(09-07-2013 02:50 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  "I bet, I would assume..."

You're not really saying anything. You're only proving you're not qualified to make any sort of comparisons nor have you enlightened yourself enough to have any kind of authority on this issue, which I already knew from your highly inaccurate and ignorant posts on previous threads. You're just looking for any type of information to advance the lame agenda you have to promote your pre-existing prejudices onto this board. Hence you just now categorically referring to 8 million slaves as 8 million sex slaves. Not only are you intellectually dishonest, you're not even an intellectual.

Unlike yourself, I've been to most of the countries in North Africa, the Middle East, and Brazil and the rest of South America, as well as the Caribbean. I'm also a black man in the US AND from a Semitic people in the HOA. Next.

Basically, anything that does not match your pre-established worldview from your college professors gets ignored.

Very intellectual indeed.

p.s. the color of your skin doesn't matter

(09-07-2013 07:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 02:50 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  "I bet, I would assume..."

You're not really saying anything. You're only proving you're not qualified to make any sort of comparisons nor have you enlightened yourself enough to have any kind of authority on this issue, which I already knew from your highly inaccurate and ignorant posts on previous threads. You're just looking for any type of information to advance the lame agenda you have to promote your pre-existing prejudices onto this board. Hence you just now categorically referring to 8 million slaves as 8 million sex slaves. Not only are you intellectually dishonest, you're not even an intellectual.

Unlike yourself, I've been to most of the countries in North Africa, the Middle East, and Brazil and the rest of South America, as well as the Caribbean. I'm also a black man in the US AND from a Semitic people in the HOA. Next.

p.s. the color of your skin doesn't matter

That's true in regards to ancient slavery. But a US college professor never told me about Frumentius, an apparently bright guy with "white" skin who happened to be the slave of a "black" king: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frumentius

That was not uncommon at all in that empire.

I only know that because growing up in an Orthodox Christian family that descends from Aksum our church celebrated the feast of Frumentius every year (as many Christians in other parts of the world do). Not once did I ever get that history lesson from the American schools I went to.

Interesting. I've gone to church with Ethopian Orthodox before. Now I know how it spread there.

So what the hell are you hating on me so much for? When I don't know for sure, I preface my remarks with "assume" or "guess," which is the responsible thing to do. Obviously I could be wrong so there's no reason for you to get so vitrolic about it.

Furthermore the replacement of "slaves" with "sex slaves" was merely in response to what you claimed about the slave trade. The sources I cited were sound and I stand by all of my remarks.

(09-07-2013 11:33 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 09:15 AM)mikado Wrote:  After these decades, things started to get worse. Spreading the religion by violence, practizing slavery, they returned to their previous roots. They came in Africa, brutalized people and sold them ( this was far worse than the "classic" slave trade made by Europe).

Not even close.

Quote:Unlike the European slave trade, the Arab slave trade was not an important feature of Arab economies and it predominantly targeted women, who became members of harems and whose children were full heirs to their father's names, legacies and fortunes, without regard to their physical features. The enslaved were not bought and sold as chattel the way we understand the slave trade here, but were captured in warfare, or kidnapped outright and hauled across the Sahara.

Race was not a defining line and enslaved peoples were not locked into a single fate, but had opportunity for upward mobility though various means, including bearing children or conversion to Islam. No-one knows the true numbers of how many African women were enslaved by Arabs, but one need only look at ourselves to see the shadows of these African mothers who gave birth to us and lost their African identities.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion...07286.html

You can see in many Arabs varying types of looks that suggests ancestry from Africa and other parts of the world. Keep in mind Arabs also enslaved millions of people from Europe during the Arab Slave Trade. Slavery was a common feature in the Middle Ages during the expansion of Islam.

That article wants to simultaneously acknowledge the Arab slave trade of Africans while at the same time minimizing it, which is a pity as the Arab slave trade was brutal.

First of all Arab slave trade of Africans lasted 3 times as long as the Western one. 1300 years to 400 years. In places like Saudi Arabia, it only ended in the 1960s and that was due to pressure from the US and Britain. In places like Mauritania, Sudan, Dubai and the Gulf states it still exists in one form or another. Hell, even the Arabic word for "black" is the same as "slave".

During the Arab slave trade, millions of African men, the ones that did not die during the journey, were castrated to be eunuchs and the women were used for domestic service or as concubines.

Islam does condone slavery, although sects like the Sufis and the Druze (small sect found only in Lebanon and Syria) outright condemn it. The Wahabis and Salafists, who are the most fundamentalists (i.e. adhere to the letter of the Koran and the hadiths) don't have much of an issue with it because there are justifications and allowances for it in the religion, especially since Mohammed practiced slavery himself.

Mohammed traded in slaves and in his military conquests turned the defeated men into slaves (if not outright kill them) and the women into sex slaves. The expression "we have made lawful for you all those that your right hand possesses" is understood to enshrine the right for Muslim men to have sex with female slaves.

No doubt, the West was evil in setting up and trading in slaves. Although people would like to deny it, slavery contributed to the prosperity of the US and its position as a modern day powerhouse. Natchez, Mississippi was the wealthiest place in the entire US in 1860 with more millionaires per capita than any other place, all due to slavery and slave trading.

However, the West ALWAYS had vocal opponents to slavery and, due to the Enlightenment and Christianity (religion of slaves), had the morality and the capacity for self-reflection, including the economic acknowledgement that slavery kills enterprise, to end the practice of slavery.

Arabs barely acknowledge their slave trade and when they do, it is with a lot of equivocation and false equivalencies.

(09-07-2013 08:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  So what the hell are you hating on me so much for? When I don't know for sure, I preface my remarks with "assume" or "guess," which is the responsible thing to do. Obviously I could be wrong so there's no reason for you to get so vitrolic about it.

Well, IMO, your pseudoepistemic arrogance deserves vitriol and ridicule. Sorry if common sense is lost on you, but topics like slavery, race and religion are very emotive issues for many people, yet you love to indulge in them in a sensationalized manner, even when you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. It's really bizarre to me.

With all due respect, you seem like the type of guy who gets a hard on about a religion or race thread more than you do about the idea of bedding an exotic chick in a foreign country. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I can see you have many posts and rep points, but I don't recall ever seeing a data sheet from you.

I really wonder, what are your goals with your posts?

Instead of expending mental energy hating on Muslims, you may want to consider, instead, how
to bed girls from Muslim lands (many of them are hot).

You've even gone as far in this thread as to say you haven't done your research nor do you know if you're right or not. That's absurd to me. Why not just refrain from arguing with people when you don't have any credibility on the matter? That shouldn't be hard to do on an anonymous forum that's largely focused on game anyway.

Believe it or not, there are people here who have experiences and insights that you will never personally acquire from your station in life. Take advantage of that. You have many opportunities to use the forum to learn more about the world beyond the four walls around you by keeping an open mind and restraining your compulsive urge to spew incendiary rhetoric while remaining anonymous.

Any fair minded observer can see what you're doing. You're clearly biased against Islam - to put it mildly - which is evident from the extremely narrow and objectionable scope of your posts. I'm not sure why you choose to do that, but it's of no consequence. I doubt you sincerely want to know why I think the Arab slave trade is not even remotely as disastrous as the transatlantic one. If I'm mistaken, then just ask me and I'll give you my answer, but I have absolutely no interest in hearing your ideas on the matter. At all. Your opinion on this topic simply has no value to me.

Otherwise, I don't really have a problem with you. You make decent posts in other threads from time to time and I always "like" them whenever I see fit.

(09-07-2013 08:55 PM)Vronsky Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 11:33 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 09:15 AM)mikado Wrote:  After these decades, things started to get worse. Spreading the religion by violence, practizing slavery, they returned to their previous roots. They came in Africa, brutalized people and sold them ( this was far worse than the "classic" slave trade made by Europe).

Not even close.

Quote:Unlike the European slave trade, the Arab slave trade was not an important feature of Arab economies and it predominantly targeted women, who became members of harems and whose children were full heirs to their father's names, legacies and fortunes, without regard to their physical features. The enslaved were not bought and sold as chattel the way we understand the slave trade here, but were captured in warfare, or kidnapped outright and hauled across the Sahara.

Race was not a defining line and enslaved peoples were not locked into a single fate, but had opportunity for upward mobility though various means, including bearing children or conversion to Islam. No-one knows the true numbers of how many African women were enslaved by Arabs, but one need only look at ourselves to see the shadows of these African mothers who gave birth to us and lost their African identities.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion...07286.html

You can see in many Arabs varying types of looks that suggests ancestry from Africa and other parts of the world. Keep in mind Arabs also enslaved millions of people from Europe during the Arab Slave Trade. Slavery was a common feature in the Middle Ages during the expansion of Islam.

That article wants to simultaneously acknowledge the Arab slave trade of Africans while at the same time minimizing it, which is a pity as the Arab slave trade was brutal.

First of all Arab slave trade of Africans lasted 3 times as long as the Western one. 1300 years to 400 years. In places like Saudi Arabia, it only ended in the 1960s and that was due to pressure from the US and Britain. In places like Mauritania, Sudan, Dubai and the Gulf states it still exists in one form or another. Hell, even the Arabic word for "black" is the same as "slave".

During the Arab slave trade, millions of African men, the ones that did not die during the journey, were castrated to be eunuchs and the women were used for domestic service or as concubines.

Islam does condone slavery, although sects like the Sufis and the Druze (small sect found only in Lebanon and Syria) outright condemn it. The Wahabis and Salafists, who are the most fundamentalists (i.e. adhere to the letter of the Koran and the hadiths) don't have much of an issue with it because there are justifications and allowances for it in the religion, especially since Mohammed practiced slavery himself.

Mohammed traded in slaves and in his military conquests turned the defeated men into slaves (if not outright kill them) and the women into sex slaves. The expression "we have made lawful for you all those that your right hand possesses" is understood to enshrine the right for Muslim men to have sex with female slaves.

No doubt, the West was evil in setting up and trading in slaves. Although people would like to deny it, slavery contributed to the prosperity of the US and its position as a modern day powerhouse. Natchez, Mississippi was the wealthiest place in the entire US in 1860 with more millionaires per capita than any other place, all due to slavery and slave trading.

However, the West ALWAYS had vocal opponents to slavery and, due to the Enlightenment and Christianity (religion of slaves), had the morality and the capacity for self-reflection, including the economic acknowledgement that slavery kills enterprise, to end the practice of slavery.

Arabs barely acknowledge their slave trade and when they do, it is with a lot of equivocation and false equivalencies.

The principal takeaway from the Al Jazeera article - an Arab news organization (full disclosure) - is the bold parts of the following excerpt:

Quote:[the Arab slave trade] predominantly targeted women, who became members of harems andwhose children were full heirs to their father's names, legacies and fortunes, without regard to their physical features. The enslaved were not bought and sold as chattel the way we understand the slave trade here, but were captured in warfare, or kidnapped outright and hauled across the Sahara.

Race was not a defining line and enslaved peoples were not locked into a single fate, but had opportunity for upward mobility though various means, including bearing children or conversion to Islam. No-one knows the true numbers of how many African women were enslaved by Arabs, but one need only look at ourselves to see the shadows of these African mothers who gave birth to us and lost their African identities.

The word for slave in Arabic is (Abd or Abeed). It's irrespective of skin color and can refer to whites, blacks, etc. The word for black is Aswad.

As I've said, you can see the manifestations of the Arab slave trade legacy in the many shades, skin tones, hair textures of modern Arabs, particularly those in the Arabian peninsula and North Africa.

Prime example is a guy like Anwar Sadat, the former Egyptian President who famously made peace with the Israelis. Nubian roots (from Sudan) on his mother's side. Clearly a man with Sub-Saharan ancestry, yet still became president of the most populous and influential Arab nation.



The Prophet Muhammad even sent some his closest family members, including his daughter Ruqayya and her husband, to the Ethiopian Christian kingdom of Axum for protection when he was facing persecution from the Quraish clan (Axum had ruled over parts of Saudi Arabia and Yemen). Even after Axum's king passed away, Muhammad told his followers, "Leave the Abyssinians (Ethiopians) in peace, as long as they do not take the offensive." He was no doubt a military man and Islam was spread largely by the sword, but the effects of slavery in antiquity (which occurred everywhere in Africa, including by Africans) are not even a drop in the bucket to the modern day legacy of the transatlantic chattel slave trade.

The effect of the Atlantic slave trade was the morally monstrous destruction of human possibility which involved redefining African humanity to the world, poisoning past, present and future relations with others who only know us through this stereotyping and thus damaging the truly human relations among people of today. It constituted the destruction of culture, language, religion and human possibility.

In other words, it introduced the notion of race, which most scholars agree was a recent invention born after American slavery.

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04...-02-09.htm

Quote:ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF RACE
by Audrey Smedley
Anthropology Newsletter, November 1997

Contemporary scholars agree that "race" was a recent invention and that it was essentially a folk idea, not a product of scientific research and discovery. This is not new to anthropologists. Since the 1940s when Ashley Montagu argued against the use of the term "race" in science, a growing number of scholars in many disciplines have declared that the real meaning of race in American society has to do with social realities, quite distinct from physical variations in the human species. I argue that race was institutionalized beginning in the 18th century as a worldview, a set of culturally created attitudes and beliefs about human group differences.

Slavery and the Coming of Africans

Race and its ideology about human differences arose out of the context of African slavery. But many peoples throughout history have been enslaved without the imposition of racial ideology. When we look at 17th century colonial America before the enactment of laws legitimizing slavery only for Africans and their descendants (after 1660), several facts become clear.

1). The first people that the English tried to enslave and place on plantations were the Irish with whom they had had hostile relations since the 13th century.

2) Some Englishmen had proposed laws enslaving the poor in England and in the colonies to force them to work indefinitely.

3) Most of the slaves on English plantations in Barbados and Jamaica were Irish and Indians.

4) Many historians point out that African servants and bonded indentured white servants were treated much the same way. They often joined together, as in the case of Bacon's Rebellion (1676) to oppose the strict and oppressive laws of the colonial government.

In the latter part of the 17th century the demand for labor grew enormously. It had become clear that neither Irishmen nor Indians made good slaves. More than that, the real threats to social order were the poor freed whites who demanded lands and privileges that the upper class colonial governments refused. Some colonial leaders argued that turning to African labor provided a buffer against the masses of poor whites.

Until the 18th century the image of Africans was generally positive. They were farmers and cattle-breeders; they had industries, arts and crafts, governments and commerce. In addition, Africans had immunities to Old World diseases. They were better laborers and they had nowhere to escape to once transplanted to the New World. The colonists themselves came to believe that they could not survive without Africans.

When some Englishmen entered slave trading directly, it became clear that many of the English public had misgivings about slave-trading and re-creating slavery on English soil. It was an era when the ideals of equality, justice, democracy, and human rights were becoming dominant features of Western political philosophy. Those involved in the trade rationalized their actions by arguing that the Africans were heathens after all, and it was a Christian duty to save their souls. By the early part of the 18th century, the institution was fully established for Africans and their descendants. Large numbers of slaves flooded the southern colonies and even some northern ones. Sometimes they outnumbered whites, and the laws governing slavery became increasingly harsher.

A New Social Identity

Toward the end of the eighteenth century, the image of Africans began to change dramatically. The major catalyst for this transformation was the rise of a powerful antislavery movement that expanded and strengthened during the Revolutionary Era both in Europe and in the United States. As a consequence proslavery forces found it necessary to develop new arguments for defending the institution. Focusing on physical differences, they turned to the notion of the natural inferiority of Africans and thus their God-given suitability for slavery. Such arguments became more frequent and strident from the end of the eighteenth century on, and the characterizations of Africans became more negative.

From here we see the structuring of the ideological components of "race." The term "race," which had been a classificatory term like "type," or "kind," but with ambiguous meaning, became more widely used in the eighteenth century, and crystallized into a distinct reference for Africans, Indians and Europeans. By focusing on the physical and status differences between the conquered and enslaved peoples, and Europeans, the emerging ideology linked the socio-political status and physical traits together and created a new form of social identity. Proslavery leaders among the colonists formulated a new ideology that merged all Europeans together, rich and poor, and fashioned a social system of ranked physically distinct groups. The model for "race" and "races" was the Great Chain of Being or Scale of Nature (Scala Naturae), a semi-scientific theory of a natural hierarchy of all living things, derived from classical Greek writings. The physical features of different groups became markers or symbols of their status on this scale, and thus justified their positions within the social system. Race ideology proclaimed that the social, spiritual, moral, and intellectual inequality of different groups was, like their physical traits, natural, innate, inherited, and unalterable.

Thus was created the only slave system in the world that became exclusively "racial." By limiting perpetual servitude to Africans and their descendants, colonists were proclaiming that blacks would forever be at the bottom of the social hierarchy. By keeping blacks, Indians and whites socially and spatially separated and enforcing endogamous mating, they were making sure that visible physical differences would be preserved as the premier insignia of unequal social statuses. From its inception separateness and inequality was what "race" was all about. The attributes of inferior race status came to be applied to free blacks as well as slaves. In this way, "race" was configured as an autonomous new mechanism of social differentiation that transcended the slave condition and persisted as a form of social identity long after slavery ended.

Humans as Property

American slavery was unique in another way; that is, how North American slave-owners resolved the age-old dilemma of all slave systems. Slaves are both persons and things----human beings and property. How do you treat a human being as both person and property? And what should take precedence, the human rights of the slave or the property rights of the master? American laws made clear that property was more sacred than people, and the property rights of masters overshadowed the human rights of slaves. Said Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in the famous Dred Scott case of 1857, "Negroes were seen only as property; they were never thought of or spoken of except as property" and "(thus) were not intended by the framers of the Constitution to be accorded citizenship rights."

In order to transform people solely into property, you must minimize those qualities that make them human. Literature of the early nineteenth century began to portray "the negro" as a savage in even stronger terms than those that had been used for the Irish two centuries earlier. This was a major transformation in thought about who Africans were. Historian George Fredrickson states explicitly that "before 1830 open assertions of permanent black inferiority were exceedingly rare" (The Black Image in the White Mind, 1987). By mid-century, the ideology of "negro inferiority" dominated both popular and scholarly thought.

Science and the Justification for "Races"

What is so striking about the American experience in creating such an extreme conception of human differences was the role played by scientists and scholars in legitimizing the folk ideas. Scholarly writers began attempting to prove scientifically that "the Negro" was a different and lower kind of human being. The first published materials arguing from a scientific perspective that "negroes" were a separate species from white men appeared in the last decade of the eighteenth century. They argued that Negroes were either a product of degeneration from that first creation, or descendants of a separate creation altogether.

American intellectuals appropriated, and rigidified, the categories of human groups established by European scholars during the eighteenth century, but ignored Blumenbach's caution that human groups blend insensibly into one another, so that it is impossible to place precise boundaries around them.

When Dr. Samuel Morton in the 1830s initiated the field of craniometry, the first school of American anthropology, proponents of race ideology received the most powerful scientific support yet. Measuring the insides of crania collected from many populations, he offered "evidence" that the Negro had a smaller brain than whites, with Indians in-between. Morton is also famous for his involvement in a major scientific controversy over creation.

The very existence of a scientific debate over whether blacks and whites were products of a single creation, or of multiple creations, especially in a society dominated by Biblical explanations, seems anomalous. It indicates that the differences between "races" had been so magnified and exaggerated that popular consciousness had already widely accepted the idea of blacks being a different and inferior species of humans. Justice Taney's decision reflected this, declaring, "the negro is a different order of being." Thus slave-owners' rights to their "property" were upheld in law by appeal to the newly invented identity of peoples from Africa.

Scientists collaborated in confirming popular beliefs, and publications appeared on a regular basis providing the "proof" that comforted the white public. That some social leaders were conscious of their role in giving credibility to the invented myths is manifest in statements such as that found in the Charleston Medical Journal after Dr. Morton's death. It states, "We can only say that we of the South should consider him as our benefactor, for aiding most materially in giving to the negro his true position as an inferior race" (emphasis added). George Gliddon, co-editor of a famous scientific book Types of Mankind, (1854) which argued that Negroes were closer to apes than to humans and ranked all other groups between whites and Negroes, sent a copy of the book to a famous southern politician, saying that he was sure the south would appreciate the powerful support that this book gave for its "peculiar institution" (slavery). Like another famous tome (The Bell Curve, 1995) this was an 800-page book whose first edition sold out immediately; it went through nine other editions before the end of the century. What it said about the inferiority of blacks became widely known, even by those who could not read it.

During discussions in the U.S. Senate on the future of "the negro" after slavery, James Henry Hammond proclaimed in 1858 "somebody has to be the mudsills of society, to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life." Negroes were destined to be the mudsills. This was to be their place, one consciously created for them by a society whose cultural values now made it impossible to assimilate them. In the many decades since the Civil War, white society made giant strides to "keep the negro in his place." Public policies and the customs and practices of millions of Americans expressed this racial worldview throughout the twentieth century.

These are some of the circumstances surrounding the origin of the racial worldview in North America. Race ideology was a mechanism justifying what had already been established as unequal social groups; it was from its inception, and is today, about who should have access to privilege, power, status, and wealth, and who should not. As a useful political ideology for conquerors, it spread into colonial situations around the world. It was promulgated in the latter half of the 19th century by some Europeans against other Europeans and reached its most extreme development in the twentieth century Nazi holocaust.

All anthropologists should understand that "race" has no intrinsic relationship to human biological diversity, that such diversity is a natural product of primarily evolutionary forces while "race" is a social invention.

I am not going to mention what I think of this 'debate', other than this is what our national broadcaster thinks is suitable to be considered one.

Have a look for yourself:

(09-09-2013 08:40 PM)Teedub Wrote:  I am not going to mention what I think of this 'debate', other than this is what our national broadcaster thinks is suitable to be considered one.

Have a look for yourself:

11 min on... watching this one man fend off an audience of hostile PC sheep plus 4 "speakers" who are not authorites on anything is very telling. Tommy Robinson has balls. England is going to have another major civil war because of this subject within this century, no doubt.

(09-08-2013 01:05 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 08:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  So what the hell are you hating on me so much for? When I don't know for sure, I preface my remarks with "assume" or "guess," which is the responsible thing to do. Obviously I could be wrong so there's no reason for you to get so vitrolic about it.

Well, IMO, your pseudoepistemic arrogance deserves vitriol and ridicule. Sorry if common sense is lost on you, but topics like slavery, race and religion are very emotive issues for many people, yet you love to indulge in them in a sensationalized manner, even when you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. It's really bizarre to me.

With all due respect, you seem like the type of guy who gets a hard on about a religion or race thread more than you do about the idea of bedding an exotic chick in a foreign country. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I can see you have many posts and rep points, but I don't recall ever seeing a data sheet from you.

I really wonder, what are your goals with your posts?

Instead of expending mental energy hating on Muslims, you may want to consider, instead, how
to bed girls from Muslim lands (many of them are hot).

You've even gone as far in this thread as to say you haven't done your research nor do you know if you're right or not. That's absurd to me. Why not just refrain from arguing with people when you don't have any credibility on the matter? That shouldn't be hard to do on an anonymous forum that's largely focused on game anyway.

Believe it or not, there are people here who have experiences and insights that you will never personally acquire from your station in life. Take advantage of that. You have many opportunities to use the forum to learn more about the world beyond the four walls around you by keeping an open mind and restraining your compulsive urge to spew incendiary rhetoric while remaining anonymous.

Any fair minded observer can see what you're doing. You're clearly biased against Islam - to put it mildly - which is evident from the extremely narrow and objectionable scope of your posts. I'm not sure why you choose to do that, but it's of no consequence. I doubt you sincerely want to know why I think the Arab slave trade is not even remotely as disastrous as the transatlantic one. If I'm mistaken, then just ask me and I'll give you my answer, but I have absolutely no interest in hearing your ideas on the matter. At all. Your opinion on this topic simply has no value to me.

Otherwise, I don't really have a problem with you. You make decent posts in other threads from time to time and I always "like" them whenever I see fit.

Alright man, since you gave me a rep point I'll give it to you straight.

I discuss things, all things, all the time with all types of people. What I do on this forum is merely a reflection of my real life. I routinely have heavy discussions with everyone I meet. Even girls that I bang. I enjoy this more than almost anything in the world. I don't need to justify shit to you, because I'm not doing anything wrong nor am I breaking the rules of this forum.

Whether or not I am right or wrong is immaterial - the point is the pursuit of truth through the dialetical process. Although I believe I know more than most, I do not believe I know much of anything at all. I do my best to not get emotional for even the most heated debates, and I am very good at it. This draws out responses from others who may hopefully educate me.

"The truth will set you free." This is the goal of my posts. I live by this. I don't care if anyone is offended, and that's why I only post on non-PC forums.

So, although you may not realize it, inbetween my posting on RVF I am also managing my two online busineses, writing for RoK, writing on other forums, listen to a disgusting amount of music, reading 3-4 hours of material each day, searching for new ways to bang, all while eating on a strict diet and going to the gym 3-4 times per week. I also hang out with my close friends often and smoke weed and play video games all the time, usually before I hit the sack. I rarely post when high, and never in sensitive topics such as this one. Perhaps it defies your imagination that someone can be so active, but let me assure you it is very possible.

Now, don't get me wrong, you are a great member. Your travel experience is authoratative. I have been reading your shit since you joined. I don't read much of the travel forum, however, because it's beyond my authority. I will be traveling soon, hopefully to escape the shitty New England winter, but my lack of travel forum posts is proof that I do not post on things I am unqualified to talk about.

As for Islam, your attempts to silence me by claiming myself unqualified on this subject is absurd; my home city that I grew up in recently suffered a terrorist attack from radical Muslims but I'm not allowed to talk about it? Not to mention the 9/11 attacks?

The idea that Islam is some kind of neutral religion with no ideology or agenda is patently false; the history of Islam is pretty appaling, and you as an Orthodox Christian should be ashamed for pretending there are no problems within the Islamic faith. Besides the Communists, no other force in the world has done more harm to the Eastern Orthodox Church than Islam. For heavens sake, the story of Saint Frumentius is incredible; a slave boy captured by Muslims ended up converting a King and half of his nation into Orthodox just by the sheer force of his personality alone. If that's not a miracle, then I don't know what is.

Finally, although I am critical of Islam, this does not mean I cannot appreciate Islamic culture or its peoples. I truly appreciate the chastity of their women and the loyalty of their men. It is divine. However, until major Islamic sects bring control over their populations and bring reforms to the original teachings of Muhammad, such as not instigating war on infidels, then it is impossible for me to support Islam. All of the major Christian Churches have brought reforms upon themselves over the centuries, and I think it is high time for the Islamic powers to do so as well.

Sorry to jump in on your discussion of the Arab slave trade but I had to add in Prince Bandar the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the US from 1983-2005 during the important dates of Desert Shield/Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom/Enduring Freedom. His father was a prince and his mother was a CONCUBINE. He grew up as a fatherless kid but his dads connections got him into the Saudi Air Force Academy even though he was underage. He almost killed himself crash landing his F-14 after his injury he gets into the diplomatic service and gets involved in corrupt weapons deals and tells the US media "so what if its corrupt". A REAL child of a slave (and a prince) unlike the BS artists in our congress who look the other way when real slavery takes place in Africa, India and the Middle East.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Bandar

deleted.

(09-07-2013 08:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I also hang out with my close friends often and smoke weed and play video games all the time.

Good. As if I needed another reason not to take you seriously.

In fact, I should retract the rep point I gave you for the fact you may actually be semi-coherent, at best, most of the time you are posting. Makes a whole lot of sense now.

(09-07-2013 08:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  As for Islam, your attempts to silence me by claiming myself unqualified on this subject is absurd.

Wrong. Must be high again. You are unqualified to have any kind of debate (most definitely with respect to me) about the Arab slave trade and compare its historicity to other events.

The following comment of yours is yet another prime example of the depths of your ignorance and a testament to the fact that you're a lazy google debater.

(09-07-2013 08:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  For heavens sake, the story of Saint Frumentius is incredible; a slave boy captured by Muslims ended up converting a King and half of his nation into Orthodox just by the sheer force of his personality alone. If that's not a miracle, then I don't know what is.

Frumentius wasn't captured by Muslims. Islam didn't even originate until the 7th Century, while Frumentius was alive in the 4th Century. There were Jews, polytheists, and even Christians in Axum at that time. Frumentius simply helped make Christianity a state religion - the first of its kind after Armenia.

(09-07-2013 08:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The idea that Islam is some kind of neutral religion with no ideology or agenda is patently false; the history of Islam is pretty appaling, and you as an Orthodox Christian should be ashamed for pretending there are no problems within the Islamic faith. Besides the Communists, no other force in the world has done more harm to the Eastern Orthodox Church than Islam.

I never said there were no problems with the Islamic faith. I actually did mention - though your memory may be a bit foggy I suppose - a highly organized, radical sect that is well-funded and preys on the disadvantaged.

Also, I'm a secular guy.

Find something better to do.

I wonder if it is Islamophobic to criticize this:

Quote:Bride Aged 8 Dies After Suffering Internal Sexual Injuries During Wedding Night With Man, 40

Quote:An eight-year-old Yemeni girl has died of internal sexual injuries after spending her wedding night with a husband five times her age.

Well, Muhammed consummated his marriage to Aiesha when she was 9, so this is guy is only wrong by one year.

Quote:It adds the country passed a law in February 2009 setting the minimum age of marriage at 17, but that it was repealed after conservative lawmakers declared it “un-Islamic”.

And these are the people imported in vast numbers to 'enrich' Europe?

Can't be a coincidence that out of the 5 countries in this slideshow, 3 are Muslim theocracies (or were very recently in the case of Afghanistan), one is India which is rife with Islam v Hindu/Sikh violence, with Islam being the aggressor.

Finally, they list the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is 95% Christian. You know my views on religion in general, but I will admit there isn't much in Christian doctrine that justifies treating women and girls in this manner. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?



And finally, where the FUCK, is the feminist outrage? Nope, none here. It's 'culturally sensitive'.

(09-10-2013 06:34 AM)Teedub Wrote:  I will admit there isn't much in Christian doctrine that justifies treating women and girls in this manner. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Oh, there is plenty of information in Christian doctrine that justifies hostility towards women, though that may or may not be a bad thing depending on your POV

Quote:According to God, if the victim of a rape neglects to scream loudly enough, she should be stoned to death as an accessory to her own defilement (Deuteronomy 22:24). Every man’s daughter is a potential whore liable to grow drunk on the blood of good men—a Delilah, a Jezebel, a Salome. Every girl, therefore, must be mastered and locked away before she can succumb to the evil that is her all-too-natural enthusiasm.
According to God, women have been placed on earth to service men, to bear their children, to the keep their homes in order, and above all to not betray them by becoming the object of another man’s sexual enjoyment. And so it falls to every man to shield his women from the predations of his rapacious brothers and oblige them, until death or decrepitude, to fulfill their most sacred purpose—as incubators of sons.
- See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/...TP0B7.dpuf

(09-10-2013 06:52 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 06:34 AM)Teedub Wrote:  I will admit there isn't much in Christian doctrine that justifies treating women and girls in this manner. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Oh, there is plenty of information in Christian doctrine that justifies hostility towards women, though that may or may not be a bad thing depending on your POV

Quote:According to God, if the victim of a rape neglects to scream loudly enough, she should be stoned to death as an accessory to her own defilement (Deuteronomy 22:24). Every man’s daughter is a potential whore liable to grow drunk on the blood of good men—a Delilah, a Jezebel, a Salome. Every girl, therefore, must be mastered and locked away before she can succumb to the evil that is her all-too-natural enthusiasm.
According to God, women have been placed on earth to service men, to bear their children, to the keep their homes in order, and above all to not betray them by becoming the object of another man’s sexual enjoyment. And so it falls to every man to shield his women from the predations of his rapacious brothers and oblige them, until death or decrepitude, to fulfill their most sacred purpose—as incubators of sons.
- See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/...TP0B7.dpuf

I like bits I put emphasis on! The rest confirms why I am no fan of organized religion!

Quote:Good. As if I needed another reason not to take you seriously.

In fact, I should retract the rep point I gave you for the fact you may actually be semi-coherent, at best, most of the time you are posting. Makes a whole lot of sense now.

Deliberately misquoting me out of context? That the best you can do?

Been following this thread off and on and honestly enjoying the discourse. With that out of the way, I want to catch some fallacy within the dialogue before it gets out of control. This is just too much.

(09-10-2013 05:56 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Good. As if I needed another reason not to take you seriously.

In fact, I should retract the rep point I gave you for the fact you may actually be semi-coherent, at best, most of the time you are posting. Makes a whole lot of sense now.

"Because you admit to smoke weed, you must always post high! I know now that you're just a substance abusing junkie moron dummy :smug:"

Quote: Wrong. Must be high again. You are unqualified to have any kind of debate (most definitely with respect to me) about the Arab slave trade and compare its historicity to other events.

The following comment of yours is yet another prime example of the depths of your ignorance and a testament to the fact that you're a lazy google debater.

First, this "he smokes weed so he can't be informed no matter what" bullshit needs to stop. Debate his ideas all you'd like, but attacking someone who admits to recreational drug usage is flat retarded. I believe you've used alcohol before, yes? Were I to infer that as a result you're always drunk on the forum, I'd be an idiot. You're not doing yourself any favors with this attack.

Second, from what I've read in this thread- I have no real reason to believe you or Samseau are "qualified experts." If you have qualifications I'd love to read what they might be, but referring to something without extrapolating on that reference in a debate is masturbatory at best. Visiting different cultures doesn't qualify one for expert status within those cultures any more than flying on an airplane qualifies one to be an aviation mechanic.

Finally, as you are often quoting Wikipedia articles yourself, you should not cognitively have a problem with someone using Google to research on their own.

Quote:I never said there were no problems with the Islamic faith. I actually did mention - though your memory may be a bit foggy I suppose - a highly organized, radical sect that is well-funded and preys on the disadvantaged.

Your argument is, as far as I can discern, "not all within the Islamic faith are like that, so we should ignore the atrocities committed by those in positions of authority and influence because I have acknowledged their existence."

That's not really a good reason to stop this discourse. Logically, after accepting that these issues exist, one would work on discussion in properly solving the issue. Why would this be the time to stop?

Quote:Find something better to do.

More windbaggery. Shit like this really detracts from credibility. A debate isn't ended by self-congratulatory declaration.

(09-07-2013 08:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  For heavens sake, the story of Saint Frumentius is incredible; a slave boy captured by Muslims(sic) ended up converting a King and half of his nation into Orthodox just by the sheer force of his personality alone. If that's not a miracle, then I don't know what is.

I do not believe in miracles, nor is this testament towards one. That is certainly a testament into the capabilities of game on humanity, however. A dude gamed his way out of slavery and into a kingdom, damn.

(09-07-2013 08:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The idea that Islam is some kind of neutral religion with no ideology or agenda is patently false; the history of Islam is pretty appaling, and you as an Orthodox Christian should be ashamed for pretending there are no problems within the Islamic faith. Besides the Communists, no other force in the world has done more harm to the Eastern Orthodox Church than Islam.

Correct, but the history of Christianity is not much better. In the modern era, I would certainly associate more violence with those of Islamic faith, and more moral corruption with those of Christian faith. Christianity teaches some truly admirable societal contributions; all one must do is look to the Vatican in order to see authority failing to "practice what they preach." Islam does this, as well (as you have mentioned in context to some male and female dynamics earlier in the thread to be fair.)






By all means, I'm interested in what you both have to say (as well as everyone else who's posted so far, really.) As a spiritual individual who doesn't identify with any major religion and has studied many of them, this topic is extremely interesting to me. Let's not let this devolve into an Islam/Christianity pissing contest, and instead continue to focus on the implications of a growing population of Islamic culture in traditionally non-Islamic areas as its culture currently stands.

I was going to prepare a robust response to your points until I realized you have been a member since Jun 2010 and only have 70 posts.

With all due respect, you should probably step your game up before calling out members like Samseau and myself.

Samseau and I are just shooting the shit at this point. We've made our points. In all seriousness, he came down to the RVF meetup like I did, but he came all the way to DC from Boston, so I respect him as a member of the community.

As for me, you may find it relevant that I actually was paid to take part in a remarkable opportunity where I wrote articles and shot video footage of the Arab Spring in 2011. I received a nice grant that saw me travel to countries in North Africa and the Middle East - with some crucial game-related stopovers in various European cities (Rome, London, Madrid, Barcelona). I met with students, activists, journalists, businessmen, and government officials. I was able to get a firsthand glimpse of the lives of people in the following Muslim cities:

Fes, Tangier, Casablanca, Marrakesh (Morocco)
Tunis, Sidi Bou Said (Tunisia)
Cairo, Giza, Alexandria (Egypt)
Massawa (Eritrea)
Sana'a (Yemen)
Dubai (UAE)
Beirut (Lebanon)
Damascus (Syria)
Petra, Amman (Jordan)
Old City Jerusalem (Israel)
Hebron, Ramallah, Nablus, Bethlehem (Palestine)
Istanbul (Turkey)

I've prayed with Muslims in mosques in at least the four following cities (San Francisco, Cairo, Casablanca, somewhere in Jordan on my way to Israel).

In addition to all of these person to person experiences, I have visited the following places that are significant in Islamic culture:

University of El Karaouine in Fes Morocco - home to the oldest university in continuous operation (since 859 AD).

Spent an entire day on the grounds, and inside, the Hassan II mosque in Casablanca - the most awe-inspiring and beautiful architectural creation I've ever witnessed (even more than the fabulous churches in Europe). I damn near converted to Islam at the end of that day.

Spent a day having tea and conversing with Sunni theologians at the Al-Azhar Mosque - the oldest mosque in Cairo - and its related university (one of the most important institutions in the entire Muslim world).

Visited the Ummayad Mosque in Damascus, Syria - the fourth holiest site in Islam and the symbol of caliphate that ruled from Damascus and extended its rule all the way to Spain.

Visited the Egyptian Military Museum and the Egyptian National Museum and walked away with a deep understanding of Egyptian culture and history as well as its impact on the Arab world.

Visited Cairo's most recognizable mosque - the Mosque of Muhammad Ali Pascha - named after the Albanian administrator of Egypt during Ottoman rule and was responsible for many military and economic reforms while also recognized as the country's greatest military leader.

Visited the Dome of the Rock at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem - third holiest site in Islam after Mecca and Medina. Revered by Muslims as the spot where the Prophet Muhammad ascended into Heaven.

These are just some of the more notable places, but by no means everything.

There's also Istanbul which could take up a thread on its own. The word epic doesn't do that place justice.

I also grew up with many, many Muslim friends and can count a few as lifelong friends.

My family comes from a country that is an observer member of the Arab League (turned down the offer for full membership), has an ethnic Arab population along its coast, is home to a population that is 50% Muslim, and was once an ancient Christian kindgom where the Prophet Muhammad's family and his earliest followers made the first hijra (migration) in Islam in an effort to seek refuge from hostile clans opposed to his message. I went to the exact place they were said to make landfall.

On top of that, I come from a Semitic people that have a fair degree of Middle Eastern and North African influence - culturally and genetically, the latter of which is indicated below from my very own 23andme results.

I also keep in touch with many people all over the Muslim world via Skype and get daily articles from various independent and highly specific sources from the region.

Ultimately, I highly recommend anyone with a sense of adventure and an interest in this region to visit a Muslim country or two to gain a better understanding about the people and their way of life. There is no one size fits all version to this religion. I guarantee a visit will broaden your perspective and challenge many assumptions. Truth be told, our western media is complete garbage in portraying many parts of the world, let alone that one.


   

Also, one piece of interesting history for you American history buffs, the first foreign country to recognize the US was a Muslim one.

I learned while in Morocco that it was the first foreign country to recognize the US (all the way back in 1777). The ruler of Morocco at the time decreed the country's ports were safe harbors for American revolutionary ships during the war with England.

(09-10-2013 10:57 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Also, one piece of interesting history for you American history buffs, the first foreign country to recognize the US was a Muslim one.

I learned while in Morocco that it was the first foreign country to recognize the US (all the way back in 1777). The ruler of Morocco at the time decreed the country's ports were safe harbors for American revolutionary ships during the war with England.

Wow, that's a new one for me. Interesting.

Apparently George Washington wrote a letter to the sultan of Morocco, Muhammed Ibn Abdullah, to thank him for his recognition, which read in part:

"It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity of assuring Your Majesty that, while I remain at the head of this nation, I shall not cease to promote every measure that may conduce to the friendship and harmony which so happily subsist between your Empire and them, and shall esteem myself happy in every occasion of convincing Your Majesty of the high sense (which in common with the whole nation) I entertain the magnanimity, wisdom and benevolence of Your Majesty.

May the Almighty bless Your Imperial Majesty, our Great and Magnanimous friend, with His constant guidance and protection."

Link

I wanted to offer my opinion about the subject of this thread, which ties together several things that are interesting to me: history, ethnology, religion, and language.
I should say at the outset that the only Middle Eastern country I have visited is Egypt. But I know the Arabic language, have grown up with the Arab Christian culture, have had numerous Muslim and Orthodox friends, and have read a lot of history and geography. I might have a useful opinion to offer.

The history of the world, in some ways, is the history of population movements. Throughout history, the "have nots" have always wished to emigrate to more fertile pastures. This has been going on from the dawn of time. Homo sapiens trickled out of East Africa in search of greener pastures, and populated the world. The Gauls, Scythians, Parthians, Illyrians, etc., all of them called "barbarian" tribes by the Greeks and Romans, sought to settled in places in the Mediterranean where they could prosper. They encountered the same hostility then from Greeks and Romans as Muslims, Mexicans, and other poor immigrants to today in the US and Europe. In the Dark Ages, the Vikings raided, plundered and colonized Russia, Ireland, Iceland, and many parts of Europe. Turks colonized Anatolia, Avars and Bulgars colonized the Balkans, etc., etc. It goes on and on.

So, we can't really blame impoverished Muslims from Algeria, Morocco, and the rest of the Maghrib from seeking a better future in Europe, or immigrants from other parts of the world from doing this sort of thing. It's only natural. On the other hand, countries do have a right to protect their frontiers to some extent. The trick lies in finding the right balance. If immigration is allowed to proceed at a natural, orderly pace, it can have great benefits to a society. It can reinvigorate a perhaps exhausted gene pool and allow for some "fresh blood" in the body of a nation. So Sweden welcomes immigrants, and so Japan has welcomed the importation of women from the Phillipines as wives for Japanese men in rural areas who might not otherwise be able to find women.

But if immigration overwhelms a country, it can create severe stresses and cause a great many social problems. One of the contributing reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire was its failure to "digest" so many Teutonic tribes moving into its borders. Had this immigration been allowed to proceed at a slower pace, the Empire might have been able to assimilate these people. But this did not happen.

Both European society and Middle Eastern societies share in the blame for the tensions these days. On the European side, the countries of Europe, like the US, want to have things both ways. On the one hand, they want the benefits of economic exploitation of the Middle East (cheap labor, cheap oil, etc), but don't want to suffer the other side of the coin, which is having to deal with Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, etc. The US does the same thing. It wants cheap Central American labor but doesn't want to be inundated with Mexicans and Salvadorans.

Most Middle Eastern countries, for their part, have failed miserably in the challenge of modernization. Saddled with high birthrates and lack of job opportunities, their peoples are leaving in droves. Europe's challenge is to try to assimilate its immigrant populations in an orderly and reasonable way. Will they be able to do it? Time will tell.

It is very important not to conflate "Islam" as an abstraction, with immigrants from Muslim countries. It is tempting to do so, but the two things are not equivalent. The vast majority of immigrants coming to Europe from Muslim countries are not motivated by religious zeal. They come for economic reasons.

One is very impressed in reading the history of Christian Europe and the Islamic East in the Middle Ages and early modern period. Both civilizations accomplished a great deal. But once the New World was discovered, and then the Industrial Revolution, the Islamic world lost out economically. A long, slow period of decline set in. In the Middle Ages, Islam actually was superior to the West in science, letters, medicine, public health, and education. Remember that the Arabs occupied Spain (Al Andalus) for nearly 600 years.
But it is all lost.
To add insult to this decline, the West then began to colonize, occupy, and exploit the Islamic realms. France occupied Algeria brutally for 150 years; the British ruled and exploited much of the Arab East and Persia, and Italy brutally occupied and exploited Abyssinia (Ethiopia).

This legacy of occupation and colonization left a lasting legacy of bitterness in the hearts of these people. And modern history, in their eyes, is simply a continuation of this history of oppression. I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am just offering this based on what I have seen, heard, and read.

Ultimately, I am an optimist. I think Europe will peaceably assimilate its immigrants, and a new sort of civilization will come about. Both religions, Christianity and Islam, have done great things. Both have also done terrible and brutal things. I could easily list the crimes and brutalities of Christianity, and could do the same for Islam. It is a zero sum game.

Damn lots of brains converged on this thread. Great debate so far.

If Charles Martel had known that Muslim would be overwhelmed with Europe, he would be royally pissed having pulled together the last and greatest European army to save Western Christiandom against the Caliphate...

I must say, the rise of right-wing populism in Europe has been fascinating and refreshing to watch. I don't agree with the more extreme points of most of these groups, but they're doing a good service to shake European citizens out of their slumber and step up to reclaim their people and their culture from the sleazy progressives. The Europeans, particularly the Eastern European fascist groups are inspiring with their unadorned, uncensored criticism of failed liberal policies of immigration, multiculturalism, globalism, etc.

And it's not just small EE countries like Greece and Bulgaria where this is taking off. The BNP won a Parliament seat a few years ago. France's National Front is on the rise. When I was in Portugal last year, I met a group of protestors for some anti-EU group handing out flyers in a trendy neighborhood north of Lisbon.

I've been waiting to see if such sentiment would arise in Spain, though it seems the country still has no viable conservative populist political party. I guess Spaniards are still too pro-EU from the years back when their EU membership helped their Economy. Would be great to see a renaissance of conservatism/nationalism in the country that brought so much to America. This new law gives hope...Spain Law deters Muslim Immigration

I frankly just don't see what is wrong with European Civilization that is in need of repair... by the cultures that are migrating.

If it was Chinese Culture (traditional not post-Mao) or Japanese I would concede the issue.

Then again, I have it on good authority that I am a racist. Someone on the internet kindly informed me of this.

(09-04-2015 12:41 AM)Eskhander Wrote:  I frankly just don't see what is wrong with European Civilization that is in need of repair... by the cultures that are migrating.

If it was Chinese Culture (traditional not post-Mao) or Japanese I would concede the issue.

Then again, I have it on good authority that I am a racist. Someone on the internet kindly informed me of this.

Goodness! You're one too?! I thought it was just me! Another helpful person from the Internet (possibly the same one?) educated me on my status. That told me!
Free speech has left the (totalitarian) building.