sdelaney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think we have reached a basic level of
> disagreement here. I attribute much of these
> conquerings and killings as the normal political
> machinations of major powers, with perhaps a does
> of religion included. You point at religion as the
> major shaper of these events with power politics
> playing a secondary role.
I do not see religion as a major shaper of these events; I see the Catholic church (as an institution and at the time in question) as contributing significantly more to the weltanschauung of European Christians at the time than anyone or anything else.
>
> Although I have little background in Chinese
> history of this period, my understanding is that
> gunpowder weapons were used by the Chinese.
> Perhaps they were not used on other nations, but
> they were certainly used internally. There are
> numerous rockets, bombs, and "fire lances" in the
> Chinese record prior to Marco Polo. (Note that
> some assert that gunpowder technology was
> transferred to the West via Arab knowledge, not
> Polo). Certainly the Arabs used them against
> Constantinople in their wars of conquering and
> expansion and forced conversion. And the Mongols
> used rockets against the Magyars and Arabs in
> their wars of conquest. No saints when it comes to
> gunpowder I am afraid.
TMK, gunpowder was used as an instrument of execution in China. My point is that the Chinese did not use superior technology to suppress and oppress others, so technology alone is not the explanation for what happened in the Americas.
> As above, I think we are dancing around a basic
> disagreement as to the root cause of such actions.
> I see normal (unfortunately) traits of humans
> seeking land, power, resources, and riches and
> being able to get away with it through force of
> arms and technology. Thrown in a religious
> argument to reduce any possibly feelings of guilt
> and lets lock and load. On your side you see
> christian religion as the root and the rest of the
> actions natural outcomes. I am afraid we shall
> have to disagree.
I have no problem agreeing to disagree; however, you are seriously misstating my argument here. I do have a problem with that. I do not see "Christian religion" as the root of the actions. Again I see the church as an institution influencing the mindset of Europeans for hundreds of years. The church adopted, absorbed, and promoted the Roman Empire to a large extent. Much of what the church promoted or encouraged in its early history and through the Middle Ages is quite antithetical to the teachings of Christ.
> Frankly, I see too many pre-christian,
> non-christian, and modern examples of similar
> behaviours which seem to match my view for me to
> feel comfortable with your explanation.
Modern examples may have been influenced by the European conquest models, so they don't count. Did Muslims go after others in a similar fashion
before they experienced the Crusades? I don't think so, but possibly they did.
What are the many pre-Christian cultures? TMK, most ancient conquerors were generally respectful of the gods of anyone they conquered, including the Romans...Most people seem to have expected other people to be different from themselves and so focused on economics, trade, or even theft. Culturally, it was often live and let live.
