sdelaney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not sure that I agree that this is or was a
> basic doctine of the church.
If you have some other documented explanation for the forced conversions (by Charlemagne, for example), what is it?
> Was the purpose of the treaty and the pope's
> intervention to come up with a grand scheme to
> convert the world, or was it a means to keep two
> important powers from fighting with each other in
> Europe? Were there other political or major power
> considerations involved rather than simple
> religous zealotry? I'm not up on the details
> enough to comment authoritatively, but perhaps
> someone who is can contribute?
I'm not saying it was religious zeal or part of a grand scheme to convert the world. I offer it as attestation of the worldview that I've ascribed to the church of that time. The countries involved had economic reasons for agreeing to the treaty, certainly.
> It would be a pretty common trait that people
> intent on robbing you (or conquering you) have
> little regard for your interests. I do not agree
> that this requires religious inspiration.
I agree with your first sentence. I do not and would not equate a worldview with an inspiration, religious or otherwise.
> The Chinese used gunpowder for weapons too! So did
> everyone else who came in touch with the
> technology including the Tatars, Arabs, Turks ...
The Chinese had gunpowder for three or four hundred years IIRC before Marco Polo came and got it. They did not use their technology to oppress and conquer.
> Unique is perhaps too strong a word. There is a
> certain element of chance involved here. Up until
> the Americas were "discovered" by Europe, all
> previous genocidal opportunities were more or less
> between neighbours. The vagueries of trade and
> exchanges in technology tended to prevent huge
> differences in technical capabilities. And
> likewise many diseases were being regularly shared
> about. Given the apparently normal conquering
> tendencies of humans as practiced by 16th century
> and onward Europeans, technologies that allowed
> for regular ocean transport, a "new world", and
> you have a recipe for disaster of the proportions
> we have witnessed. a religious element - certainly
> - but not the root cause IMHO.
I don't think the role the church played in shaping the worldview of Europeans for nearly 1500 years is a simply a "religious element." It's more about a mindset. Plenty of people were conquered throughout history. Frequently, their cultures are merged with the conquerors, their art is appreciated, their buildings used, their knowledge appreciated. That's a major difference in the conquest of the Americas. There was a willful, deliberate destruction of books and art because it was seen as "evil" -- the work of the devil. Sure, some gold was taken and melted because of European greed, but there was so much that had no monetary value that was destroyed simply because of the view the destroyers had been taught to hold of others.
