The most famous cartoon ever (serius topic, no spam)

[fable]

Anachronistic? No, why? People are always quoting history to give validity to their points! Is it anachronistic to remember yeaterday? Of course not. And neither is it anachronistic to quote the bible.

People quote anybody to justify anything; it's very human. It doesn't make looking back on cultures in an entirely different age, and judging their behaviors as incorrect by our standards, other than anachronistic. (But some actions seem to reflect overriding standards that would apply in other times, too. Where to draw the line?) I find the triumphalist actions of the Jews to destroy whatever city lay in their path on their way to conquering the so-called "Promised Land" brutal and disgusting. Similar actions were occasionally regarded in that way, in that area, at the time--but nobody called what the Jews (or the Assyrians, or the Romans, or anybody else) did, genocide. Because it's a modern concept.

Me either, I'm a committed Anti-Theist! Most people don't follow the bible these days, except Americans (broad, sweeping generalisation);

Very broad, very sweeping. The Dutch, for one, have a sizable evangelical population that is mobilizing electronically much as the far-right did back in the 1980s, with what beneficial results to the universe, we now so readily know. (The Dutch already have the Evangelical Broadcasting Corporation. There's an interesting discussion of the movement in general, here.) We're also seeing some of this in Denmark, Norway, Sweden; and I wouldn't be at all surprised if all of it gets organized internationally, very soon.

I've read a number of commentators who are of the opinion that the Danish far right, which commands a swing block in parliament, hadn't been solidly behind the Danish PM, then he would have seen the Islamic delegation of worthies who sought a meeting after the cartoons were first published. As a good part of the base of the Danish Peoples Party is (so I'm told) hardcore religious, we can see the hand of the evangelical Christian movement in the current unrest. And it has to be remembered that the newspaper which originally printed those cartoons turned down a series of Christian cartoons that they judged outrageous to their readers a couple of years ago. So the Christian far-right really does seem to have some European influence, after all.

[Ripe]

@Fljotsdale: I wasn't talking about apologizing to the extremist. I ment to offer an apology to all those normal, reasonable Muslims (as you called them) which are representing majority of Muslim population.

@Dottie: Unfortunately things turned out into the mess they are right now. But I sincerly believe that without manipulation by extremists (and with different approach to the matter from our side) publishing those commics could end up with constructive discussion about differences between our two cultures. Unfortunatelly, as is the case through out human history, the extremists and warmongers took over and turn everything into a mess it is now. I guess that timing was wrong. But that discussion will have to happen sooner or latter, otherwise Huntington is right and this will end up as Clash of Civilizations (which I hope is not true).

[Ripe]

This is off topic but...

Why is it that whenever someone talk about Holocaust, and when Holocaust victims are mentioned it is equated as Nazi's killing of Jews during WWII?

Jews are only the most numerous victims of Holocaust (somewhere between 50% and 60% of all Holocaust victims are Jews), but Holocaust victims include Slavs (Red Army POW's, Poles, Belaruss, etc.), Gypsies, homosexuals, communists, disabled (both mentaly and phisically), German political disidents, certain religious groups and many others.

@Ripe: If you want to discuss this further, create a thread for it, otherwise refrain from diluting the topic. Thanks. - Maharlika

[Greg.]

If you look at the reactions of the protesting muslims...

Sure, their reaction is different to how we would have reacted, but it is a different culture in these countries.

I'm sure I am not the only one who was mildly shocked to see Iraqis hitting Saddam Hussein's statue with shoes, but perhaps they would have been surprised to see Westerners spitting on a statue, if in the same position...

Now the off topic bit...

[QUOTE=Ripe]This is off topic but...

Why is it that whenever someone talk about Holocaust, and when Holocaust victims are mentioned it is equated as Nazi's killing of Jews during WWII?

Jews are only the most numerous victims of Holocaust (somewhere between 50% and 60% of all Holocaust victims are Jews), but Holocaust victims include Slavs (Red Army POW's, Poles, Belaruss, etc.), Gypsies, homosexuals, communists, disabled (both mentaly and phisically), German political disidents, certain religious groups and many others.[/QUOTE]

Generally, the Jewish communities of that time were quite close-knit, and so the ones that fled kicked up a large fuss (this is obviously justifiable). However, in the late 40's - early 50's how many of those people's had respect and a voice in Western Europe? Most Slavs were in the USSR and other Communist countries (Communism was seen for a long time as being worse than Fascism) and so got no recognition in Western Europe. Gypsies - again no respect, no political voice. Homosexuals - were hated by most people until recently. Communists - again, not mainstream views. Disabled people were marginalised at this time. Political dissidents were all scared off, and everybody in Germany 'hated' the Nazis after WWII. Other groups were too small to be of major impact.

Jewish people actually do tend to be more successful than many other 'minority' groups - especially in proffessions like banking, medicine and law - this stems from reasons going back to medieval times. This allowed them to take a more active role in the prosecution of Nazi war criminals. Also, quite a large chunk of the American electorate is Jewish, so their views are taken into account more readily than some other groups. This is one of the reasons for the US using their veto on the UN security council when action is voted for against Israel...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-semitic, but that is how I see it...

[Fljotsdale]

[QUOTE=fable] People quote anybody to justify anything; it's very human. It doesn't make looking back on cultures in an entirely different age, and judging their behaviors as incorrect by our standards, other than anachronistic. (But some actions seem to reflect overriding standards that would apply in other times, too. Where to draw the line?) I find the triumphalist actions of the Jews to destroy whatever city lay in their path on their way to conquering the so-called "Promised Land" brutal and disgusting. Similar actions were occasionally regarded in that way, in that area, at the time--but nobody called what the Jews (or the Assyrians, or the Romans, or anybody else) did, genocide. Because it's a modern concept.[/quote]

As well say the teachings of Jesus - treat others as you would like them to treat you - is anachronistic and should be ignored!

Whatever it was called, fable, it was Genocide. It isn't that the CONCEPT of killing off another race is new - just the word to describe it - genocide - that is new.

[QUOTE=fable]Very broad, very sweeping. The Dutch, for one, have a sizable evangelical population that is mobilizing electronically much as the far-right did back in the 1980s, with what beneficial results to the universe, we now so readily know. (The Dutch already have the Evangelical Broadcasting Corporation. There's an interesting discussion of the movement in general, here.) We're also seeing some of this in Denmark, Norway, Sweden; and I wouldn't be at all surprised if all of it gets organized internationally, very soon.[/quote]
:speech: I can think of few things more appalling. I am genuinely horrified. Religion is the greatest blight mankind has ever brought upon itself. How CAN people be so willingly blind? How re-enslave themselves after gaining freedom? :shudder:

[QUOTE=fable]I've read a number of commentators who are of the opinion that the Danish far right, which commands a swing block in parliament, hadn't been solidly behind the Danish PM, then he would have seen the Islamic delegation of worthies who sought a meeting after the cartoons were first published. As a good part of the base of the Danish Peoples Party is (so I'm told) hardcore religious, we can see the hand of the evangelical Christian movement in the current unrest. And it has to be remembered that the newspaper which originally printed those cartoons turned down a series of Christian cartoons that they judged outrageous to their readers a couple of years ago. So the Christian far-right really does seem to have some European influence, after all.[/QUOTE]

May they all burn in their own hell. You know, if I was young and/or reasonably healthy, I'd be out campaigning against religion. Peacefully, but with a LOT of shouting!

[Fljotsdale]

[QUOTE=Ripe] @Fljotsdale: I wasn't talking about apologizing to the extremist. I ment to offer an apology to all those normal, reasonable Muslims (as you called them) which are representing majority of Muslim population.[/quote]

Fair enough.

[QUOTE=Ripe]I guess that timing was wrong. But that discussion will have to happen sooner or latter, otherwise Huntington is right and this will end up as Clash of Civilizations (which I hope is not true).[/QUOTE]

I can see it happening, Ripe. As Muslim extremists become more violently extreme, so Christianity is gearing up to defend itself (understandably), and I certainly fear a religious war worse than anything that has gone before in human history.
That is one reason - only one - that I hate relgion. The god of Christianiity and Islam is a violent, bloodthirsty god who sets an horrific example to his diverse followers in the Koran and the Old Testament. Any god who has followers willing to kill each other in his name is a devil, not a god, imo. Happily, I do not believe in their god. It is just the worst elements in human nature, as epitomised in the god, and with the god merely an excuse to go on a killing spree.

[Fljotsdale]

[QUOTE=Ripe]This is off topic but...

Why is it that whenever someone talk about Holocaust, and when Holocaust victims are mentioned it is equated as Nazi's killing of Jews during WWII?

Jews are only the most numerous victims of Holocaust (somewhere between 50% and 60% of all Holocaust victims are Jews), but Holocaust victims include Slavs (Red Army POW's, Poles, Belaruss, etc.), Gypsies, homosexuals, communists, disabled (both mentaly and phisically), German political disidents, certain religious groups and many others.[/QUOTE]

Loud cheering and shouts of 'hear! hear!'

Well said!

[fable]

Let's stay on subject, please.

As well say the teachings of Jesus - treat others as you would like them to treat you - is anachronistic and should be ignored!

Really, I said that? Bad Fable! Oh, wait a minute-- I didn't. You're trying to apply a single brush to cover all cases, and that won't work. Consider: it was the norm in some places and times to raise families of 10 or more children, so as to strengthen and protect the homestead, increase the size of the community, and compensate for early deaths due to disease and accident which took out as much as 75% or more of the infant population. Nowadays, such an approach--though still in use in some areas, even in the US--is regarded as benighted, unenlightened, and a genuine evil in the way it wrecks the constitution of the mother of the family. There are many cultural standards that once were in general application, but which are now regarded with horror. Insisting upon the primacy of our views when observing so-called "ancient civilizations" is an uneasy balancing act. I suggest we need to move carefully to avoid, on the one hand, falling over into cultural relativism, and on the other, ignoring the cultural priorities of an age whose inhabitants simply did not share certain of our "enlightened" principles. If you can find any cultural group 4000 years ago that understood the concept of genocide, then we might be able to point fingers at those who employed it. But until that time, I prefer to reserve judgement.

:speech: I can think of few things more appalling. I am genuinely horrified. Religion is the greatest blight mankind has ever brought upon itself. How CAN people be so willingly blind? How re-enslave themselves after gaining freedom? :shudder:

Because religion serves different purposes, in many different places and times. It is only as good or as bad as the people who use it, much like any cultural tool. But this is the subject for another thread, if you so choose. For myself, I think it is quite possible to make a religion of any idea, as the French Revolution showed; and the "freedom of speech" practiced by a variety of newspapers to justify those cartoons would almost be funny, if it weren't so sad.

May they all burn in their own hell. You know, if I was young and/or reasonably healthy, I'd be out campaigning against religion. Peacefully, but with a LOT of shouting!

You really should read James Branch Cabell's Jurgen. One of my favorite novels, set during the French late Middle Ages, with its hero visiting (among other places) hell, where it discovers that the government is a representative republic, and its religion, Patriotism.

[Fljotsdale]

Let's stay on subject, please.

:laugh:

Really, I said that? Bad Fable! Oh, wait a minute-- I didn't. You're trying to apply a single brush to cover all cases, and that won't work.

What you actually SAID was:
Originally Posted by fable

But if the concept didn't exist, and peoples were wiped out without a thought given to the matter by anyone--except, perhaps, for the idea, better him, than me--doesn't that make it anachronistic to claim it occurred? This is deep water, that leads off in all directions, and I think it's quite murky, too.

which quite naturally led to what I said in reply! If ideas andways of doing/thinking in the past are anachronistic to our time, then so are the ideas/doings/ways of thinking of Jesus... or anyone else we from the past who's thoughs, etc, are still honoured in our time.
Why should only what is still honoured be ok, but what we see as dishonourable be 'anachronistic'? Especially when the 'dishonourable' actions are those of the god people believe in?

Consider: it was the norm in some places and times to raise families of 10 or more children, so as to strengthen and protect the homestead, increase the size of the community, and compensate for early deaths due to disease and accident which took out as much as 75% or more of the infant population. Nowadays, such an approach--though still in use in some areas, even in the US--is regarded as benighted, unenlightened, and a genuine evil in the way it wrecks the constitution of the mother of the family. There are many cultural standards that once were in general application, but which are now regarded with horror. Insisting upon the primacy of our views when observing so-called "ancient civilizations" is an uneasy balancing act. I suggest we need to move carefully to avoid, on the one hand, falling over into cultural relativism, and on the other, ignoring the cultural priorities of an age whose inhabitants simply did not share certain of our "enlightened" principles. If you can find any cultural group 4000 years ago that understood the concept of genocide, then we might be able to point fingers at those who employed it. But until that time, I prefer to reserve judgement.

But I am not applying our standards to the past. I am simply saying that what they did in the past was genocide by whatever name they called it - if any. That is not anachronistic. I am, obviously, aware that we cannot apply our standards to them. For one thing they had no concept - and nor did their god(s) - of respect for human life. Or any life. Life was cheap. Power was all important (and things haven't actually changed much in the echelons of power ).
But today we at least pay lip-service to respect for the life and rights of 'the common people', and we have groups of people willing to spend their lives trying to bring rights to deprived people the world over, despite the efforts of governments to hinder them from every quarter.

Whether people in the past understood the word 'genocide' or not, they practiced it, and knew full well they were destroying peoples they didn't want, whether in the name of a god or of a despot. Oh, make no doubt, fable; they knew what they were doing, even if they didn't weep crocodile tears over it, as we do when it happens today.

Because religion serves different purposes, in many different places and times. It is only as good or as bad as the people who use it, much like any cultural tool. But this is the subject for another thread, if you so choose.

I'm not saying all believers are evil, you know! Just that religion is. And the gods people believe in are, because they were made by us, and we are what we are. Ok, I'll shut up, if you insist.

For myself, I think it is quite possible to make a religion of any idea, as the French Revolution showed; and the "freedom of speech" practiced by a variety of newspapers to justify those cartoons would almost be funny, if it weren't so sad.

Hell, yes! My own Anti-Theism is almost religious in it's passion, ROFL!!

You really should read James Branch Cabell's Jurgen. One of my favorite novels, set during the French late Middle Ages, with its hero visiting (among other places) hell, where it discovers that the government is a representative republic, and its religion, Patriotism.

I'll look out for that. I've asked for book tokens for my birthday.

[dragon wench]

And so the violence continues...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ional/home

And at the other end of the idiocy spectrum..
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ry/?query=
(note, for those who might not know: The Western Standard is an extremely right wing little rag)


~~~~~

I also just found this very interesting article, entitled:
A tale of two Muslim Danes

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... rnational/

[fable]

:laugh:

Note the "no spam" on this thread. That applies to mutations in the directoin of the Jewish holocaust in WWII. But if you don't see a "no spam" tag on a thread, then it's to be treated like silly putty: pull it, push it, use it to copy newsprint, feed it to your little sister (or in your case, your granddaughter), etc.

But I am not applying our standards to the past. I am simply saying that what they did in the past was genocide by whatever name they called it - if any. That is not anachronistic.

I have this sudden premonition that we are not going to agree on this point at any time in the near future. I simply don't find any conceptual understanding of a cultural right-to-exist at that point in time, and that means (to me) they weren't guilty of genocide. Mass slaughter, yes. This was well-understood. The Greeks in Herodotus do it as a matter of course, all the time, usually to one another. The Romans turned it into a state policy, just as the Assyrians had, earlier. And the Jews, of course, massacred every male in various cities they came across as they moved from Babylonia to Palestine, leaving only the women (in some cases) as slaves. But where you see genocide, I don't perceive it.

Thus endeth that argument. At least, for now.

And at the other end of the idiocy spectrum..
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ONS14/TPStory/
(note, for those who might not know: The Western Standard is an extremely right wing little rag)

There's always one slimy berk who sees how he can rake in some publicity from it all, isn't there? And he doesn't care who or what gets hurt in the process. DW, has your new PM taken over the job, yet? If so, I'll be curious to see if he lays low, or comes out with a statement and position on this.

[dragon wench]

[QUOTE=fable]There's always one slimy berk who sees how he can rake in some publicity from it all, isn't there? And he doesn't care who or what gets hurt in the process. DW, has your new PM taken over the job, yet? If so, I'll be curious to see if he lays low, or comes out with a statement and position on this.[/QUOTE]
*sigh* Indeed..

Funny you should ask.. He has actually been laying low on the whole topic until today. I did some quick research, and this is what I found. Seems this is the first time he has made a statement of any kind. (perhaps in part because he has had plenty of problems of his own already... Just do a Google on Stephen Harper+David Emerson+Cabinet )
Here is the article I found:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/natio ... d7&k=15579

Harper regrets publication of controversial Muhammad cartoons

Canadian Press

Tuesday, February 14, 2006


OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he regrets the publication of controversial editorial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad by some media outlets.

In his first public statement on the controversy since it broke wide open last week, Harper noted Tuesday that Canadians have a right to free speech.

But he added that they "also have the right to voice their opinion on the free speech of others."

"I regret the publication of this material in several media outlets," Harper said in a news release.

"While we understand this issue is divisive, our government wishes that people be respectful of the beliefs of others. I commend the Canadian Muslim community for voicing its opinion peacefully, respectfully and democratically."

<snip>

One Muslim group warned Tuesday that the Western Standard's decision to carry the drawings could threaten Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Reprinting the drawings could put the soldiers, who have been attacked in Afghanistan numerous times, at further risk, said Riad Saloojee of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations.

"I think the fact that people choose to reprint the cartoons could put our troops in danger," he said.

"That's, I think, one of the reasons why major (Canadian) media outlets have been responsible and chosen not to do that."

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor expressed similar concerns Monday.

Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant dismissed the criticism.

"In Canada we have freedoms, and our soldiers' and diplomats' job is to protect those freedoms at home and expand those freedoms abroad," Levant said Tuesday.

"I think most of the soldiers get it."

"So when Gordon O'Connor or others say we've got to clamp down on freedom in Canada so our soldiers and diplomats have an easier go of it, I don't think that's what soldiers and diplomats are for."

Levant said terrorists in foreign countries should not be allowed to hold Canadian domestic freedoms hostage.

"If a terrorist is going to attack our troops in Afghanistan, he's going to do it whether . . . he has some fig leaf of an excuse or not. Cartoons don't kill people; terrorists kill people."

<snip>

[Curdis]

Some updates of the situation currently:

Backlash at editors

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4700842.stm

Iranian Cartoon Competition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4709380.stm

Deaths and Violence Continue

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4711318.stm

You will note that I have only used BBC sources, and refrained from editorialising.

You neglect to mention that he also engaged in the organized persecution of Jews and Muslims.

Why should I? My point is that there was reasonably recent persecution which, most notably involved the denial of a christian site to pilgrams.

<SNIP>He is now believed to have been insane.

But this doesn't changes what was actually done in his name.

Note that he was not held up as a reason for the Crusades, but has largely been used by evangelical Christian apologists seeking to put the blame for the Crusades on Islam. It doesn't work.

Well it clearly isn't working for you . My friends would find my current apparent position as a papist apologist hilarious. I have not sought to apportion blame. The relevence he has to the causes of the crusades is about access to christian sites.

What, "some?" What details? I'm only an amateur in this, but I've read pretty extensively, and the Seljuks were actually blamed by Byzantine and Roman Christians for their policies of religious tolerance.

I will get some time to do more extensive library research soon and will give you some of the sources then. I don't in anyway deny that there was a history of religious tolerence practiced by muslims through out the middle east at the time. That a few minor instances were used as a pretext for a slaughter is what makes me feel that the comparison to the publication of a cartoon is reasonable.

Widely held? Who were the many sources that hold this? <SNIP>

The issue of taxation as persecution has a longer history than I wish to discuss here. In your reading of Mathius (of Edessa) you must surely have come accross his statements regarding the use of taxation as persecution by the Byzantine Christians. One of the reasons that he rejoiced at the coming of the Seljuk Turks was that they removed the taxes that Byzantium imposed. In your statement above you allow that taxation was a 'cause' of the crusader's massacre in Constantinople. You must therefore allow that it could be a 'cause', as I intimate, of the first crusade.

Yes, Whitfield accepts the letter of Alexius I and the crusade announcement of Urban at face value. So what? He's not an historian, and makes no claims to being so. <SNIP>

What is your source here? Dr Whitfield's biliography in "Cities of the world, A history in maps", Whitfield, Peter. The Miegunyah Press 2005. doesn't clearly show what his sources were. He claims he is 'an independant scholar' but he has relevent (to being an historian) qualifications from St. Andrews University, held a post as the director of an institute (relevent to being an historian) at Stanford University, and has published numerous books with the word 'history' in their title as well as historical biographies. While his speciality is most certainly the history of cartography, I used him as a source because he is contempory (2005) and has done a very fine and balanced job in his representation of historical issues, as they relate to individual cities, and as a luminary of the British Library has access to a vastly greater range of sources than I do. You may note also that he is not an internet source.

The sources I've read have all claimed that for a variety of reasons, mainly trade and diplomacy, the Seljuks deliberately treated all religions equally.<SNIP> Or would you like to contest what the crusaders did in Jerusalem?

I'm interested in what precisely your sources are, not becasue I dispute their verasity, I am genuinely interested in this topic. I have not once sought to contest what the crusaders did anywhere, and tire of pointing this out.

The first two sites you list are simply by fans of the Crusades. <SNIP> In short, your quotes all revolve around one of two things: 1) one caliph in one area in a period of several hundred years who is now believed insane, and who persecuted Jews, Christians, and Muslims, alike. 2) A letter by Alexius I to Urban, claiming expulsion of Christian pilgrims, which has been repeatedly disproven by the accounts of pilgrims who went through the Anatolian penisula, and the revenues the Seljuks accrued from their presence. <SNIP> Your resources would appear to be entirely online, so check out the numerous remarks written by the Armenian historian of the period, Mathias of Edessa, for starters. Matthias was an Armenian Christian, so he had no reason to support the nonsense put about by Alexius to get Europe to fight Byzantium's war, or Urban, to grab a piece of the Byzantium Empire. I think you'll find his comments surprising.

I posted the online sites not becasue I was particularily inspired, or informed, by their content but to demonstrate that the view is widely held. Can you give me the sources of the accounts of pilgrims? As I have emphasised above my sources are not entirely online. I am widely, if eclectically, read in the general area, although I would have to admit my focus has been on military matters.

While I may have been misguidely concise in my original statement. It is fair enough as it stands and certainly not inaccurate as a concise statement of the relevent history. Whitfield's statement is a scholarly attempt to condense what is a complex and many facetted issue, it is not in this context inaccurate. As you must appreciate, statements that are made as generalities do not encompass the exceptions. Similarily it is not wise to assume a level of homogenity in the ancient world, where the policies of an empire were variously implemented by individuals. To this end while the account of Mathius of Edessa may have been accurate concerning the situation where he resided it may bear no relationship to the situation elsewhere. I don't necessarily feel it entirely relevant here but the letter Urban from Alexius was actually only the last of many. Perhaps Urban thought that there was a growing tide? For that matter what Urban actually said is in dispute as there are three not entirely similar existant accounts of what he said and none of them where written at the time. Relevent or not, none of this excuses the brutal violence that followed.

What you originally said

Well, let's see, now: The first major contact between Europe and the MidEast occurred when Christian civilization (sanctified by the Papacy, who declared it a holy cause) decided to invade the MidEast, conquer parts of the territory, there, and kill as many "unbelievers" as possible. That began around 1095 ACE. The second Crusade was launched in 1147, the fifth occured around 1217, etc.

I would not claim this to inaccurate or even biased. I merely emphasised your statement about a holy cause. It is arguable whether or not this was a first major contact but I fear that we would get into a definition debate, and if it interests you we could start another thread to examine these (and other historical) issues in more depth.


Returning to the issue at hand.

Your contention that the Islamic world was in the past more tolerant than the West is entirely supportable. The current difference between the two has less to do with actions, than structual differences. The west is largely secularly governed and (to use it in name only) the tradition of religious tolerence in Europe dates only back to the aftermath of the Thirty Years war. This tradition has not prevented sectarian violence on a large scale since. In the ideal Islamic world the church is the state and the culture is completely Muslim. It is this structural divide that now confronts us.

Despite simmering racism, and some vocal xenophobes, in Australia (And else where in 'the west'. I only use Australia as an example so that I can 'own' what I say about it) there is a wide and varied cultural mixing. Regardless of what may be said by the bigots and extremist the simple fact of the matter is that cross cultural marriages result in 'integration'/'assimilation' of all incoming cultures with in two generations. This does not however make Australia a paragon of virtue and despite our 'religious tolerence' we have recently invaded a muslim nation (on a lie), probably causing the deaths of hundreds of Muslims. Closer to home our policies of mandatory detention see hundreds of Muslim, men, women, and children forceably detained in what amount to concentration camps, and the 'Civ X' sinking, and subsequent deaths, has been linked decisively to, at best, Australian abrogration of maritime responsibilites.

My point being that both sides need to understand where the other is coming from, and crucially accept the right to the domestic coexistence of each other. It is highly hypocritical of the West to insist that all of the consessions come from one side, unless the West renounces the use of violence in Iraq, Israel, and everywhere else it is actively prosecuting such policies. - Curdis !

[fable]

Recent? al-Hakim died in 1021. He desecration of a Christian holy site took place in 1012. Alexius' letter, held as the excuse used by Pope Urban to lauch the First Crusade, wasn't written until 1095, and Alexius himself wasn't born until al-Hakim was dead for 27 years. As a cause of anything Alexius and Urban might try, I think personally al-Hakim was a non-starter. He does furnish a single notable example of religious persecution, but spread out among Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

My friends would find my current apparent position as a papist apologist hilarious.

Hardly papal, agreed. I simply found this quote of yours:

The crusades. An excellent example of why religious tolerence should be practiced by all civilised people. They occurred because christians were forceably expelled from what they believed were holy sites. They had their freedom to practice their religious beliefs curtailed and the reaction was a sickening campaign of hatred that blights the middle east to this day.

...and it appears biased towards Christians in assessing the causes of the First Crusades. I've asked for evidence that Christians were forcibly expelled from holy sites, as Alexius I attested, but what you've done is give me websites (and one book, by a master cartographer) alleging it happened--and all referring back to Alexius' letter. If you found another 50 sites saying the same thing, it sitll wouldn't furnish proof, anymore than (as I wrote earlier) a history of the Plantagenets portraying Richard III as an evil hunchback who killed the children in the Tower would make it so. I'd like some facts showing that Alexius' allegations were broadly accurate. If you find this, I will agree that these allegations were not fabricated; though I still won't doubt for a second that they were a mere pretext for the shrewd Byzantine Emperor to achieve his goal.

I have not sought to apportion blame.

Then perhaps I'm misreading you, but you do appear (to me) to be agreeing with Alexius above, putting the blame for the Crusades on Islam, and saying in effect that this practice of Islamic nations at the time was responsible for "the sickening campaign of hatred that blights the middle east to this day." I don't see any accusation of Alexius using this opportunity to regain territory lost to the Seljuks, or that Urban, the RCC Pope, didn't use the opportunity to try to steal Byzantine territory--and that these were equally major motivations behind the First Crusade.

The issue of taxation as persecution has a longer history than I wish to discuss here. In your reading of Mathius (of Edessa) you must surely have come accross his statements regarding the use of taxation as persecution by the Byzantine Christians.

And he also praised the Seljuks for their fair treatment of Armenian Christians, which was my point in suggesting him to you. I think this is important, because it (rather than al-Hakim's actions before Alexius was even born) furnished the rule by which Christians were treated in Islamic nations at the time. Certainly for non-idealistic reasons, and I wouldn't have wanted to be a pagan among the Seljuks anymore than among the Christians of the period, but still...

One of the reasons that he rejoiced at the coming of the Seljuk Turks was that they removed the taxes that Byzantium imposed. In your statement above you allow that taxation was a 'cause' of the crusader's massacre in Constantinople. You must therefore allow that it could be a 'cause', as I intimate, of the first crusade.

It might. I'm not opposed to acknowledging this--but I would like some evidence first, please.

doesn't clearly show what his sources were. He claims he is 'an independant scholar' but he has relevent (to being an historian) qualifications from St. Andrews University, held a post as the director of an institute (relevent to being an historian) at Stanford University...

I could have been clearer. Whitfield isn't an historian of human history. He's an historian of cartography, or mapmaking. On that subject, he's a specialist, and very good. But I would no sooner turn to him expecting in-depth research before he quotes Alexius I as accepted truth than I would turn to any other specialist for knowledge in a field far outside their own. That's why I brought up Mathius of Edessa, who lived the times, and knew contemporary events.

Perhaps Urban thought that there was a growing tide? For that matter what Urban actually said is in dispute as there are three not entirely similar existant accounts of what he said and none of them where written at the time. Relevent or not, none of this excuses the brutal violence that followed.

Fair enough: but then shouldn't we say that Urban's First Crusade was an excuse for land- and power-grabbing, and that this, along with Christian hatred of Jews and Muslims, was as much a cause of the First Crusade as anything stated by Alexius I (rightly or wrongly) in his letter?

Your contention that the Islamic world was in the past more tolerant than the West is entirely supportable. The current difference between the two has less to do with actions, than structual differences. The west is largely secularly governed and (to use it in name only) the tradition of religious tolerence in Europe dates only back to the aftermath of the Thirty Years war. This tradition has not prevented sectarian violence on a large scale since. In the ideal Islamic world the church is the state and the culture is completely Muslim. It is this structural divide that now confronts us.

Here, I would with respect disagree with you. I think there is no great structural divide as some modern authors would have us believe, but that a large underclass without money, health care, schools, or power in most MidEastern nations perceives correctly that Europe and the US are busy funding their dictatorships, supporting Israel's every action (legal or otherwise), and invading MidEastern countries on trumped-up pretexts, and that these actions follow upon a lengthy history that is no better. These are, I believe, the reason for the negative emotions felt by many in the MidEast, and the fundamentalists just garner more support everytime Bush, Blair, or--as recently--the Danish government in this cartoon scandal does something to show an utter lack of regard.

That doesn't mean the differences betwen secular and sacred cultures are miniscule. They aren't. But the two "worlds" coexisted for a long time without the international anger currently being expressed. There have simply been a lot more provocations in the last century, and they're coming faster all the time. Many moderate, moderate income Muslims have no problem comprehending secular cultures and living alongside them.

My point being that both sides need to understand where the other is coming from, and crucially accept the right to the domestic coexistence of each other. It is highly hypocritical of the West to insist that all of the consessions come from one side, unless the West renounces the use of violence in Iraq, Israel, and everywhere else it is actively prosecuting such policies.

We are in complete agreement about this. Neat, huh? Unfortunately, neither you nor I have any political power, and those in power have their own reasons for attempting to control the MidEast. I wish I didn't feel that at best they were only displaying a kind of low shrewdness, and that at worst, they weren't stumbling into minefields and counting on idealistic youth to kill and be killed, and bail them out.

[Ripe]

And just when you think that things can't get more insane than they allready are:
[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/14/AR2006021400792.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/14/AR2006021400792.html[/url]

[Fljotsdale]

[QUOTE=fable] Note the "no spam" on this thread. That applies to mutations in the directoin of the Jewish holocaust in WWII. But if you don't see a "no spam" tag on a thread, then it's to be treated like silly putty: pull it, push it, use it to copy newsprint, feed it to your little sister (or in your case, your granddaughter), etc.

3 grandsons.

[QUOTE=fable]I have this sudden premonition that we are not going to agree on this point at any time in the near future. I simply don't find any conceptual understanding of a cultural right-to-exist at that point in time, and that means (to me) they weren't guilty of genocide. Mass slaughter, yes. This was well-understood. The Greeks in Herodotus do it as a matter of course, all the time, usually to one another. The Romans turned it into a state policy, just as the Assyrians had, earlier. And the Jews, of course, massacred every male in various cities they came across as they moved from Babylonia to Palestine, leaving only the women (in some cases) as slaves. But where you see genocide, I don't perceive it.

Thus endeth that argument. At least, for now.[/quote]
Mass slaughter of a people is not genocide?:speech: No, we won't agree! ROFL!!
And the Jews back then slaughtered, on the orders of their god 'men, women, and little children' with god's orders 'not to let their eye feel sorry'. The fact that god felt it necessary to say that, showed that the people had more natural compassion than their god did!
Meh.

[Fiona]

This may risk stirring the pot, and I really don't want to make anybody heated, but I came across this at another board I visit and I thought it was relevant to this thread. I am posting it but I am not sure how to react to the content.





http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/asam ... n_2005.htm

http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/asam ... n_2005.htm

http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/asam ... n_2005.htm

http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/asam ... e_2005.htm

http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/asam ... t_2005.htm

http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/asam ... r_2005.htm

http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/asam ... a_2005.htm

http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/asam ... s_2005.htm

[Fljotsdale]

Only looked at a couple of them, Fiona, but I'm glad you posted them.

The word 'hypocrisy', regarding the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons, springs inevitably to mind.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Fljotsdale]Only looked at a couple of them, Fiona, but I'm glad you posted them.

The word 'hypocrisy', regarding the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons, springs inevitably to mind.[/QUOTE]

The Danish newspaper that published the caricatures of Mohammed also turned down two years before satirical pictures of Christianity--hence, the accusation of hypocrisy, quite rightly, to the same management. Are the Muslims who have protested these cartoons of Mohammed the same Muslims who read and enjoyed these newspapers in Jordan, etc? Because if they aren't, then there's no hypocrisy. And from at least one report I've heard, most of the violent protests, at least, are coming from illiterate, economically deprived Muslims in the MidEast, who wouldn't have probably seen their own newspapers, but do know how to watch a television or read an image posted on a wall, showing the Mohammed caricatures.

[fable]

And just when you thought it couldn't get more nauseating, there's Roberto Calderoli, a minister in Silvio Berlusconi's government representing the Northern League. They're about as far right as the Danish Party that the Danish PM needed to keep satisfied--hence his unwillingness to see a group of high level Islamic representatives for 5 months--also anti-immigration, and have voiced some pretty remarkable sentiments in the past. Mr. Calderoli? Well, he decided to resort to the politician's standby, taking a popular stand, insulting people whom his constituency dlislikes and acting as though he was a maverick. A few days ago, he started wearing in public and at his government office a teeshirt displaying the cartoons of Mohammed that caused all this mess.

Fortunately, as this BBC piece, shows, he displays as much a gift for good timing as he has for good taste. Berlusconi couldn't protect this moron, not with elections looming in a matter of months, and his government lagging badly at the polls. So Calderoli is out. For now. If Berlusconi gets reelected, I suspect Calderoli will show up on the federal level, again. Until then, I suspect he'll remain important behind the scenes.

So who will stir up the pot of tension to boil a little more hatred on any side, next?