfag and retarded, why am I not suprised?

>>25516

Actually, I find it very important to answer everyone seriously, unless it's blatant trolling.

Simply because everyone hs varying degrees of knowledge on various parts of history, and it's never bad to see actual counterarguments to false claims.

For instance, I didn't quite know wether or not the holocaust was real until I read a certain thread on /his/, because I had only a limited understanding of this subject and some negationist technical arguments (prussian blue, cremation delay) seemed to make sense. When presented with counterarguments and actual documentation by people who studied the subject, I learned quite a few things on the subject of the holocaust.

>>25505

Russians domesticated foxes during an experiment in Siberia in 20th century though. They're not just tamed, they're completely domesticated.

have somebody actually read that book?

be honest /his/

>>25528

I read his Collapse. I find it ridiculous that he claims he's talking about how big human civilizations collapse, then proceeds to give examples of the most marginal human settlements imaginable. Except for Mayans, which, honestly, never really collapsed.

>>25525

>>25505

Domestication before modern understanding of genetics and behavioral science were single events, not eventualities. Take the Auroch for example from the screen cap here >>25477

Modern cattle breeds were not domesticated by multiple different Eurasian cultures from their closest Auroch populations. Our world supply of beef and milk comes from a handful of ancient cattle that were domesticated at one or two specific moments and places in time and then spread to the rest of the world.

And that's the real hurdle Africa was never able to jump to form civilizations as influential and powerful as Eurasian ones. Isolation. The screen cap tries to handwave this away saying Europe had its fair share of natural borders, but these were never boundaries for human and animal migrations. Certainly nothing like the Sahara Desert or the Congo. An army might find European mountains and forests daunting, but certainly not nomadic settlers and traders. Writing, metallurgy, and domesticated cattle and swine all flooded Europe from the Near East quickly, while West African cultures had to either come up with these things on their own or else wait until 1100AD when the Arabs and Berbers finally began penetrating the Saharan in small numbers.

By the time tribal migrations even made it to southern Africa or America, Eurasia had some tens of thousands of years of civilization under its belt and had been sharing every great idea, technique, or domesticated livestock within centuries of first discovery.

>>25512

>Remember what the colonial empires did to them?

Nothing, which is why I named them specifically, retard.

>>25528

Yeah, I've actually read it.

Like any academic writing outside their field, he doesn't know as much about what he's talking about as he should. Even so a lot of the criticism directed against him itt aren't valid.

>>25534

This. He's generalizing a lot of theories from numerous disciplines, but much of what gets parroted from 4chan infographics only make up their own generalizations to attack it.

>>25502

I'm not questioning that Africa is shit, but Diamond's weakest jump in logic is moving from Eurasia had ecological advantages-> Europeans benefitted the most from these ecological advantages, compared to China or India or the Middle East. He doesn't explain what drove the Spaniards to go out and conquer the New World in the first place, only that they succeeded once they got there for material reasons, probably because it would open a Pandora's box that would undermine his thesis. He has an overall poor understanding of human nature, depicting them as purely reactive creatures responding to a given environment.

>>25553

Does he compare Europe with China? I thought the point was comparing Eurasia as a whole with Africa, the Pacific Islands, and the Americas.

>>25554

I think he did compared them at the very end of the book.

>>25515

Nice drawings of the city, most likely made my army officers. Also, how is it a civilization.

>>25523

>an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.

Tell me how does it fit in the definition.

>>25533

Did nothing to who?

>>25512

>Remember what the colonial empires did to them?

nothing, they collapsed by themselves, and tbh the UK and France got pretty much BTFO at Gallipoli.

The only western nation that conquered something that was ottoman imperial territory was the Kingdom of Italy in 1912 at the end of the Italo-Turkish war.

>>25566

>Also, how is it a civilization

Are you retarded? Urbanization is the main aspect of Civilization, that looks like a fucking city.

>>25502

>the continent was shit.

If it was so shit why were Euros able to establish such effective farms and plantations across the place?

>>25564

>Diamond ignores that most of continental Europe lies on the largest habitable ecological zone in Eurasia, the Northern European plain, which is devoid of any significant geographical barriers. Second, only southern Europe is "carved up" by "capes and bays" and "high mountains", while northern Europe succeeded the most despite lacking these qualities. The fact is that Europe's political situation had little to do with ecology or natural boundaries, and more to do with the legacy of feudal inheritances.

Are feudal inheritances not themselves the result of natural boundaries? Their legacy did greatly influence the future national borders of Europe, but these same borders were generally bounded by mountains and rivers such as the Pyrenees, Carpathians, Balkans, the Alps, the Rhine, the Elbe, and the Danube. Unlike China, where its river and mountain systems funneled towards a single plain, Europe's divided the continent into several major habitable regions. While now the largest zone, the Northern European Plain was not a major player in history until the High Middle Ages, and instead the continent was dominated by the Seine basin, the Guadalquivir, the Northern Italian Plains, the Carpathian basin, the Volga, and Thrace and the Aegean. The northern German plains, important as they are now, was not the center of power for some time, and once it was properly deforested and cultivated it became a battleground for the many other well-established powers. The places that drove most European colonization and political domination for centuries were England, Western France, and Iberia. I don't see Diamond as being mostly wrong on this point from a historical standpoint.

>He falsely states that the Middle East suffered from ecological disaster and desertification in recent history. Studies show that the Middle East "has not fundamentally changed either for at least three millennia. And rather than proving particularly vulnerable to deforestation or erosion, Middle East flora and fauna turn out to be unusually resilient. The region's environment is naturally adapted to drought, fire, and browsing and grazing animals, since all of these formed a part of its ecosystem even before humans…. In this important respect, its environment has actually changed less than almost any other region of intensive human settlement." (http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/8.2/forum_white.html)

The very same link acknowledges that historians have claimed the Middle East has severely declined ecologically since ancient times. I don't think it's fair to call him on rather new studies, especially when he's not at all wrong to say Middle Easterners suffered greatly from the region's ecological instability, causing numerous agricultural disasters and nomadic invasions throughout history.

Once again, his issue seems to be generalization, but not to that great a degree that it defeats his own points. While Europe has a major plain, its potential lay undisturbed for much of history leaving all its great ancient and early medieval civilizations in basins divided by mountains and sea, whereas China had its one major basin from the very start. And while the Middle East may not have fundamentally changed, it certainly wasn't very stable or prone to consistent growth versus Europe's melting and opening up of its northern plains from the 9th century onwards.

>>25582

Hes talking about Africa retard

>>25568

Colonial empires like France and UK did take land from the Ottomans. France took the Algerian coast and UK took Egypt. Also theres the fact that UK and France didnt want to weaken the Ottomans any further because they wanted them as a buffer against Russia.

Concerning the Tartars, Ming. and the american countries: The colonial empires conquered them and in the case of Ming China they mainly traded with the Ming.

>>25564

>Chinese isolation

You know, i never understood that expression. Chinese isolated from whom? It always seem to suggest that since they werent in contact with "western" countries they lived in some sort of isolation or something.

>>25612

>>25582

But Africa is an all around better continent than Europe. It has more of just about everything you need and less of snow and winter.

>>25568

see

>>25614

And, from the DRAWING they covered the sole basics of building a city. It would be something like putting an RPG on a jeep and calling it a tank.

>>25617

No, it'd be more like putting an RPG on a jeep and claiming it's not a weapon.

A city necessitates a civilization to build and organize it in the first place.

>>25568

>>25614

The Ottoman Empire was a very European nation, and had been for centuries by the time their fortunes reversed and their borders began contracting.

In any case, the colonial era had the European model army on the ascendant as it faced the Tartars on the Russian steppe. Horses don't do very well against very mobile and accurate artillery.

>>25564

>>25583

If you ask me, the only reason why Europe triumphed over China in the end is because China got completely rekt by Mongols in 13th century and never managed to get their shit together after that. Song China was technologically on a similar level to Europe in 18th century, but they couldn't defend against northern peoples (Jurchens and Mongols) because of internal political strife.

>>25615

China sure wasn't isolated from Mongols, apparently. Europe, luckily, was too far away for them to reach.

Actually, the most likely reason why Oxus and Jaxartes in central Asia didn't develop prominent civilisations is because cities there were overrun by every single nomadic horde moving across Eurasia. Aryans, Scythians, Turks, Mongols, to name a few.

>>25623

China and India were mostly crushed economically before they were dominated militarily. The collapse of the Mughal Empire flat-lined the Indian economy just as the Portuguese, Dutch, and English turned up. And let's not forget the ravages of opium flooding China's markets. The Qing had been a stagnant force for decades and completely unable to run the country let alone resist foreign influence.

Central Asia was a very prominent civilization beginning with the Abbasids, but yes, subsequent nomadic incursions made it a never ending battleground for nomadic strongmen who could only just manage to build a proper state when the next wave of migrations swept it all away.

>>25566

Tell me, what has Bosnia contributed to the world? Jack all, your country is about as backward as any "sub-human" African state, stop trying to find flaws in people to make yourself feel better and actually do SOMETHING with your life.

>>25616

It hasn't got tin and copper, which was needed for civilisations to progress into the Bronze Age, they needed to import this from Middle Eastern countries and, even though they tried to "leap" past the Bronze Age, it was impossible. Also, central Africa has appalling conditions, Northern, Southern and Coastal Africa had good conditions, you can't generalise.

>>25621

>>25617

this. why are you even trying to deny that a city is a civilisation? you just look like you've got fucking Downes from all the bloody redpills you've been swallowing

>>25632

It has both, and actually right this moment African countries are on the top of the world when it comes to producing both.

>>25632

Also, some parts of Europe have appealing conditions.

The northmost parts of European Russia or Scandinavia, for example, or the peaks in the mountain ranges.

>>25636

These are southern African commodities, places not even reached by humans until the start of the European Middle Ages. By the time the Bantu found and began using tin, the rest of the world had some four thousand years on them.

>>25621

Weapon, but not a tank.

It's a city, but it's not a sign of civilization, but rather culture.

>>25633

And you get that from a drawing…if we are dragging the value of civilization to a level of sand castles we should consider the Australian aborigines a very advanced people.

>>25641

>muh drawing

In that logic, every single drown record/tapistries before invention of camera are mostly fake

>>25647

Not implying that, but it's better to dig up something and find ruins where archaeologists can map it out, a drawing is just a drawing.

>>25648

Can you prove that that city is not real and the accounts are fake? Can you explain how a city just appears without a civilization around it?

I'll take a wild guess: no, and no.

I don't even know why I'm arguing with a flagfag. Are you the old namefag? In that case remove some kebab and kill yourself.

>>25650

>>25648

Then Carthage isn't real, since it was supposedly destroyed in 146 BC.

>>25524

What are the counterarguments for the prussian blue and cremation delay no infograph pls)?

>>25650

Pretty sure he's illirioi.

>>25665

I hoped that tripfag left after tripcodes were removed, oh well.

>>25583

>Are feudal inheritances not themselves the result of natural boundaries? Their legacy did greatly influence the future national borders of Europe, but these same borders were generally bounded by mountains and rivers such as the Pyrenees, Carpathians, Balkans, the Alps, the Rhine, the Elbe, and the Danube. Unlike China, where its river and mountain systems funneled towards a single plain, Europe's divided the continent into several major habitable regions.

With the exception of Bohemia and Hungary, no, feudal domains were not checked by geographical barriers. Enclaves and exclaves were extremely common. Titles came and went. You have cases such as the Habsburgs, who owned at one point controlled Spain, the Low Countries, parts of Burgundy, Sardinia, Naples, and Sicily. Look at the patchwork Holy Roman Empire, or the back-and-forth of Norman and French borders during the High Middle Ages. The main reason why this stopped was that larger kingdoms became centralized and congealed into linguistic zones, which facilitated nationalism.

European mountain ranges are Medditeranean-facing (except the Carpathians, which is outside of 'Europe proper' considered by GGS) and thus Diamond's point about these ranges playing a role in the geographical fragmentation of Europe does not hold for the major industrial powers (the main beneficiaries of colonization). The river cores that you mentioned function as political centers, not as geographical barriers. France, Germany, the Low Countries, and northern Italy could have been united under one state if not for Salic patrimony. Possible England too, considering the successes of the Romans and Normans. These regions can't be considered separate from each other, especially considering the fact that the HRE, France, Spain, and modern Germany each encompass several disparate river systems. The only time where these rivers functioned as fixed borders for a significant time was during the Roman period–and look at how that turned out.

Within the field of intracontinental competition, Diamond's thesis really breaks down because he relies on vague attributes such as longitudinal vs latitudinal and temperate vs tropical throughout the book. He claims that China is somehow too integrated, Africa is too isolated, and Europe is "just right" (how convenient, considering his argument relies entirely on his own qualitative assessments).

>Once again, his issue seems to be generalization, but not to that great a degree that it defeats his own points.

I disagree. Again, you can't ignore that his argument is essentially based on the claim that 'the entire fate of world history can be explained by geographical and ecological determinism, since culture, biological differences, or individual choices are also determined by geography and ecology''. This is an extremely strong claim that can almost never be proven, no matter how many anecdotes he gives.

>The very same link acknowledges that historians have claimed the Middle East has severely declined ecologically since ancient times. I don't think it's fair to call him on rather new studies, especially when he's not at all wrong to say Middle Easterners suffered greatly from the region's ecological instability, causing numerous agricultural disasters and nomadic invasions throughout history.

The link explicitly states that these historians were wrong, and corrects them. Moreover, the studies cited that supported Middle Eastern climatic stability range from thirty to fifty years old. I think it's perfectly fair to criticize Diamond's hand-waving of the Middle East when his book has been in continual print for eighteen years, and is still taught in schools throughout the US (I had to read this book for a class four years ago).

>And while the Middle East may not have fundamentally changed, it certainly wasn't very stable or prone to consistent growth

That is only if you consider its post-WWI history.

>>25504

>>25509

Wouldn't a dry/wet season climate also force food stockpiling? Or would agriculture already have to be well established for that to be a factor? Because I'm thinking nomads would just follow the herds regardless of whether it's wet or dry season

Either way it's an interesting possibility, I'm just trying to think of why it wouldn't effect the other peoples mentioned as strongly

>>25464

it's really funny how much that book triggers both antiracists AND racists.

>>25669

>With the exception of Bohemia and Hungary, no, feudal domains were not checked by geographical barriers…

This holds true for small baronies, but not for major kingdoms. The only times I can think of where a kingdom forged together two regions divided by major geographic barriers as Northern and Southern France, a violent process spanning centuries. The Holy Roman Empire and much of early Europe may have been a confusing patchwork of random inheritances, but each small fragment was broken up according to either natural boundaries or the distance from a political or economic center. Dynasties transcend many boundaries to be sure, but even the vaunted reach of the Hapsburgs had to face the realities of failing to control their provinces as separate countries who happened to have the same monarch, and not a single country.

>European mountain ranges are Medditeranean-facing (except the Carpathians, which is outside of 'Europe proper' considered by GGS) and thus Diamond's point about these ranges playing a role in the geographical fragmentation of Europe does not hold for the major industrial powers (the main beneficiaries of colonization)…

I mentioned political centers, but each one is separated by distance and natural geography. The Yellow, Yangtze, and Pearl River basins have very little to separate them compared to the Danube, Seine, and Guadalquivir and the political powers that dominated them. Whether or not the old Carolingian Empire could be held as a single nation was elegantly proven already as every single attempt to reunite and forcefully hold even two of these regions together over the course of centuries failed spectacularly. It's no more likely than a grand Central Asian state from China to Turkey simply because Genghis Khan managed to conquer it all once. Salic law may seem arbitrary at times, but the Franks were no fools, and the divisions themselves had obvious reasons even if their distribution did not. A kingdom was held together by communication, and geography determined communication. Thus, kingdoms were naturally constrained more than they were arbitrary accidents.

>Within the field of intracontinental competition, Diamond's thesis really breaks down because he relies on vague attributes such as longitudinal vs latitudinal and temperate vs tropical throughout the book..

While I'm not as deterministic as him, he's not necessarily wrong. China held together under successive superstates far more easily than any European or African adventure. China is integrated far more than Europe - imagine if almost every major river system in Europe ended in a single, vast floodplain, or if in place of Pannonia you had a nearly impassable desert the size of the Sahara and in France you had a tropical jungle as daunting as the Congo. Whether or not Europe was 'just right' can be contested, but he's on the mark with these observations, at least from a broad perspective.

>I disagree. Again, you can't ignore that his argument is essentially based on the claim that 'the entire fate of world history can be explained by geographical and ecological determinism…

Which is to say it's a problem of generalization. His argument is on such a grand scheme that it's little different from a metaphysical or philosophical debate at this point. But his observations are just observations others have already made. Some may be outdated, which is fine for something written two decades ago, but they're not logically inconsistent so far.

>The link explicitly states that these historians were wrong, and corrects them…

History filters really slowly through society. It's not that surprising that someone disagrees with an older publication that remains popular in the general market. Just look at how enduring outright myths are to this day. Why should Diamond be judged by later scholarship he was not aware of or convinced by decades ago? New facts and theories should be introduced as caveats and footnotes if at all, not ex post facto aha-isms. Everyone reads Fall of the Roman Empire this way. Furthermore, the link only corrects the notion of a drastic fall from a state of paradise for the Middle East. It does not ever claim others are wrong to say its climate has negatively affected the region multiple times throughout its history.

>That is only if you consider its post-WWI history.

No, not even by the link's own admission, which lists several major cataclysms and their negative effects on Middle Eastern civilization going back to the Holocene. As we can see from the section labeled "Patterns", the region's unstable climate has adversely affected its civilizations since ancient times, and it continues well into our own. What it says is historians were wrong to say the Middle East turned to shit. The truth is, it was always kind of shit.

>>25640

>places not even reached by humans until the start of the European Middle Ages

Either you just went retardedly /pol/ on us or you are retarded in general. The locals didnt use them, because they werent forced into discovering them or dying.

Europeans discovered all sorts of shit because it was life or death, because Europe is a terrible place.

Hardship breeds ingenuity.

>>25668

It seems that I didn't die when they took of my trips, I was always a big guys for you.

>>25701

big guy*

God damn the English language.

>>25700

>I have a ball behind my back and here is a drawing of it.

>You can't prove that I'm lying.

No, he's saying "hey, look at this ball with a drawing on it" and you're saying "THERE IS NO BALL, THE BALL IS A LIE"

>>25700

What would British Officers gain from drawing a city that doesn't exist? You're acting as if this is the only evidence that this civilisation existed, when it's not, there are thousands of accounts to show that this civilisation existed. Don't go full retard.

>>25705

Nope, bad analogy. He's saying the ball is good while it's made out of rags.

>>25706

>that strawman

>>25700

>what has this civilization done to deserve my attention

Holy shit i dint realize that countries had to make a civilization for other people other than themselves. Christ you have your head up your ass with this sentence that you typed. Civilizations are cataloged and studied, not paraded in a "who's better" dick waving contest because that leads nowhere. Get your brain out of the gutter and try to cultivate some civility in you you disgusting ape.

>>25698

The only sources of tin/copper in Africa are in the south - Namibia, South Africa, Botswana, etc.

The Bantu migrations only reached these places sometime around 500 AD, give or take a few centuries.

>>25712

We have a ranking system to know who's worse and who's better, based on their achievements. You are not a soccer mom and not everything is based on participation trophies.

>>25712

Please use vocaroo when you REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

>>25715

>We have a ranking system

I assume "we" is some circlejerk on the internet, right? Do you get more pathetic than this?

>>25719

Call me a neo-nazi evil bigot who hates people because they are better than him. Only a couple of more insults and I will get the Hitler bingo.

>>25632

>>25713

Nok culture already had iron in 600BC though, likely even earlier.

>>25720

>doesn't deny he gets his opinions from some internet circlejerk

>ctrl + f "nazi", "bigot", "hitler" = his post only

Repeat after me: "I was wrong and African civilizations actually existed".

And get rid of that flag while you're at it, this is an anonymous imageboard.

>>25738

Do you have more information on other African civilizations? I'm actually curious.

>>25712

Why even reply to that flagfag attention whore?

>>25741

>>25738

Thank you for contribition

>>25741

Wow, Jamal made gold of selling castrated slaves to Arabs, nice.

>>25744

Did they cut the dicks of with the shark or regular blade?

>>25739

Might as well go ask >>>/rg/ for help. I think they had a thread on African civilisations and cultures.

>>25746

Don't Bantu people in general practice circumcision as well, or did they only adopt that later on? I know that Xhosa and Zulu in South Africa did it, in adolescence, as an initiation ritual.

>>25750

Source of those pics please.

>>25751

Shitskins do it as well.

>>25753

If it wasn't I wouldn't have posted it.

>>25754

aah, makes more sense, you can leave now. peasant.

>>25755

Here is something real.

>>25749

Neck ring thing exist in thai land too

>>25760

>how do you think a vet with no tool works?

They drink from the cow's ass?

>>25760

We don't bath in cows urine…

>>25760

Also, I think that's not a cow.

>>25765

Blood makes the gulas yummy, the difference is they eat people because they have nothing to eat, those niggers shower because it's a part of their culture.

>>25740

>To have a civilization one must have more than a pile of mudhuts.

I'm not sure you understand what a city really is.

Exactly, which is why a city is not a pile of mudhuts.Basic civil engineering, a city concentrates more people and resources in a location than a haphazard tribal village is capable of organizing on their own. You can't just squeeze some village buildings closer together because it might be fun to spit into your neighbor's window from inside your own. You have to take water and waste management, food distribution, etc, all into account. The drawings we have of Benin from European sources clearly show a religious or social stratification, pointing to the existence of something more than simple culture. As stated previously and handwaved away without any proper argument: a city requires many of the hallmarks of a civilization to be built, and unless you were to argue that whites somehow came and built it for native primitives to inhabit, this means a civilization was present.

>>25768

Wow, jewlry from my little baby cousin. How civilized, the niggers had little empires and you call them civilized.

>>25769

How was civilization present there?

>>25743

>Wow, Jamal made gold of selling castrated slaves to Arabs, nice.

Ironically, this is pretty much how Slavonic cultures formed their first civilizations beginning in the 8th and 9th centuries.

>>25766

Piss is part of European culture too.

http://www.doctorsreview.com/history/sep05_history/

>Urine-loving MDs enjoyed their heyday of popularity and respect during the 16th and early 17th centuries. It wasn't until the scientific revolution and subsequent Enlightenment that true empiricism began to emerge in medicine. Once chemistry and, later, medical imaging, came to the forefront in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, useful chemical investigations into urine samples replaced the old swirl-and-taste methods. Soon, doctors were no longer using outdated forms of uroscopy and those who held onto them became known as piss prophets. It wasn't long before they'd turned from healers to quacks in the public mind. But that didn't stop a few stubborn sorts from hanging on to the dream of urine as liquid gold.

>The piss prophets took their business underground, catering to those too poor to afford real doctors and those for whom traditional medicine had failed. Eventually, uroscopy – the science of studying urine – fell by the wayside and uromancy – the old scam of using urine for fortune-telling – made a reappearance. Patients became clients, eager to have their futures revealed by those gifted visionaries who could see all through a simple sample.

>Every practitioner had his or her own way of predicting what lay in store for the client. Some simply held the flask up to the light and made up fantastical stories from there; others had people pee into pots and then "read the bubbles." An even less palatable form of uromancy involved urinating in one's own feces then having the bubbles read from there. As it happened, if your urine contained many bubbles, it meant you had a large sum of money coming your way. Of course, this was even better news for the uromancer, who could be sure of a nice big tip from the soon-to-be rich client.

>>25771

Don't get me started on how Germanics leeched Rome.

>>25770

>How was civilization present there?

The same way it was present anywhere. Surplus food and labor leading to a material culture and social stratification.

>>25772

Yes, but this for medicinal purposes. What the Dinka tribe did was entirely cultural and for no scientific purpose.

>>25778

*this was for…

>>25779

see

>>25777

>I was trying to be funny over the story how a russian soldier beat a Chechen with a can of gulas and he eat it with blood in it.

>>25770

Well, those things are Gold/brass alloys, used as currency. Meaning Africans understood value and basic economics, who'd have known?

Now, I'm getting to the end of my folder, so I'd advise you to gb2/pol/. It's clear to everyone that you tried to get historic validation of your stupid beliefs, and now you're just strawmanning your way out of the issue, and it's getting a bit ridiculous.

One last thing, "Civilization" is a word that appeared around 1700, and it comes from "civis", which means citizen. To me, any people and culture that ends up building cities and living in it can be called civilization.

To sum up :

In Africa, people had large cities with markets, currency, exchange rates, slaves, gold, jewellery and other goods. There was a sewer system, roads, houses, a ruling class, a king, a set of laws, courts and judges. It was developped to the point that western travelers from western civilization were impressed by it, and wrote texts to say how great African cities were.

If you can't call that civilization, then fuck you nigger.

>>25782

Wait, you mean the continent they are running sailing away from because how bad is it?

Also, just a reminder

>an advanced

>state of human society

>in which a high level of culture, science

>industry

>and government has been reached

>>25781

you said blood, not piss.

>>25713

Thats wrong, though. Humans were in South Africa before they got to Europe. Thats where our species was formed, if anything.

>>25784

I was talking about blood in the gulas, not piss in the gulas. I'm talking about the piss on their heads.

>>25783

>Muh current politics is all of history

You're lucky being ridicule doesn't give cancer

>advanced

>high

That's a subjective definition m8. To me, the empire of Benin was pretty civilized.

>>25787

When was Sub-Saharan Africa a good and stable place to live in?

>That's a subjective definition m8.

No mate, that's objective and your opinion is subjective.

>>25788

>Good

depends on who, in every civilization on earth.

>Stable

The Empire of Benin lasted for 800 years before declining slowly. That's quite stable.

>>25788

objective:

objective

əbˈdʒɛktɪv/Submit

adjective

1.

(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

"historians try to be objective and impartial"

synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, non-partisan, disinterested, non-discriminatory, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, impersonal, unemotional, clinical

"an interviewer must try to be objective"

2.

GRAMMAR

relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns serving as the object of a transitive verb or a preposition.

noun

1.

a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.

"the system has achieved its objective"

synonyms: aim, intention, purpose, target, goal, intent, object, end, end in view, grail, holy grail; More

2.

GRAMMAR

the objective case.

subjective

Subjective is the opposite of objective, which refers to things that are more clear-cut. That Earth has one moon is objective — it's a fact. Whether the moon is pretty or not is subjective — not everyone will agree. Facts are objective, but opinions are subjective.

your opinions are objective to a racist, a colonialist or a bigot. they are subjective to everybody else.

>>25788

Are Mali and Ethiopia sub-Saharan according to your subjective definitions?

Both had pretty advanced civilizations, stacking stones as high as the Europeans and making their own culture and worship in their own way.

>>25783

>the continent they are running sailing away from because how bad is it

Literally the reason why Europeans moved to America in 17th century.

>>25782

That's an etymological fallacy. That a word's etymology is a certain way doesn't prevent a word from having its own, unique definition in contemporary language (although, to an extent, I agree with you that words should preserve in one of its definitions its original, etymological meaning).

>>25792

You could still define objective criteria of what constitutes an advanced civilization. It is completely possible, e.g., metalworking could be a criterion.

>>25789

The bar was raised through the history, what was advanced for them was ancient for us. Times change but people don't.

>>25792

You can stop playing with words and calling me anything. Insulting me only adds fuel to fire and you should know it. Calling them civilized is an insult to civilization.

>>25790

And what has it brought us?

>>25793

Just because they have an ability to stack stones on top of eachother does not mean that they are civilized. Also, you mean that big dildo from Axum?

>>25794

When you compare Europe and Africa then, Europe was still a better place to live in. The Europeans moved in to colonise and to repopulate the continent, to conquer and to subdue while these guys are moving here for free welfare.

>>25796

Of course. I went to the etymological definition because the usual definition is very vague.

On the criteria, many African kingdoms would fit strict criteria's.

>Irrigation system

>art

>currency

>city

>law and courts

>roads

>>25798

Why would they bring something to you? how does it matter? Was your father a professional goal mover?

>>25798

>Just because they have an ability to stack stones on top of eachother

What are metaphors? I meant building large monuments, palaces and public buildings, stuff that you need a civilization to make - blacksmiths, architects, masons, workers and enough people to feed all of the specialists, and somebody who can organize and force this thing to happen.

A tribe doesnt spend decades trying to make a huge cock out of rock for no reason, a civilization does that for cultural reasons. Because civilization and culture.

>>25800

Empire implies civilization. You need to have a civilization if you are able to get enough people to organize, supply and command an army to conquer another people and rule them.

You cant get an empire unless you have a civilization.

>>25801

No, he was an army officer. Oh it matters, Rome brought the first professional soldiers, written language, roads, vast cities, water supplies far beyond the capabilities of any African kingdom.

>>25803

Then Mongols must be one civilized motherfuckers.

>>25802

Source on those buildings. I want to see them.

>>25800

>Europe was still a better place to live in

In what sense?

For first, you have this thing called "winter" in Europe. European cities didn't have sewer systems, so epidemic diseases were pretty common. Infant mortality was up to 50% back then in Europe.

>>25805

Mongols didn't really have an empire that lasted, also they ruled over vast nothing.

>>25805

The funny part is that you could simplys have spend 10 seconds to type "civilization" in google, open the wikipedia page about civilizations, ctrl+f "Africa", and open all the links in new tabs.

Look, I did half the work for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

You can even see that Africa had a decent number of civilizations until the very end of the middle ages.

>>25764

>>25763

European civilisations used urine to die their hair, retard. If we didn't have any hair dye, some people would probably do the same. Women living in Edwardian and Victorian times rubbed fucking lead in their faces, that's pretty damn stupid and they were WHITE.

Also, calling Sub-Saharan Africans apes is ironic as fuck as they're about as pure homo-sapien as any other type of human in the world

Illyrian, you're just embarrassing yourself to be honest. Go back to /pol/ and just don't come back here unless you're actually willing to contribute to a discussion rather than ignoring and ridiculing incredibly reliable and factual evidence.

>>25820

Illyrian is KingOfPol 2.0 what did you even expect?

Can someone give me a non-/pol/ reason why in the Americas humans made all possible draft animals extinct, but this wasn't the case with humans in Eurasia?

>>25818

Actually, they're the purest sapiens in the world since they have significantly less Neanderthal or Denisovan admixture.

>>25749

>posting a papuan on africa thread

this trigger me

>>25860

>Sagrada Familia

>Comparing something that was made post-industrial revolution to ancient civilizations

I don't have pics of people laughing, but the entire /his/ board is laughing at you for being the dumbest retard to ever live.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization Here, your African civilizations, go back to /pol/ now.

>>25862

We were comparing churches, weren't we?

Also,

>muh wiki

>>25863

No, we were debating wether or not Africans were capable of having civilizations, and you've lost the debate for a while now.

Wikipedia is relatively good when you're as ignorant as the average /pol/ poster.

>>25867

Again, you can't comprehend it, nor explain it but you call it something it isn't.

>>25867

I reported for halfchan tier b8 :o)

>>25868

Here, have a reply.

>>25860

There was actually Roman and Renaissance Venetian hair dye that was made from urine.

>>25862

>entire /his/ board is laughing at you…

Don't speak for other people.

>>25864

He was comparing churches though. He should probably pick one coeval to the ugly African one.

>>25871

Source.

>>25869

Good luck with getting me banned m8, because you are going to need it.

>>25871

But the whole debate wasn't about African vs. European architechture. It was to know wether or not Africa has had civilizations. Then, Rhodesia faggot started moving goalposts all the way to architechture.

With the Sagrada familia, he compares a church made in 1882 with a medieval African mosque. The comparaison isn't relevant to the debate in the first place, and it's not relevant because he took something that was made during the industrial revolution, where it's obvious that industrial techniques evolved to the point where gigantic monuments and inventive architechture could be made.

>>25872

I don't care wether or not you're banned, this entire thread is you moving goalpost and backpedaling, it says enought about you.

>>25872

>Source.

https://books.google.com/books?id=9Z6vCGbf66YC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=hair+bleaching+urine+venice

https://books.google.com/books?id=S8bTzilz1BMC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=hair+bleaching+urine+venice

For hair bleaching. Literally the same reason why those dumb Dinka niggers are doing it.

>>25874

I didn't move it, the sole reason you claim they had a civilization was because of their architecture*.

Oh and please remind me why the industrial revolution didn't start in Africa, or the middle east, or in China?

>>25872

http://facts.randomhistory.com/blonde-hair-facts.html

>In Ancient Rome, women tried to dye their hair blonde with pigeon dung. In Renaissance Venice, they used horse urine.

My bad, dung was used in Rome.

However, the source of the source seems a little suspect on further inspection.

>>25874

>shifting of goalposts

Yes, I suppose he did.

>where it's obvious that industrial techniques evolved to the point where gigantic monuments and inventive architechture could be made.

But that's not true at all. You could find gigantic buildings even in ancient/very early Europe, e.g., the Coliseum of Rome.

>>25876

>the sole reason

>sole

>reason

I'll just copypaste a previous comment

In Africa, people had large cities with markets, currency, exchange rates, slaves, gold, jewellery and other goods. There was a sewer system, roads, houses, a ruling class, a king, a set of laws, courts and judges. It was developped to the point that western travelers from western civilization were impressed by it, and wrote texts to say how great African cities were.

>>25879

>There was a sewer system

Actually that's the only thing you mentioned that I don't think existed in Africa.

>>25886

The whole point of the debate wasn't to compare African and European civilization. It all started because you stated that

>>25513

>(…)some people can and can't make civilization.

And you've been proven wrong.

Now, it's true that African civilizations didn't get to the same scale as European and Chinese civilization, and they didn't quite make it to the modern era because their economy has become centered on the exportation of slaves. There are a bunch of debatable reasons for that.

>>25892

Every historian on earth disagrees with your definition of civilization. You're just trying to exploit a vague definition, aka moving goalposts.

>>25896

>vague definition

Somehow the word advanced is not a well established in your head. As I've said, calling them civilized is an insult to the meaning of civilization.

>>25898

Ancient Egypt is a canonical example of an early culture considered a civilization.

"A civilization (US) or civilisation (UK)

is any complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification, symbolic communication forms (typically, writing systems), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment."

This definition seems to be a great consensus, considering that the word has had many definitions since it's first uses, and that "advanced" is subjective.

It's generally opposed to barbarism, "barbarism" being a term that designates cultures that are tribal, hunter-gatherers or lack written language.

More than a dozen African civilizations have existed and fitted the definition I gave you.

>>25904

Wasn't a barbarian a man who was not Roman or Greek?

Also, doesn't the name Africa come from the word Afri which means Carthaginian in the latin?

Also, Egyptians had a great civilization, but I can't see a trace of it in Sub-Saharan Africa.

>>25910

Because you can't click on the links everyone gave you from the start od the thread.

Also, Egypt's development was eased greatly by the Nil, that allowed to build great buildings easily.

>>25912

Culture=/=Civilization

>Also, Egypt's development was eased greatly by the Nil, that allowed to build great buildings easily.

That's lovely.

>>25913

Yeah. The Nil generates fertile land all around it, and allows you to harvest rice at point A, mine rocks at point B, bring everything at point C and make your slaves work at pyramids.

For ancient civilizations, the Nil was a logistical dream. The Niger river, on the other hand, is a nightmare, because it's regular falls make boating impossible.

>muh culture

Seriously, don't even try to argue this anymore.

>>25915

To say that only geological conditions matter would be absurd while seeing what they did in mesoamerica compared to what niggers did in Africa. Also, the Nile wasn't only in Egypt plus wasn't it in the start of the Chinese recorded history the first emperor was a man who tamed the wild rivers of China? Really, you can stop making excuses for the inferiority of niggers. All you liberals do is make excuses for them.

>>25917

Just because I'm not all "Hitler did nothing wrong" doesn't mean I'm a liberal. You, on the other hand, are a retard. You've been given ample evidence that Africa had civilizations, the rest is just your white nationalist unsourced nonsense.

>>25846

Even if he's being an idiot I do find the serious posts interesting. I knew very little about African civilisations beforehand and only because some Black nationalist was explaining that people think Africa was always a shithole because of the post-colonial states that exist there now when in fact there were several empires that were well off.

>>25918

>Just because I'm not all "Hitler did nothing wrong" doesn't mean I'm a liberal. You, on the other hand, are a retard.

Butthurt anon detected

>muh rivers are needed

>what is mesoamerica

> You've been given ample evidence that Africa had civilizations

Yes, but not in Sub-Saharan Africa.

>the rest is just your white nationalist unsourced nonsense.

Point it out and I will give you a medal.

>>25918

for the last time

see

>>25477

>>25921

/pol/ infographics are the lowest form of human expression, and this pic didn't cover the cruxial element of water supply. Too bad, you may need to rely on an actual argument this time

>>25917

>inferiority of niggers

>>25866

>Egyptian obelisks are monuments, African ones are stone dildo's

>>25860

>Blacks are apes

>>25859

Here you're talking shit about an empire you didn't even know existed until yesterday. Gimme my medal.

Plus the entire thread, you've been provided sources that contradicted almost every claim you made, while you were backpedaling, shifting definitions and moving goalposts at your will. You're just ignorant and you can't hide it anymore.

I'm gonna spend a bit of time on a better thread, see ya :o)

>>25920

>not in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Scroll up, retard.

>point out my bullshit for me pl0x

OK, but this is the last time sonny boy:

>>25566

here is where you claimed that the Empire of Benin (in Sub-Saharan Africa by the way) is not a civilization at all, and actually just a drawing of a city.

>>25922

Did the Mesoamerican civilization have a waste amount of water?

>Egyptian obelisks are monuments, African ones are stone dildo's

As a designer, yes.

>Here you're talking shit about an empire you didn't even know existed until yesterday. Gimme my medal.

There is a reason why I didn't know about it, it wasn't even worth my attention.

>Plus the entire thread, you've been provided sources that contradicted almost every claim you made, while you were backpedaling, shifting definitions and moving goalposts at your will.

>That damage control

You haven't proven a single point you made, and I will be around here to give you another butthurt from time to time.

>>25923

No, no, no. I said I'm just seeing a drawing of a shit-tier city. Never claimed that there was no Benin empire.

>>25738

Sauce on those rifles, are they from benin? where can i see more of that?

>>25920

>muh rivers are needed

>what is mesoamerica

A spatially confined water source is needed. You like it this way more? Mesoamerica has cenotes (in Yucatan) and Texcoco lake (in Mexico basin).

>>25876

Okay, are you now saying that the Chinese and Arabs are sub-human now? Jesus Christ, the Chinese had the printing press a thousand years before white civilisations, Arabs were also practising Caesarian long before they got their name

>>25876

>why the industrial revolution didn't start in China?

Actually, it was about to start, with Song China already moving to coal from charcoal, gear and belt drive machinery (odometer, textile industry, mechanical compass, paddleboats), mass production, food surplus… the only thing missing that would spark an industrial revolution was steam engine.

>>25929

Having an ability to walk is not the same as the ability to fly.

>>25933

All from Benin, right?

>>25936

I'm saying that mesoamericans had a harsher living condition.

>>25941

Not sub-human, some are better than others. Also, I know about the printing press, and they had gun powder too, but I didn't see major usage of rifles until WW2, but there were some "experiments" of it before.

>>25945

So it didn't start.

>>25954

Oh also

>harsher living condition

If you want a civilization, this is exactly what you need. If living conditions are not harsh, why develop anything, when you can just lie down in shade and wait for the fruit to grow on its own? Guess why all the first civilisations started in desert areas.

>>25957

>Guess why all the first civilisations started in desert areas.

Areas such as the Nile valley, Mesopotamia, the Indus River valley and the Yellow River valley? Life wasn't easy, but those places aren't deserts, not by any stretch of the imagination.

>>25957

false, if you farm, you become hunter gatherer.

>>25959

agreed

>>25956

ayy lmao

The bar was raised.

>>25859

>Mongols had a culture, and an empire, but not a civilization.

An empire implies civilization.

Culture is an integral part of civilization.

I think you are just under the wrong impression that "civilization" means "being like the romans".

Educate yourself.

>>25966

No, only greatness.

>>25969

>a romanboo that believes in the character assassination propaganda campaigns against unpopular emperors

Like I said, educate yourself.

>ironically, "being like the romans", especially in the imperial period, in fact means in /pol/ terms "degenerate as fuck"; at the same time, they had a terrible immigrant problem going on with the germanics, similar to modern day europe and america with muslims and mexicans; however, /pol/tards still cannot stop sucking either of those's dick

>>25976

That's a shit understanding of /pol/. /pol/ is fine with European immigration to European and Euro-descendant countries. They do not, however, like immigration from countries whose cultures and values are incompatible with Europe, e.g., Muslims to Europe.

Also, I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy of some sort.

>Someone can't like something because any aspect of it isn't ideologically palatable/congruent.

>>25970

It's more fun to believe all that stuff is true, and we'll never know for sure either way.

>>25977

I mean, viewing the Germanic and Roman cultures and values as "compatible" with one another is hardly accurate. They had some similarities sure, but they also had a great deal of difference.

>>25983

People were literally going crazy back in the day over Catholic European immigration because of their supposedly incompatible culture.

>>25983

Yes, at the time, the culture of Germania could be seen as incompatible to Rome, but as it is today, it is not incompatible with other European cultures. It also stems on ethnological lines with /pol/. /pol/ would no doubt say the same thing of the Germanics if they had been Romans because they wish to preserve their people (specifically ethnic Europeans, which would include Europe, America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Rhodesia, the whites of South Africa, and others that I'm forgetting) over others.

>>25985

Was it because of culture or of religious-fueled enmity (i.e., Protestantism vs. Catholicism) I suppose this could be hair-splitting?

>>25990

*Ethnological should probably be ethnic(al)

>>25990

>at the time, the culture of Germania could be seen as incompatible to Rome, but as it is today, it is not incompatible with other European cultures.

At the time, the culture of Muslims can be seen as incompatible to Europe, but as it will be in 2000 years, it will not be incompatible with other Eurasian cultures.

>>25993

You can predict the future?

>>25993

But again, ethnic lines would also be taken into consideration.

Although Islam is a religion, it is found in predominantly Middle Eastern and African nations, and also destroyed classical literature and recently monuments which I will never forgive. With that destruction in mind, they will never be compatible as it is a destructive religion that will impede the Faustian Spirit intrinsic within Europeans.

>>25996

Well, Christianity had a period when it did that a lot as well (reformation and counterreformation, and hispanification of America). It depends a lot what kind of Islam moves in; I wouldn't worry that much if it's Islam as practised by Bosnians or some Sufi orders.

That's not the image of Islam practised by the people actually moving in though, or the rough general stance of Islamic world at the moment (and I don't expect that to change unless something really big happens).

>>25997

>destruction of literature + reformation + counterreformation

What literature was lost? Considering those were periods of war, I would expect those things to happen, and as it was religious in nature, I do expect the Protestants and Catholics to have destroyed each other works under guise of the other's scripture/art/etc being heretical. A little elaboration would be nice.

>That's not the image of Islam practised by the people actually moving in though

That's a no true scotsman. They are still Muslims, and as destruction of literature and architecture has happened before (Islamic Golden Age->Al-Ghazali->decline), it may happen again in the future. It would be easy because of Islam's tendency to make theocracies which be clash with European political systems democracies, republics, etc.

We could go into a whole discussion of the size of the population in relation to the radicals and their opinions on whether something should be permitted or destroyed if something contradicts the Quran, e.g., evolution, but I'm not really interested at the moment.

>>25998

Reformation was iconoclastic (especially Calvin and Zwingli), for similar reasons why Islam is against pictures; they considered depictions to be idolatry, that people are worshiping pictures and objects instead of God. Calvin was even against secular art, including heraldry.

The Catholic Church answered with the Tridentine Council. Text is here http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html see the section ON THE INVOCATION, VENERATION, AND RELICS, OF SAlNTS, AND ON SACRED IMAGES. Catholic Church for example banned nudity in depictions, which meant that all paintings with nudity (for example majority of Sistine Chapel) were painted over by decree.

Actually, the main reason why art style abruptly changed from Renaissance to Baroque was exactly because most of old art would no longer be allowed.

I must admit I don't know whether there have been any burnings of paintings or if they just painted over them when required to comply with new rules.

>>26000

Bonfire of the Vanities

>>25464

As a rule of thumb dont listen to /pol/.

>>25980

If you have no proof that X happened, and X doesnt make much sense, than X probably didnt happen.

>>26011

Nice.

Here /his/, have a laugh about our African "equals".

>>26013

Well he said that their societies value the group rather than the individual so what is actually your point?

>>26008

but you're ethnically Arab living in Bosnia, isn't that self-contradictory?

>>26013

Also, some dogs can recognize that they are in the mirror.

>>26014

By the way, wouldn't the Chinese children be the same as the ones from Niggerland with that in mind? No

>>25996

A religion can cross ethnic lines easily, and be a different creature altogether. There are plenty of Bosnian, Tartar, and Sino-Indochinese Muslims in the world.

>also destroyed classical literature

How so?

>and recently monuments which I will never forgive

You mean Jihadists. The same monuments survived all this time in Muslim hands, and it seems selective to attribute a destruction event to Islam without also saying the opposite.

>>25998

>That's a no true scotsman. They are still Muslims, and as destruction of literature and architecture has happened before (Islamic Golden Age->Al-Ghazali->decline), it may happen again in the future.

That's just a No True Scotsman taken to the reverse extreme. And the decline of the golden age had much more to do with factors far beyond the control of Medieval Muslims than it did Al Ghazali.

>Islam's tendency to make theocracies

What tendency? There have been far more monarchies, empires, and tribal patriarchies than there have been theocracies in the history of the Middle East.

>>26038

DA. It seems to my the biggest problem with Islam is that the Wahabis are the Muslims with the money. It would be as if snake handling Pentecosts were by far the richest Christian sect.

>>26017

>Nice meme.

Saying that doesn't mean that it's not completely true and you're a massive hypocrite. How does it feel to be an unwanted immigrant in your own country which hilariously contradicts your own beliefs?

>>26018

Wait, now you're saying the Chinese aren't sub-human? I thought you said Arabs (and you are one) and Chinese were also sub-human in this post >>25876 because they didn't start an industrial revolution.

>>26073

>Additionally, they have an aversion to dogs which is part of European culture:

What, so because they avoid keeping them as house pets, that puts them at odds with European culture? Really? Is any household that doesn't have a dog in it ostracized in Europe or something?

>gatesofvienna

Dude, come on. Really?

>The real end of the Classical Age, as increasing numbers of historians are beginning to understand, occurred not in the fifth century, but during the seventh — immediately after the arrival of Islam on the world stage

Bullshit. Absolutely no one subscribes to the Pirenne theory after it's been dissected for decades. What follows is not only a half-hearted regurgitation of Henri's original idea, but a bastardization of it, turning Henri's idea of the birth of modern Europe into the fall of civilization. Wickham's recent work did plenty to put to rest the idea that the coming of Islam was an end to Classical culture - the Arabs adopted more institutions and Classical law than any of the three major successors to Rome. The idea of an economic blockade also falls flat on its ass - where did the Papacy get all its Arabic-inscribed papyrus and paper from? Where did France get all its new crops? Why did the Byzantines try and pass laws banning Italian trade with North Africa if no such trade was supposedly happening?

>642 AD Burning of the Great Library of Alexandria.

An event recorded 400 years after the fact following the same literary formula as other stories of the Caliphs burning Khwarezmian libraries, in a source that also talks about the Caliphs misadventures with his Coptic archbishop bestie as they explore the ruins of the pyramids to uncover its spooky mysteries, and about which no non-Arab source in the 7th or 8th century, of which we have several including a detailed account of the conquest of Egypt, bothers mentioning, and of a place not even mentioned ever again after the 5th century (if it was the famous library being mentioned and not just a city records collection)?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm#Demolition_of_Hindu_temples

>recently

And how terrible that India has no more Hindus and beautiful Hindu temples dating back thousands of years. That Islam sure did wipe them out methodically, and totally didn't just engage in the kind of rapine and pillage that every conquering force indulged in. Such a non-European thing to do, too: iconoclasm.

>>26074

>I have not excluded Muslims that are peaceful from being Muslims because they are not violent like jihadists and other Muslims.

Which is why I called it the opposite sort of fallacy, That anon didn't say they weren't Muslims, to which you insinuated that being Muslim means they have inevitable behavior. It's redefining the description to fit the argument, rather than the generalization.

>I'm not talking about pre-Islam Middle East. I'm talking about Islamic Middle East. Read again:

What did you think I was talking about? The Islamic Middle East's history is absolutely dominated by a series of tribal confederations and monarchies. Just look at your own source:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#Islamic_states_or_Islamic_theocracies

Every single example is from the 20th century. This is supposed to be a trend?

>ISLAM"S tendency to make theocracies

Islam is a religion, and not capable of making anything any more than capitalism or Hinduism.

>Caliphate

The Caliphs in actual history - not in thought exercises of 10th century jurists - were no more theocratic rulers than the Byzantine Emperor, and the Caliphate no more a theocracy than the ERE (or any King-by-divine-right from Spain to China). Second, the Islamic world marginalized the very idea of the Caliph for over 800 years, more than half the entire timeline of Islamic history. Some tendency.

>>26073

If you're so obsessed with dogs switch to the Maliki.

And the dog issue is not even certain, you just cherry picked that hadith.

>"They will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous.

It is interesting you guys claim muslims stole byzantine writings and such things like that, even though they were contradict the Koran

>> One of the most famous acts of the prophet Muhammad was to destroy a pagan Arabic idols housed at the Kaaba in Mecca in 630

Is that why ancient city petra monuments,pyramids was not teared down by muslims?

>>26078

>If you're so obsessed with dogs switch to the Maliki.

You’re missing the point. It's that their culture would either destroy Europe’s or pervert it.

>switch to the Maliki

I don’t want Islam at all. So there’s no need to switch to anything. I reject it.

>byzantine writings and such things like that, even though they were contradict the Koran

Are Byzantines not a people of the book? That's from the words of a Muslim, not me. He said they would be superfluous. I did not. The fact that not everything was destroyed is, IMO, a blessing.

>Is that why ancient city petra monuments,pyramids was not teared down by muslims?

Before we get into a discussion on that. Did Muslims have the capability to do so at the time?

>you just cherry picked that hadith.

It matters not whether it was cherry-picked or not as some Muslims still embrace it.

>>26079

>I don't like the source; therefore, it's invalid

>bare naked islam

Your sources are stormfag blogs. They are invalid.

>>26081

>wikipedia is a stormfront blog

>still dismisses the content because of the source

Kek.

>>26079

>Dude, come on. Really?

Yes really. Because you're dumping from a known politically biased blog with little to no regard for academic history as long as they can advance their own agenda. That you saw nothing wrong with anything they've posted is raising serious red flags here - do you have any background at all in proper Middle Eastern studies, or is it all from sites like these?

>So you're fine with the destruction of architecture and monuments so long as there is still more? Fuck off, you piece of shit

1) Fuck you

2) Don't put words in my mouth. You talked about some penchant for Muslims to destroy historical sites. That's patently false for two reasons: countless Christian, Jewish, and Hindu shrines and much older pagan ruins have survived into the modern age, and the rare moments of an army going on a rampage were just that. Rare. Moments.

>If you do not think that other religious monuments and structures would not be torn down under Islamic rule, then you're a fool. Muhammad did that to the pagan idols in Mecca. I’m also not condoning it from anyone, but the point still stands that the religion cultivates this mentality.

And yet after a thousand years of Muslim rule in India, and some centuries in Indonesia, countless Hindu monuments and structures not only survived but flourished. If the religion cultivates this mentality, then it does a poor job of getting this message across for over a thousand years. And how is it any different from European anti-pagan attitudes? Remind me how many European pagan shrines and groves survived to this day? There's nothing special about it, and it even has a considerably better record in not wiping out minority and ancient religious structures until the 20th century. I understand your anger at ISIS and the Taliban, but if you're trying to extrapolate their behavior to the general behavior of historical Muslim populations, you're flat wrong. In a single year ISIS depopulated entire regions of Christians and Yazidi communities, communities that had been existing there under numerous caliphs and sultans since the very dawn of Islam.

>So what you're saying is: it's invalid because it's 400 to 500 years after the event? Aren’t there events that transpired that are only written about centuries afterwards?

Yes there are. They're usually called myths.

>Under his biography page, Baghdad is stated to have been a scholar of classical literature and as such,

Two things: I thought Islam destroyed Classical literature? Second, a love of classical literature is exactly the sort of reason someone like Baghdadi would record a legend like this. You may not be aware of this, but Arabic literature is highly moralizing using stories and anecdotes to drop wisdom, in this case: don't burn books. In the same way Voltaire wrote plays about past events that actually satirized current ones in his time, 'adab literature used oral traditions to make a point about some contemporary issue - such as the actual burning of books in the 13th century by Mongols and Almohads. In the same way, the Iranian example was to shit on near contemporary events using historical characters cast into archetypes (Umar being Mr 2serious NoFunAllowed as always).

>So people under the influence of religious zeal do not create artwork?

Yes, people do. Christianity might have inspired Michelangelo, but Christianity did not paint 'The Creation of Adam'. Michelangelo did.

>Yes, but religion/ideas/etc inspired people to do things.

People do a lot of things. But in the end it's always people, who are fully capable (and regularly willing) to do things contravening what we assume as normative religion.

>So Muslims haven’t destroyed things because of their religion, interpretation or otherwise?

Wrong question. Of course some Muslims did. That does not mean it's a quality unique to them as Muslims, or even as people. Otherwise you're reasoning the same way some asshole might about you and your potential to genocide Jews and Native Americans.

Yes, people are assholes. Muslims are people, too, and not some special kind of asshole we haven't seen before.

>You could try not ignoring the rest of it.

The rest of nothing. The only time it ever mentions a theocracy that's not a state founded after 1920 is the theoretical state that Muhammad led from Medina.

>It's still a theocracy

So was the ERE and several European states leading up to the Peace of Westphalia. Hell, there were likely more theocratic states in the HRE than there ever were in the history of the Islamic Middle East. The Caliphate was not a government by religion, it was an imperium. The powers of religious decision making wasn't even in the hands of the caliph but in independent clerics. And all of the Caliph's governors were military generals and noblemen, not priests.

>>26082

Wikipedia has its own problems. We're talking about the blogs. They don't stand up to a historian's scrutiny, they only exist to appeal to your biases. And that's fine. Just don't expect to impress anyone with any historical training.

>>26074

>do you know this is Illyrian

Yes I do

>do you know for a fact he is Arab

Yes I do

>>26080

ISIS is less than 0.0002% of the whole Muslim population in the world so to say that all Muslims are evil bastards is pretty silly to be honest, mate.

Also, ISIS had a legitimate reason to claim Jihad, they weren't doing it for the shits and giggles, and it all started because of the U.S's illegal wars…so who's really to blame for Muslim aggression?

>>25811

That was built by the French in 1907…

>>25993

You can't assimilate them ethnically though. All you end up with is either aliens or mongrels. I doubt you'd be able to tell a second or third-generation Germanic living in Rome apart from hundredth-generation Romans though.

>>26086

Responsibility ≠ justification. If you start beating a man and he responds with violence, he may be justified, but it doesn't make you responsible. Trying to paint the US as somehow responsible because of its wars in the region is disingenuous and frankly sick for excusing the actions of a different group; they have agency, and they're responsible for their own doings.

Whether or not they're justified because of US/UN/NATO wars is a different argument, and don't try to conflate the two.

>>26086

And the majority of muslims support them outright or don't mind them.

>>26087

Renovated with french money in 1907*.

Been there for several hundred years.

>>26089

Well the US are responsible because they placed the Shia-controlled puppet government in power and supported, and continue to support, the executions of thousands of innocent Sunni Muslims. This is exactly why the US is directly responsible, you can't blame people fighting their oppressors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGO3XY74arc

>>26090

Because they were claiming Jihad because it seemed as if they were actually facing genocide by Shia forces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGO3XY74arc

This is why they are supported and I don't actually understand why people hate ISIS but then support Kurds and Shia groups when they're just as bad as them. There's no "good" or "bad" in the Middle East now, only the strong and the weak, and if ISIS are growing then so be it.

>>26080

>Are Byzantines not a people of the book?

Yes they are

And it's still contradict the Kuran, your argument is invalid.

>Did Muslims have the capability to do so at the time?

Yes they had I think.

>It matters not whether it was cherry-picked or not as some Muslims still embrace it.

>some Muslims

every region,every religion,every sect, has a group that thinks different.

>>26090

>And the majority of muslims support them

Sure thats why they have 1.6 billion people in their armies right?

>don't mind them

sure,people don't mind IS who wants to blow up kaaba because IS thinks muslims worship it, or Talibans muslims kidnapping. Totaly don't mind yeah

>>26092

>Shia controlled puppet government

>Iraq is majority Shia

No way, the US set up a government that appealed to the greatest section of society? What lack of perception, that a country half the way around the fucking world does not understand the intricacies of a nation whose borders make about as much cultural sense as a postcolonial african state!

>US is directly responsible

>placed the Shia controlled puppet government in power

Your previous statement contradicts your later one. the US helped start up a government, they didnt order it to execute Sunnis.

Furthermore, isnt there evidence to support the idea that IS is not in fact justified in their specific uprising, as they were not originally the Iraqi Sunnis, but rather an Al Qaeda splinter group. co-opting someone else's justified struggle does not automatically make your own justified, after all. this was the case for numerous instances, not the least of which was the Spanish American War.

also,

>There's no "good" or "bad" in the Middle East

same could be said of practically anywhere on the face of the earth, the Middle East is no grey waste of morality any more than Europe or Africa

>>26102

>No way, the US set up a government that appealed to the greatest section of society?

More like the US set up a government that gave proportional distribution of a federated system in theory, but put in who they thought to be a Yes-man that buddied up with our government to get himself the biggest slice of pie as the head of state. He then proceeded to undo any sort of fairness we had planned with head-spinning cronyism in both government and military positions. And when AQI started to take shape, absorbing all the people the US jettisoned as Baathists and the new Shia government expelled for their own goals, Maliki found his Iraqi army to be as big a joke as Stalin's Red Army right after his purges on the eve of Barbarossa. So he enlisted militia. Shia militia. Who retaliated against AQ and Sunni tribes with a near genocidal death campaign that further alienated the Sunni North/West.

We're pretty good at understanding the intricacies of a nation, really. What we suck shit at is vetting and understanding personal connections and motivations of the people we try to control by putting them into systems that should work in theory. It's a cultural thing for us as a country that live and die under mostly functional institutions, federalism, and social contracts. It's also why amateur armchair experts blame nebulous things like religion (Islam) or Arab culture and civics, for lack of any understanding of tribal politics, society, and personal and social pressures on the Iraqi individual.

>Furthermore, isnt there evidence to support the idea that IS is not in fact justified in their specific uprising, as they were not originally the Iraqi Sunnis, but rather an Al Qaeda splinter group. co-opting someone else's justified struggle does not automatically make your own justified, after all. this was the case for numerous instances, not the least of which was the Spanish American War.

Correct. What ISIS is to the Sunni Iraqis is an organization with the coherent leadership, funding, and material resources to elevate a Sunni coalition from a rag tag militia-fest to a powerhouse able to rival the government in Baghdad. ISIS is really just a fraction of this Sunni rebellion, and is mostly present on the front lines and in a handful of cities while local Sunni tribes and ex-Baathist/Iraqi Army rebels hold the rest. They're not friends, and really the only reason they haven't already taken Baghdad is because everyone expects a major free for all as soon as the capital falls between these Sunni groups.

>>26008

>>26009

>admitting your a /pol/ack

aaaaand your argument is considered null.

>>26083

Here’s a question: Is the veracity of a statement dependent on its origin?

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

>2)

You trivialized the destruction of Hindu temples. How else am I to take this?

>countless Christian, Jewish, and Hindu shrines and much older pagan ruins have survived into the modern age

As I've said, Christian and Jewish places of worship would be preserved as they are people of the book. As for the Hindu and pagan ruins, information would be appreciated.

>Yes there are. They're usually called myths.

Let me rephrase it slightly: Are there not events/people/etc that/who actually happened/lived and that/who were not documented until a long time after the fact?

>Two things: I thought Islam destroyed Classical literature?

I didn't say they destroyed all of it. They destroyed some of it. I will say that what I had said could have been more luculent. How else would we have obtained the classical literature that we had today if it were not for the Islamic Golden Age?

>Second, a love of classical literature is exactly the sort of reason someone like Baghdadi would record a legend like this.

What are you getting at?

>Arab literature and moralizing

Question: Is there any parable about burning books being bad/condemnable in Arab/Islamic/etc oral tradition (at the time)?

> if you're trying to extrapolate their [ISIS’] behavior to the general behavior of historical Muslim populations, you're flat wrong.

No, I'm not; see the dog-killings in bare naked Islam, or if you or f02410 get butthurt about that source, you can check these:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2480/spain-dog-poisoning

http://www.chicagonow.com/steve-dales-pet-world/2015/03/muslims-object-to-dogs/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVoPrkX8Y5o

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5386/british-girls-raped-oxford

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/14/muslim-gangs-continue-to-terrorize-55-neighborhoods-police-powerless/

>People do a lot of things…

Yes, but without the religion, they would not have the motivation to do CERTAIN things and to create CERTAIN things. I'll take your example: Without Christianity, Michelangelo would not have painted the Creation of Adam as that is a Biblical story.

>People are assholes cliché

Oh, is that why crime rates have been going up in relation to immigration in Europe? This might not be talking solely of Muslims, but they are a primary group of immigrants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_libraries#Human_action

In the years 651, 976, 1029, and 1151, libraries were sacked by Muslims. The books and the libraries themselves were destroyed under orders in three of them. Three (651, 976, 1029) of those three were done for the sake of Islam; the other one (1151) has no mention of whether it was motivated by Islam. However, the destruction of the Library of Alexandria is disputed. So I’ll concede that, sort of.

>your potential to genocide Jews and Native Americans.

Do you think I give a shit? And at least we would be left alone out of fear.

>So was the ERE and several European states leading up to the Peace of Westphalia. Hell, there were likely more theocratic states in the HRE than there ever were in the history of the Islamic Middle East.

In what ways?

>The Caliphate was not a government by religion, it was an imperium.

A caliph is still a political and religious leader, as it was the successor to the prophet Muhammad. Kings weren’t. The representative of Christ was the Pope, who, if I remember correctly, had to give consent to a king.

>>26108

You understand the situation far better than I, sir, and for that I salute you. Admittedly though, the concept of trying to rebuild an entire nation, with a reshaped government and all, seems to me the most idiotic Sisyphean task imaginable, Its almost like one would need to break up these countries like British India, but that in itself holds irredentism problems as well as problems of resources and relative power.

but i must add,

>What we suck shit at is vetting and understanding personal connections and motivations of the people

would that not be the lack of understanding of the intricacies of a nation as well? I mean, if we cant understand the forces that drive the people and the context of their living environment, half or at least a third of the info we would need to make a beneficial governing structure is missing.

>>26120

>without Christianity, Michelangelo would not have painted the Creation of Adam

well no shit he wouldnt have, but that example isnt one of religion being a motivator. what would have motivated him would be artistic expression and the pope's coin purse, if anything.

I wont say religion cant lead people to certain decisions, but RARELY is it the only factor in one's decision making.

also, while I'm thinking about it,

>In what ways?

look up the Archbishopric of Trier. it was an elector state of the HRE and was ruled by, well, an archbishop, a pretty clear sign of theocratic government. Trier was only one of several other states within the HRE that ran on theocratic regimes, and thats completely ignoring the secular power of the Papal state over central Italy.

by contrast we have the Islamic Middle east, which functionally were never (to my knowledge) under the rule of an imam. ruling out the Caliph, as, like anon said, his power was more secular than spiritual, sultans, emirs, and sheikhs dominate the political landscape of the premodern islamic world. its would be something along the lines of the English monarchy's relationship with the Anglican church

>>26122

Well if you want to blame anything then blame the Ottoman Empire and then colonization by Britain and France, as well as the Jewish involvement. The Middle Eastern countries are developing, and their people are developing, so therefore the majority of Muslims have to develop with it.

>>26122

I don't actually see the point in arguing whether black, Asians, Jews, Muslims, Christians and whatever the fuck, are dumber than white males. Like honestly, what is the point, nothing would change even if it was true and it's never going to be proven true. Just get off /pol/ and do something else with your life because living out of hate is no life.

>>26120

>Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Interpretation is highly dependent upon the interpreter.

>You trivialized the destruction of Hindu temples. How else am I to take this?

I did no such thing. I trivialized nothing but an absurdity: that historical Muslim powers were more inclined to iconoclasm by nature than was normal.

>As I've said, Christian and Jewish places of worship would be preserved as they are people of the book. As for the Hindu and pagan ruins, information would be appreciated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindu_temples_in_India

>Let me rephrase it slightly: Are there not events/people/etc that/who actually happened/lived and that/who were not documented until a long time after the fact?

Yes. Usually in legendary terms i.e. King Arthur. What makes this case even more concrete is that Umar is a pretty well known person. There's countless hadith and sira literature concerning him, and he turns up in several non-Muslim sources. And yet not one of them has ever mentioned him burning the LIbrary of Alexandria. And these are the kinds of sources that would literally take the time to describe his favorite kind of food. You're also arguing against the grain here: analogy is a well studied element of Arabic literature which regularly applies contemporary issues in classical terms. For the nearest comparison to European culture, see how European art regularly depicted Medieval and Renaissance figures performing Biblical or ancient history scenes i.e. the Israelites dressed as Medieval knights driving out the Canaanites, or Cesare Borgia becoming the face of Jesus Christ.

>I didn't say they destroyed all of it.

You said >destroyed classical literature

If you're now prefacing this with a qualifier, how does this make Islam any different than Europe's own history with haphazard treatment of the Classics?

>What are you getting at?

Baghdadi, like many Arab writers, wrote parables and analogies to teach moral lessons. Like a less furry version of Aesop's fables using personal anecdotes real, imagined, or with a hint of 'truthiness'. Baghdadi wanted to make a point about the wisdom of ancient literature versus blind fundamentalism.

>Question: Is there any parable about burning books being bad/condemnable in Arab/Islamic/etc oral tradition (at the time)?

None. Which is why you're reading its first instance in Baghdadi some 400 years after Umar's reign.

>No, I'm not; see the dog-killings in bare naked Islam, or if you or f02410 get butthurt about that source, you can check these:

None of these are related to ISIS. As I've mentioned here >>26108, Western observers with little understanding of either their immigrants or the Middle East fall back on vagueries often. Both immigrant violence and ISIS violence are acts of violence, but they are not the same kind of behavior any more than African bush wars are the same as African American ghetto violence. But this is not /pol/, and I'd rather we discuss historical subjects.

>Yes, but without the religion, they would not have the motivation to do CERTAIN things

Unknowable alt history. Michelangelo was an impeccable artist because of his talent. He is simply famous for the work his patrons wanted him to do. Western art had plenty of amazing things happening once religious art stopped being the most popular. Without Christianity, Michelangelo would have still been a superb artist. Similarly, without Islam, you'd still have gangsters and street thugs performing acts of violence.

>Oh, is that why crime rates have been going up in relation to immigration in Europe?

Yes. Not a /his/ topic however.

>In the years 651, 976, 1029, and 1151, libraries were sacked by Muslims

As the wiki says for 651, [citation needed]. You'll notice the story goes the exact same way as it does for Alexandria - i.e. a meme recorded centuries after the fact for contemporary reasons.

Now notice the other dates (1151 does not count, it was one empire sacking the capital of a rival). See how they all took place some 400 years after the initial Arab Conquest? And remember how I said writers like Baghdadi first started writing about the folly of book burning to describe contemporary events?

And I don't see how this helps the initial claim that Islam was the reason. The religion has a 1400 year old history in this region, and there are only two recorded instances on this list with a definite religious cause.

>In what ways?

Divine right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

>the Emperor as a representative or messenger of Christ, … "One God, one empire, one religion".[176]

>A caliph is still a political and religious leader, as it was the successor to the prophet Muhammad. Kings weren’t.

Kings certainly were. It's literally where the phrase "by the Grace of God" comes from in European monarchy.

>>26121

>would that not be the lack of understanding of the intricacies of a nation as well?

In a way, yes. We don't see it that way as our paradigms involve institutions and systems, and we rarely ever incorporate fields like psychology and sociology when studying them. For some reason we only do this for ourselves.

>Now two of them are outside of their control, fair enough. But were those two permanent?

Pretty much. The centers of the Golden Age were Spain and Khwarezm. Catholic Spain conquered the former, and the Mongols burned the latter to the ground. Imagine what would have happened to the Renaissance and Enlightenment if, I don't know, Aztecs invaded and burned down Essex, the Rhineland, and Northern Italy and permanently turned these places into Aztec colonies shaped by Aztec political and material culture.

Why do you think religious conservatives started rising up in the Middle East at this time? Because they continually blamed godlessness as the reason why the Muslim world was being conquered from without.

>Why have they not contributed to science as they did in Golden Age?

Because up until the arrival of European powers, the whole Middle East was under the control of Mongol-Turkic dictators for over 800 years. How was Russia under the Tartar yoke?

>by 885, a half century after al-Mamun’s death, it even became a crime to copy books of philosophy.

[citation needed]

Also patently false. Many of the greatest philosophers of the Islamic world studied in the 10th century. How did Al-Ghazali even have anyone to complain about in the 12th century if copying philosophy was banned in the 9th?

The Muslim world is in a shitty place today. You don't need a stormfront blog to tell you this. You do however need something better to tell you why, and especially how it got there.

>>26122

>http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-away-from-science

A caveat: My comments on this article are only in regards to certain small details about the subject of decline in the Arab world. The article itself is very good, and simply has the the same kind of generalizations and lingering old theories presented as probable fact that all populist history articles tend to have.

Also, there is nothing stormfront about The New Atlantis. This time at least you did well not copy-pasting questionable content from BNI or GatesofVienna. Continue the trend and you'll be better off for it.

>>26135

>can't even spell and use punctuation correctly in a short fucking shitpost, which, if it had been longer, I may have excused, but it wasn't.

>implying you even had an argument to refute

Try harder, faggot.

As for the others who have responded to me fairly, I'll get them to some time later, and I'll check into that Triers thing.

>>26138

>>26140

Also, the Middle Ages was full of conflict between the Pope and various European princes over who had the right to rule the church in each jurisdiction. Centuries of civil war erupted in the HRE over this, and England split off entirely to form the Anglican Church over the matter.

By the way, the English crown is also the head of the Anglican Church, and there might just be about as many priests in British Parliament as there are clerics in the Iranian parliament these days.

>>26143

No, you fuck off. So far all you've contributed nothing to this discussion other than saying that people from /pol/ have no valid opinions, and attempting to troll >>26138

.

Okay, great. Now, if you have nothing else to add then fuck off.

I'm non-white and I don't even care about /pol/, but you morons are as idiotic as the stormfags that you claim to hate much.

The storm kikery ITT is the demonization of the Dark Ages all over again.

All what was posted under the Rhodesian flag was basically the same load of crap Humanist wrote about the Dark Ages:

>X were ignorant, primitive, violent, had low tech, X's philosophical development was on hold and X also smelled like shit until Y came and has enlightened them.

Same load of crap.

>>26141

Yeah, but British priests don't believe in God, they just follow official government policy. That's how the Church of England has worked since they government took it over. When the government became atheist, so did the church.

Clerics do run the Iranian state.

>>26156

Give it time, like Britain. The first Malis had 50% of seats occupied by clerics. Today it's 14%.

>>26145

>No, you fuck off. So far all you've contributed nothing to this discussion other than saying that people from /pol/ have no valid opinions, and attempting to troll >>26138

>implying saying people from /pol/ are retarded "muh master white rase" isn't a necessary thing to point out

>I'm non-white and I don't even care about /pol/

I doubt this, due to this being an anonymous network and all.

>>26181

>>implying saying people from /pol/ are retarded "muh master white rase" isn't a necessary thing to point out

If you're so sure of this statement then there's no need to point it out, is there?

>>I doubt this, due to this being an anonymous network and all.

Pilipino ako pare. Kaya i-Google Translate mo ito: Isa kang baklang gago.

Scott Locklin had written about Diamond's tome some time ago. It's worth reading:

>I read "Guns, Germs and Steel" some years ago, and provided many "aha" moments. Diamond's explanations are extremely compelling, even to someone with more than a passing education in history, geography and historiography. Of course, they are all a "just so" story, rather than an accurate representation of how things turned out. Geography *of course* is important in the historical development of different nations and civilizations. Is geography (along with associated factors of agricultural technology, domesticated animals and his pained explanation about why Europeans were better with guns than the Chinese who invented them) the only factor in why Western Civilization grew to dominate others? Of course it isn't. Europe had no unique access to these things: Asian civilizations had arguably superior such advantages.

>Victor Davis Hanson makes a similar "one factor" argument in his book "Carnage and Culture." Hanson's argument is that Westerners are simply better at war than other civilizations, because most Westerners were influenced by the Ancient Greeks, who developed a superior method of combat and of developing innovations than other nations did. Is Hanson's theory 100% the One True Answer? No, the rise of Japan and the invincibility of Mongol raiders rather puts his theory to fault, but it's at least as important as geography. There are all kinds of "one factor" arguments possible, all of which could make for as convincing a book as this one.

>Victorian historians thought it was the vigor of "Nordic" civilizations which made Western world domination inevitable: also convincing if that was the only book you had read on that particular day, and also ultimately deeply silly (basically, this means the West dominates because it is dominant). Other Victorian historians made out human history to be the product of great battles, all of which had a huge element of random chance.

>Spengler also famously thought of civilizations as "cultural organisms" which eventually get old, become frail and die, just like any other organism whose telemeres have gotten shorter. I would imagine, like in, say, finance, the actual explanation for history is kind of complicated. I bet the Greek way of war has something to do with it, along with geography, culture, the Catholic Church, language and a whole lot of random chance. It's nice to think we know exactly why something happened, but a lot of what happens in the world, especially the world of human beings, is just plain random noise. Putting one factor explanations on history as Diamond does is not particularly helpful.

>There is also the matter of historical perspective. Diamond writes as if everything leading up to the present time of European world cultural domination were some kind of historical inevitability, and that *of course* -thus it will always be. This is the sheerest nonsense. At various times in human history, "Western Civilization" consisted of illiterate barbarians living in mud huts. In very recent times in human history (like, say, the 1930s), it kind of looked like that's where the West was heading again. Other civilizations culturally and physically eclipsed or dominated the West through history: the Japanese, the Chinese, the Islamic civilizations, Egyptian, Assyrian, Mongolian, Persian or Russian (if you count them as different, which I do) civilizations made Western civilization irrelevant through vast swathes of human history. Such civilizations may again eclipse Western civilization. Just to take one example, the Zoroastrian Persian civilization lasted longer than Rome, covered more territory and was in many ways more advanced: they even generally beat the Romans in warfare in the middle east.

>Why should I privilege the Romans over the Persians, just because some nations who were rather vaguely influenced by Rome now dominate the nations who were influenced by the Persians? I privilege them because they are my cultural ancestors, though in 1000 years, the poetry of Rumi may be more important than that of Martial.

>Finally, there are the matters of Diamond's historical veracity and bigotry. To address the second thing first, he seems to take a sort of perverse glee in making racial pronouncements to the detriment of "Western" people. According to Diamond, Western people are dirty, and have developed special immune systems; something I find hard to believe, and doubt is backed up by anything resembling statistical fact. Why wouldn't east Asians have developed superior immune systems? They lived in cities longer than the ancestors of most Westerners. Also, according to Diamond, he can tell that the average New Guinean is "on the average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive and more interested in things and people than the average European or American. (page 20, along with a tortured explanation of why Diamond's vacation perceptions are supposed to be superior to a century of psychometric research)" This is the sort of casual bigotry that used to inform Nordicist history about the dominance of the West, except somehow it becomes politically correct when pointed at Western people in modern times.

>>26210

>If you're so sure of this statement then there's no need to point it out, is there?

Given how many people on this board are from /pol/ it is a given that it must be constantly reminded that they're all fucking retarded

>Pilipino ako pare. Kaya i-Google Translate mo ito: Isa kang baklang gago.

Could have gotten that through google nigger though your now more likely to be Filipino or just a white trying super hard

>>26240

>>Given how many people on this board are from /pol/ it is a given that it must be constantly reminded that they're all fucking retarded

People can make their own decisions without any help from you.

>>or just a white trying super hard

>>Only white people browse 8chan and /pol/. Getaloadofthisfaggot.jpg

>>26247

>People can make their own decisions without any help from you.

It's not about giving other people Opinions its called telling people they're retarded as shit for posting in a /pol/ infested garbage heap

>>>Only white people browse 8chan and /pol/. Getaloadofthisfaggot.jpg

Never said that, but even so if your not a fucking Aryan wannabe you must either be really fucking edgy or just going their out of habit, seriously /pol/ is terrible.

>>26249

>>26247

>inb4 hypocrite

>>26249

>>It's not about giving other people Opinions its called telling people they're retarded as shit for posting in a /pol/ infested garbage heap

You posted on this /pol/ infested garbage heap, ergo you're just as retarded as the rest of us.

I'm neutral with regards to /pol/ but it's a good place to get trendy news from all over the world.

If you think it's shit, that's fine. My point is, don't shove your opinions where they are not needed.

I've talked to stormfags and I've talked to people like you. I'm neutral to both sides. It's not my fight. I come here for the historical conversations, and the guy with the Rhodesian flag made some good points even if I don't agree with all of them.

You on the other hand, can't stop talking about

>>muh evil racist stormfags.

>>26127

>>26140

Those electorate states definitely theocratic, but could the HRE be considered as such on whole? No argument about the Papacy, it was theocratic, the Byzantine Empire as well.

>>26128

Yes, the Ottomans did eventually conquer them, but did the Ottomans not imitate European culture? Why did they not also encourage scientific and mathematical learning in the Middle East as well?

>The Middle Eastern countries are developing, and their people are developing, so therefore the majority of Muslims have to develop with it.

As opposed to when they weren’t? And they don’t have to develop with it; they could refuse to and stagnate.

>>26130

>Interpretation is highly dependent upon the interpreter.

No, I want you to answer the question. Fuck, I’ll rewrite for you:

Do you agree or disagree: The veracity of information detailing the existence of a person or event depends on the source of that information.

>I did no such thing. I trivialized nothing but an absurdity: that historical Muslim powers were more inclined to iconoclasm by nature than was normal.

Read your sentence again. It’s sarcastic treatment came off as trivializing:

>And how terrible that India has no more Hindus and beautiful Hindu temples dating back thousands of years.

>None of these are related to ISIS.

Who said this was just about ISIS? This whole discussion started from my saying European culture and Islam are incompatible and mutated after I used destruction fueled by Islam as substantiating evidence.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindu_temples_in_India

I see you, and I raise you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Temples:_What_Happened_to_Them

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/temple_aurangzeb.html

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/islamic_destruction_of_hindu_temples.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_non-Muslim_places_of_worship_into_mosques

inb4 2 are blogs.

Now, maybe, that’s why Hindu temples survived. They were converted into mosques. That reminds me of the Hagia Sophia as well. They took it over and converted it into mosque. Architecture may have been preserved/survived due to that, although I think it unwise to assume all temples had survived for this reason.

>If you're now prefacing this with a qualifier, how does this make Islam any different than Europe's own history with haphazard treatment of the Classics?

I originally didn’t think I needed a qualifier. The statement is similar to these sentences:

>He killed men.

>People burned books.

Neither of these sentences mean that the subjects killed/burned all men/all books. It’s a noun used generally.

Could you please provide evidence of what Europe did to those Classics and which ones?

>>26267

>>26130

cont.

>None. Which is why you're reading its first instance in Baghdadi some 400 years after Umar's reign.

Was Baghdadi’s a parable or just a report?

>Unknowable alt history.

No, it’s not. Without Christianity, he would not have painted the Creation of Adam. I need one to get the other. No Christianity. No Creation of Adam.

>for contemporary reasons.

How do you know what it was for? Do you know other people’s motivations?

>And remember how I said writers like Baghdadi first started writing about the folly of book burning to describe contemporary events?

Prove that that is what Baghdadi and other writers were doing.

>And I don't see how this helps the initial claim that Islam was the reason

What? Islam was the cause; therefore, it supports it in those instances.

> How did Al-Ghazali even have anyone to complain about in the 12th century if copying philosophy was banned in the 9th?

That’s a shit-tier argument even if it is true; here’s why:

>Murder is a crime.

>So why are there still murders?

>Russia

Russia lost two to three centuries of prosperity; Russia was able to liberate itself in about two centuries and had many wars until it underwent its own Enlightenment in the 18th Century:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_Russia

>800 years of Mongol-Turkic control

Russia was able to liberate itself 200 years later; what prevented the Arabs/Muslims from doing the same?

>stormfront blog

>Implying I read stormfront blogs

> Similarly, without Islam, you'd still have gangsters and street thugs performing acts of violence.

Unknowable alt history.

> Like a less furry version of Aesop's fables

Kek.

>Divine right

All I can say to that is that I always though it a brilliant defense. No disputation.

>> 26143

>>implying it shouldn't be the other way around

Proof-reading two sentences vs. several paragraphs, you tell me.

>> not even being able to read a short post about how /pol/ discredits your entire argument, or as you call without backing up anything a"shitpost"

>Imma a nigger who can’t into logic

Nice genetic fallacy by the way. You’d make a good test subject in studies of intelligence of monkeys.

>> 26249

> fucking Aryan wannabe

Showing how you know fuck all about /pol/, other than a piss-poor generalization.

Also you stated how I pointed out “grammatical flaws” in your pepe post. That isn’t a grammatical error; it’s punctuation. Read a book, you triggered nigger.

>>26145

m8, I’m just getting bored of this debate, regardless of whether I’m right or wrong.

>> 26128

This post is so filled with assumptions, and I have no energy to deal with them.

>>26268

*generalization should be stereotype.

Also, fixing my copypaste screw ups

>>26143

>>26249

>>26128

>>26267

>No, I want you to answer the question. Fuck, I’ll rewrite for you:

I know you do. That's the point of a loaded question: it's set up in a way that either answer confirms your position: that highly biased blogs are just information sources and your opponents are just attacking the source rather than the content. My answer to that question is inconsequential, and I gave you an answer that rejects the leading question altogether to accurately describe the nature of a biased secondary or tertiary source (that last bit is important).

>Read your sentence again. It’s sarcastic treatment came off as trivializing:

I did. It didn't. Had the Hindus been wiped out of existence, then that sentence would have been trivializing their extermination. But that's not the context at all. The context was your position that Islam historically destroyed classical literature and monuments and temples, despite the fact that so much survived into modern times, and what I trivialized was your response, which was only a copy-paste block from Wikipedia in some attempt to 'A-ha!' me I imagine, where my own point was again proven right: yes, sometimes Muslims went wild, but no pattern of wanton and complete destruction exists to suggest that Islam, and not an outlier group of Muslims every few centuries, is the cause of modern Jihadism's rampage.

>Who said this was just about ISIS? This whole discussion started from my saying European culture and Islam are incompatible and mutated after I used destruction fueled by Islam as substantiating evidence.

I did, and the other anon you responded to that prompted this entire discussion. All you have shown thus far is insubstantial evidence of any Islamic pattern for destroying historical places throughout history or of creating theocracies, or of how either of these qualities are somehow incompatible with European culture when European culture has done both, probably to an even greater extent. If you want to say 'a subset of modern Muslim immigrants show a pattern of non integration and incompatibility with modern European culture,' then by all means. Fine. But don't project back into history so carelessly in the search for support for this platform.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Temples:_What_Happened_to_Them

>Hindu Temples – What Happened to Them is a two-volume book by Sita Ram Goel, Arun Shourie, Harsh Narain, Jay Dubashi and Ram Swarup.

All political Hindu activists, and one man with a PhD in something, maybe history, maybe not.

>http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/temple_aurangzeb.html

>Destruction of Hindu Temples by Aurangzeb

>by Aurangzeb

Clearly he failed spectacularly. And one man is not a raise to the pot here: the claim was that Islam was the cause, not individual Muslims.

>http://www.stephen-knapp.com/islamic_destruction_of_hindu_temples.htm

An actual good list of historical sources with absolutely no source criticism involved. Any time some court scribe writes something flowery about a Turkic sultan raiding the Indian border, it's taken at face value. Yes, military raids are destructive events. But Islam doesn't get up on horses to steal the silver off a temple roof, professional raiders do, the same way the Lithuanians didn't see Christianity coming at them in the 13th century, but a German adventurer.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_non-Muslim_places_of_worship_into_mosques

These are desecrations/conversions. nor was it anywhere near total. Thousands of Hindu temples remained as Hindu temples uninterrupted. Same with Constantinople: The Hagia Sophia was converted, but many city churches were not.

>Neither of these sentences mean that the subjects killed/burned all men/all books. It’s a noun used generally.

Because the former is a person, a moral agent with verifiable past action, and the latter is a general noun for every moral agent ever who could have did a specific thing. But you can't use Islam the same way. Islam is not a person, it is not a moral agent or an agent of any sort, and is as ridiculous to use this way as any other amorphous concept.

>>26268

>Was Baghdadi’s a parable or just a report?

An analogous parable, because absolutely no one ever recorded such an event, and the story itself is suspiciously interchangeable between Egypt and Iran.

>No, it’s not. Without Christianity, he would not have painted the Creation of Adam. I need one to get the other. No Christianity. No Creation of Adam.

And in its place, we might have gotten the Creation of Athena.

>How do you know what it was for? Do you know other people’s motivations?

>Prove that that is what Baghdadi and other writers were doing.

Baghdadi and other authors preface their stories with a reference to their own generation. That's how Arabic analogy writing works. If you want an English example of the style, check out Usamah ibn Munqidh. Baghdadi has never been translated, to my knowledge, so you'll have to find something analogous unless you can read Medieval Arabic.

>What? Islam was the cause; therefore, it supports it in those instances.

If you believe that, then fine. But then what was the cause of all the rest of the time where it didn't happen? NotIslam? If Baghdadi not a proper Muslim if he's supportive of not burning down old books?

>That’s a shit-tier argument even if it is true; here’s why:

Nyet. That's an even worse argument. Let me fix that.

>Murder is a crime

>So why are people committing open acts of murder without any punishment or retribution whatsoever by the authorities, and why are they holding public office as chief justices?

11th century philosophers weren't hermits innawoods printing newsletters secretly for their underground philosopher network here. They were public figures who sold books in public marketplaces and regularly worked as court officials in Muslim governments.

>Russia was able to liberate itself 200 years later; what prevented the Arabs/Muslims from doing the same?

The Mongols didn't settle in Russia. Nomads didn't flood the streets and countryside of Moscow and Novgorod to turn its farmlands into grazing fields.

>Unknowable alt history.

No, just look at any immigrant criminals with an atheist or agnostic lifestyle.

>>26293

>So it's a situation more precisely defined as caesaropapism.

Thank you. It's a term that also describes what the Caliphate actually was, except in comparison to others the Caliphs were literally cucked out of any control over religion by the Ulema class.

>>26328

>>inb4 your posting in the thread hurr,

>>I would agree but I'm politely replying to people replying to me

>>thread hurr

>> Aryan wannabe

>>really fucking edgy

>>they're retarded as shit

>>a /pol/ infested garbage heap

>>a white trying super hard

>>politely replying

>>politely

:^)