Let's also remember that monks were the ones that pratically kept books alive and were pratically the only literate people back then. Also the Crusades also helped pull Europe out of the Dark Ages because it created trade opportunities which helps the economy duh.
53 comments
we were fighting Native Americans but we wanted to expand farther west and some Native American nations were blocking the way.
Even though it isn't fundie, this part pissed me off the most.
Please, if we're going to discuss the dark ages and their causes and effects on the population (nasty, brutish and short), read history before you spout your opinions.
One does not create trade opportunities by slaughtering the people you're planning to trade with.
Like the Crusades, we did a land grab and conquest for power and profit when we expanded into the west.
Learn history, little man. It can teach you many things aside from scaring the daylights out of you.
1. The monks kept a practical monopoly on knowledge, for the good reason of controlling the populace. If everyone had too come to them for knowledge, they could control the flow of information around them. Now, if you replace medieval monks with conservative mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh...
2. The colonial Americans took land FORCEFULLY away from the natives. They chased the natives away from a land that they and their forefathers walked on for thousands of years.
Let's also remember that monks were the ones that pratically kept books alive and were pratically the only literate people back then.
Partly correct. They chose however which books were to be kept alive. There were lots of books that were considered heretical and burned instead of being preserved. And many of these books would have been very interesting with regards to the history of christianity (for esample lots of books by nonj pauline early christian denominations [for example from gnosticism and jewish christianity]). Maybe we would have a totally view of early christianity now, if books had been preserved without differentiation into books to preserve and books to destroy
Also the Crusades also helped pull Europe out of the Dark Ages because it created trade opportunities which helps the economy duh.
Hm, it was a war of conquest and reconquest in name of the faith. If you just wanted to trade you could have done so without trying to conquer the holy lands. Or you could have supported the byzantine empire (which had more rights on the holy lands than the catholic crusaders) instead of destroying it (by weakening it, attacking its allies and finally even conquering Constantinople in 1204 [which finally lead to the conqeust of the whole byzantine empire by the ottomans in 1245])
Also on the Colonial period I don't think it was so much about religion that we were fighting Native Americans but we wanted to expand farther west and some Native American nations were blocking the way.
It was both I think, religious beliefs (manifest destiny, as mentioned before) as well as pure greed
but we wanted to expand farther west and some Native American nations were blocking the way.
Kinda like how Mexico wants to expand up here, where they originally where, and we're kinda blocking the way?
Oh wait, we're God's chosen people.
Let me learn ya' some'in', darling...it was the Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East that kept books alive. We have books from the ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle because of Islamic scholars. Then, your lovely little religion decided to invade, rape, and plunder the region and brutally kill everyone the soldiers came across. Europeans were the barbarians killing the sophisticated and rather peaceful Muslims. And the knowledge we didn't destroy, we stole and brought back to Europe, bringing on the Renaissance. We owe our culture and our knowledge of ancient thought to Islam, those people you hate so much and just want to wipe out. Arrogant fucktards.
Yes, Irish monks kept books alive.
O wait, Celtic Christianity was considered heresy . . .
Crusades helped pull Europe out of the Dark Ages . . . by making Europe rich by looting the Near East.
As for the Colonial period, yeah, pretty much all Native American nations were blocking the way, especially after we broke many treaties we had with them saying that they could stay where they are while we could expand around them. (I'm primarily thinking of the Cherokee Nation here - I could be wrong with others).
"it created trade opportunities which helps the economy duh. "
I'll give ya the colonial era, because you are somewhat right, though there was alot of trying to convert once they were bumped into
I thought the Muslims had the smarts back in the Dark Ages.
"we wanted to expand farther west and some Native American nations were blocking the way."
People have a tendency of doing that when you've invaded their country.
"Let's also remember that monks were the ones that practically kept books alive and were practically the only literate people back then."
Sure if you ignore China, India and the Islamic world.
Also on the Colonial period I don't think it was so much about religion that we were fighting Native Americans but we wanted to expand farther west and some Native American nations were blocking the way.
Even if your Christian principles didn't explicitly tell you to do that, they didn't fucking stop you from committing those atrocities either!
Also on the Colonial period I don't think it was so much about religion that we were fighting Native Americans but we wanted to expand farther west and some Native American nations were blocking the way.
So naturally, you just slaughtered them for "blocking the way."
Feel the christ-stain love!
"Some Native American Nations" is a nice way to describe the cycle of deal-breaking and complete wiping out of a way the Government at the time embarked on.
And actually, Monks held back autopsies and advancement medical knowledge for centuries. The Ismalics were not great either, but more advanced than the Christians in the Dark ages.
History of Medicine and History of American West GCSEs paid off, I guess.
I'm going to pretend the first paragraph isn't a horrible oversimplification and doesn't totally ignore the barbarism perpetrated against the Turks over religion.
"blocking the way." Um...a lot of the Native Americans didn't even believe in the concept of land ownership. They lived simply, as their ancestors did, and had little desire or use for European-style houses, clothing, and other household goods. And we, with our superior technology, failed to have compassion for people who were so like we once were, and instead killed those "red-skinned heathens" because they worshiped the "wrong" gods and lived on land that we coveted.
The Puritans killed off the entire Pequot nation because they were "Godless heathen" living in lands that they wanted.
There was a common, and extremely vulgar saying among the 19th-century settlers that the only good Indian was a dead one. We didn't treat them like human beings, or even like animals, but like an infestation. We broke treaties with them, time and again, because we were too greedy to accept the lands we'd agreed on. The blood of millions is on the hands of white Christians, and there has been little done to atone for this.
In dark times, religion is the best guide, like a blind man being the best guide on a dark night. Once light comes, however, it is foolish to use blind old men as guides.
I forget who authored that quote, but it gets the point across.
I don't think it was so much about religion that we were fighting Native Americans but we wanted to expand farther west and some Native American nations were blocking the way
No, it wasn't religion, it was whites being fucking CUNTS and you are no improvement centuries later.
The Crusades brought about new trade opportunities? Well, maybe in real estate when the Crusaders took Antioch and slaughtered every person in it. And I think the Venetians did well when Constantinople was sacked. Not fundamentalist here, I think, but simply ignorant of history.
Some monks were literate. The "books" they kept alive were the Bible and ... uh ... The peasants were kept illiterate for the good of their souls. Your interpretation of the Crusades is ludicrous. As for the native Americans, what the heck, it's not as if they were "real Americans," right? I mean, heck, they weren't even Christians.
"Also the Crusades also helped pull Europe out of the Dark Ages because it created trade opportunities which helps the economy duh. "
The Commercial Revolution, motherfucker. Have you heard of it?
Stupid cunt.
"Let's also remember that monks were the ones that pratically kept books alive and were pratically the only literate people back then."
Which is why they probably changed bits to their advantage, I mean, who'd know, right ?
"Also the Crusades also helped pull Europe out of the Dark Ages because it created trade opportunities which helps the economy duh."
Yeah, without Christianity BOTH the dark ages AND the crusades probably wouldn't have happened, dipshit !
The Crusades CAUSED the Dark Ages. The monks kept books in Latin that only they could read and destroyed all others.
"Also on the Colonial period I don't think it was so much about religion that we were fighting Native Americans but we wanted to expand farther west and some Native American nations were blocking the way"
You FSTDT guys are WAYYYY overreacting about this. He's trying to absolve religion of these atrocities, not deny their status as atrocities, or support the Colonials' actions. Don't take things out of context, guys, it puts you on the level of the you-know-whos.
Erm...true, but I hope he doesn't think that the last bit is a GOOD thing.
It's really not fundie at all, though. Racist, probably, but fundie? No.
Blocking the way? You mean the massacre, torture, rape, genocide and forced relocation of men, women, and children was as simple and guiltless as shoveling snow off your yard?
You sick fuck.
Durn injins blockin' th' wooy! Also, it was the renaissance that pulled Europe out of the Dark Ages, the crusades were in the middle of the Dark Ages and it severely hindered trade, and the church didn't want people to trade with the Middle East because they were "awful non-christians".
Well, it is an oversimplification.
It's not, however, all that wrong.
I mean, whoever wrote this might've had a few biases and all, and not the most thorough understanding of history, but still, he's hardly fundie-material.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
