Killing people for professing the wrong religion was just as much a sustained and permanent basis of European culture in the 1400s and 1500s- they had been doing it for century after century. Of course, they evolved beyond that later on, but there’s no way of knowing that the Aztecs would not have evolved beyond human sacrifices, given the chance.
That might have been true by the time England took over India, but it certainly wasn’t true of England at the time the Spanish conquered the Aztecs. The Tudors killed quite a few people on rather shaky grounds- notably, the Earl of Warwick, who was killed basically because he had a better claim to the English throne than Henry VII and because some other people were stirring up revolts in his name without his knowledge or consent.
“Stagnating bunch of psychopaths” could serve as a fair description of quite a few of the Spanish Habsburg monarchs…
The Europeans were basically constantly at war from the 1300s through 1946 with 20-30 year intervals of peace. During the Reformation, there was sustained and systematic warfare between different Christian denominations, resulting in the planned deaths of innocent Christians. The Christians also routinely killed non-Christians as a matter of course. It is not until the 1700s that religious warfare begins to settle down - and shift to industrial-based warfare. You are simply uninformed about the systematic way in which Europeans went about killing each other.
Once again, no cite. Do you just make this stuff up, or does it come to you in a dream, or what?
Well, since you can’t remember European history, it doesn’t surprise me that you can’t remember things fromm this thread.
So you admit you have no idea of what your talking about.
Nonsense. The Magna Carta was mostly a document about the sharing of power between the king and the nobility. There was not anything approaching systematic protection for people until after the English Civil War, and even then, the protection is biased towards people of higher classes. There is not systematic protection for the rights of everyone until the British abolish slavery in the 1800s – well, really, until the South Africans gain independence, since there was no protection for “the lowest of the low” there until the 1980s. Non-whites were rountinely and systematically deprived of basic protections until post-WWII. Again, nothing you’ve said here is factual.
Yes, he could. There’s no real limitation on what the English king could do in the colonies until the 1800s. For most European countries, their kings could execute anyone they wanted to until the 1800s as well.
The Indians had several codified systems of laws as well. Of course, since you’ve never actually studied Indian history, I wouldn’t expect you to know this. There were court systems in India prior to the arrival of the British. Again, all your doing is spouting racist propoganda.
No there were not. The laws discriminated against Indians and in favor of the Brits. The laws were racist in application, and this is a blatant lie. I’ve posted several examples of these laws in previous threads.
The English restricted jobs based on class. It isn’t until the industrial revolution that the demand for workers begins to break down class lines. Had the British allowed India to industrialize, instead of stagnating it’s economy, perhaps the same thing would have happened in India as well.
Of course, the Brits had an intererest. It was standard colonial behavior to exploit discriminatory systems to maintain power, and the Brits did this in India and Nigeria. The Belgians did it in Rwanda, etc., etc.
Your sympathy for the lowest caste members being murdered is hollow. The British massacared unarmed Indians and set up economic systems which ended up starving an estimated 40 million Indians to death.
Except in South Africa, or Guyana or Australia. The occasional Indian was able to make it in Britain, but most suffered severe discrimination. Indians still suffer from discriminatory behavior in Britain today, although there is no offical discrimination.
You seem to never have heard of South Africa.
No, it’s a trade surplus, despite whatever lies you wan’t to tell. In any case, the Mughals had inherited their legal system from the Sultanate of Delhi, and random seizures of peoples property was prohibited under this system. Furthermore, the Mughals didn’t control the entire subcontinent, and they only had direct control over the central part of their empire. There was a trade surplus because the Indians produced products the Europeans wanted. There were no prohibitions on imports that I’m aware of. So, unless you can provide a cite, I’ll just have to assume you’ve made this up, like everything else.
After spending this entire thread suggesting that the Brits were saints, you now retract? Instead of asking these questions, why don’t you actually pick up a history book sometime?
I’ve already posted about this in previous threads. The British East India company explicitly crushed manufacturing in India through a trade/tarrif regime which made it impossible for any native manufacturing to be competitive. The British Raj structured its taxes so that development of heavy industry and most light industry in Indian would be uneconomical. The British government then subsidized English industry while neglecting to do the same for Indian industry.
If you consider starving 30-40 million Indians to death, massacaring unarmed Indians, systematically allowing a system of slavery to floursh for a hundred years, and systematically discriminating against non-whites to be “better” then you need to examine who exactly here is a psychopath.
Every area of the world has had its share of bad behavior. All you do is cherry pick the best of British behavior while ignoring the worst of it.
I have to go do some more work. I will not respond to any more comments about British colonial practices unless they are cited. It’s probably a bore to everyone for me to keep asking for a cite for made up nonsense. So, if anyone wants to continue this line of discussion and you don’t post a cite, then I think it’s pretty obvious what my opinion of the statement will be.
[/QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
The Europeans were basically constantly at war from the 1300s through 1946 with 20-30 year intervals of peace. During the Reformation, there was sustained and systematic warfare between different Christian denominations, resulting in the planned deaths of innocent Christians.
[/QUOTE]
So you are comparing wars between nations of differing political and or religous beliefs with the systematic lining up of thousands of people cutting their hearts out while still alive and sometimes flaying the bodies for the priests to be able to wear their skins for ritual dances ?
[/QUOTE]
once again, no cite. Do you just make this stuff up, or does it come to you in a dream, or what?
[/QUOTE]
Actually I was under the impression that you only had to supply cites for things that are not common knowledge amongst ordinary people .
For example it would never occur to me to have to give a cite to justify saying that ancient Egyptian god kings were mummified after death and entombed in pyramids no matter how ill informed a potential answerer to the post might be .
Or that the first Chin emperor say, had a large terra cotta reproduction army manufactured and buried near his tomb.
I think that I can assure you B.S.that this is common knowledge to most people but just to help you out heres a couple of cites “Technology Secrets of the Ancients” the Discovery Channels and" Pyramids of Death" the History channel and the Discovery Channels though to be honest it wouldn’t be that difficult to give a list of cites three times the length of the Bible or in other words every single serious study of Pre Columbian civilisations ever ,anywhere.
[/QUOTE]
Well, since you can’t remember European history, it doesn’t surprise me that you can’t remember things fromm this thread.
[/QUOTE]
I am sorry that I didn’t put verbatim your post but you described the mass executions of people over an extended period of time as “certain immoral practices .”
Well I shant be using irony again to the more literal minded posters amongst us .
The term on these boards is being wooshed which of course as an apparently new poster you are unaware of.
[/QUOTE]
Again, all your doing is spouting racist propoganda.
[/QUOTE]
No denouncing the brutality of murderous regimes is not being racist.
The racism card seems to be produced every time certain people have their posts logically refuted .
Shout racism and hopefully the opposing poster will be bullied into keeping quiet.
Sorry me old mate but abuse and slurs wont be keeping this puppy quiet,not now ,not ever.
I must admit that your earlier use of the words revisionist and propogandist which are more normally used by political agitators then ordinary people have caught my curiousity,also I’m surprised that someone living in L.A. is so totally unaware of the more notorious practices of the Aztecs especially to the point of having to ask for a cite and thinking that I actually made them up .
I notice that your standard of English usage varies enormously,sometimes you come across as though English is a very foreign language to you and at others you are quite fluent in the language.
Methinks that theres something rotten in the state of Denmark.
No, I am pointing out that Europeans killed each other in pretty brutal ways.
Since you have posted clearly erroneous info on the Mughal Empire and the Europeans, I have no reason to believe anything you say on anything else, hence the reason I asked for cites.
Yes, I’ve called immoral practices for what they are: immoral. You, on the other hand, think that the British’s slave trade constitutes protection for the lowest of the low.
I’m aware of irony. Perhaps you need to learn about sarcasm.
Denouncing the brutality of murderous regimes isn’t racist, I agree. Spreading false information about the Indian subcontinent to make it look bad, while at the same time spreading false information about the Europeans to make them look good is spreading racist propoganda.
I’m equally surprised to find someone, such as yourself, who is completely ignorant of European and British history, to not have even known about the British class system, Apartheid, or the British slave trade.
Your English has always been uniformly incoherent.
[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
No, I am pointing out that Europeans killed each other in pretty brutal ways.
Since you have posted clearly erroneous info on the Mughal Empire and the Europeans, I have no reason to believe anything you say on anything else, hence the reason I asked for cites./
[QUOTE]
Yes the European wars like wars everywhere in the world could be brutal affairs but cold bloodedly cutting out peoples hearts while they are still alive ,year after year,century after century is a whole new ball game .
The cite system is not designed to pander to every single individuals ignorance on subjects but for the more obscure or specific facts.
That Aztecs,Incas etc. committed mass human sacrifices over a long time is common knowledge throughout the civilised world .
As someone who is apparently living in L.A. you are not very faraway from central/S. America. but you are still seemingly in ignorance of this even to the point of disbelief.
This doesn’t help your credibility on history generally.
By the way just as you say The British Raj.was alien to India so was the Mughal empire which originated on the Asian steppes not the subcontinent .
Something you failed to mention in your posts or was unaware of.
Another little point ,todays Indian legal code is based on the Rajs,I’m surprised that when the Brits left the independant Indian government didnt revert to the justice of the Mughal absaloute rulers which according to you the inhabitants hold in such fond memory
The Brits made slavery illegal a long long time ago and backed it up with money and the Royal Navy,a pity its still practiced in Africa by Africans on Africans .
Mauretania being one such country,before you ask,but by no means the only one.
I heard adultery called immoral,I’ve heard profiteering called immoral but I’ve never ever heard of thousands upon thousands men women and children sadistically murdered being called merely immoral.
What does it take to be condemned as very naughty,genocide perhaps?
Judging by your earlier post, aware doesn’t mean the same as understand.
As to sarcasm,your posts have been full of abuse with plenty of trying to put words into my mouth but there hasn’t been anything nearly as subtle as sarcasm or indeed anything like sarcasm as the meaning of the word is generally known.
Might be a good time to follow your own advice.
Which begs the question if my English is uniformily incoherent to you (and I can quite believe that) how have you been able to attempt to counter my points when you haven’t been able to understand one word of my posts which is what uniformily incoherent means in practice ?
When I mentioned the different standards of fluency in your postings I wasn’t criticising the standard if English isn’t your first language but commenting that there appears to be several different people posting under B.S.
No dont bother I’m not that curious,as to the second question I’m not even going to bother…
I’m absaloutly convinced that this is some sort of a practical joke and that I’ve been majorly wooshed!
But the last time I thought that the poster whos name begins with M and whos style is incredibly alike yours was actually trying to be deadly serious.
The Mod apparently being dead or gone to Texas I’d point out that abuse of the poster rather then rational debate is against the rules on this board .
It is actually printed in English at the top of the board but maybe it is incoherent to you.
Just to make it completely clear ,I’m not a Mod myself .
[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
No, I am pointing out that Europeans killed each other in pretty brutal ways.
Since you have posted clearly erroneous info on the Mughal Empire and the Europeans, I have no reason to believe anything you say on anything else, hence the reason I asked for cites.
[QUOTE
Yes the European wars like wars everywhere in the world could be brutal affairs but cold bloodedly cutting out peoples hearts while they are still alive ,year after year,century after century is a whole new ball game .
The cite system is not designed to pander to every single individuals ignorance on subjects but for the more obscure or specific facts.
That Aztecs,Incas etc. committed mass human sacrifices over a long time is common knowledge throughout the civilised world .
As someone who is apparently living in L.A. you are not very faraway from central/S. America. but you are still seemingly in ignorance of this even to the point of disbelief.
This doesn’t help your credibility on history generally.
By the way just as you say The British Raj.was alien to India so was the Mughal empire which originated on the Asian steppes not the subcontinent .
Something you failed to mention in your posts or was unaware of.
Another little point ,todays Indian legal code is based on the Rajs,I’m surprised that when the Brits left the independant Indian government didnt revert to the justice of the Mughal absaloute rulers which according to you the inhabitants hold in such fond memory
The Brits made slavery illegal a long long time ago and backed it up with money and the Royal Navy,a pity its still practiced in Africa by Africans on Africans .
Mauretania being one such country,before you ask,but by no means the only one.
I heard adultery called immoral,I’ve heard profiteering called immoral but I’ve never ever heard of thousands upon thousands men women and children sadistically murdered being called merely immoral.
What does it take to be condemned as very naughty,genocide perhaps?
Judging by your earlier post, aware doesn’t mean the same as understand.
As to sarcasm,your posts have been full of abuse with plenty of trying to put words into my mouth but there hasn’t been anything nearly as subtle as sarcasm or indeed anything like sarcasm as the meaning of the word is generally known.
Might be a good time to follow your own advice.
Which begs the question if my English is uniformily incoherent to you (and I can quite believe that) how have you been able to attempt to counter my points when you haven’t been able to understand one word of my posts which is what uniformily incoherent means in practice ?
No dont bother that was a rhetorical question.
When I mentioned the different standards of fluency in your postings I wasn’t criticising the standard if English isn’t your first language but commenting that there appears to be several different people posting under B.S.
I’m absaloutly convinced that this is some sort of a practical joke and that I’ve been majorly wooshed!
But the last time I thought that the poster whos name begins with M and whos style is incredibly alike yours was actually trying to be deadly serious.
The Mod apparently being dead or gone to Texas I’d point out that abuse of the poster rather then rational debate is against the rules on this board .
It is actually printed in English at the top of the board but maybe it is incoherent to you.
Just to make it completely clear ,I’m not a Mod myself .
Yes something bizarre was happening to my puter at the time ,I had to write that post about five times cos it kept vanishing or jumping about.
And thats what I told the police and I’m sticking to it.
The witch burning was on nowhere near the same scale as the ritual sacrifices in the Americas and wasn’t a year in year out everyday practice ,likewise the Terror after the French Revolution .
Don’t forget, either, that the Europeans were starting up the African slave trade around that time. A number of African slaves would have probably preferred to have their hearts ripped from their chests to what actually happened to them.
The Europeans weren’t starting up the African slave trade at this time because they didn’t actually start it at anytime .
The slave culture was home grown African culture practiced by Africans on other Africans,later on the Arabs started making use of an already existing trade and then the Europeans.
Unlike the Europeans the Africans have never fully abandoned enslaving other Africans and it is still practiced in W.Africa and E.Africa as I have already said in a previous post.
Of the Africans who were enslaved themselves it is very probable that at least some of them were slavers themselves who had ended up on the losing side due to the fickleness of fate.
The people who attacked and rounded up tribespeople to enslave were acting under the orders of their tribal chiefs for their profit.
Europeans did not make a practice of this themselves as local chiefs resented the loss of revenue and would refuse to do business with any European that muscled in on their enterprise.
As to comparing slavery ,unpleasant though it is and was,with having the sheer agony of having your living heart cut out of your chest followed by death and the desecration of your body I’m sorry but no one in their right mind would prefer that option.
As it was the slaves didn’t as a rule prefer even a humane death rather then be enslaved as evidenced by the lackof mass suicides by those enslaved .
Europeans were not immune from being enslaved themselves but they were enslaved by N.African Arabs.
Yes, I’m quite aware of the roll of Africans in the British slave trade. Their role doesn’t absolve the British of anything.
Since I never made that comparison, I have no idea who you are talking about. You, on the other hand, now have referred to the slave trade as merely “unpleasant.” Your posts here show an amazing lack of empathy and callousness to people who suffered at the hands of the Europeans. Your views are quite disgusting.
The fact that they didn’t commit mass suicide in no way lessens the barbarity of the English slave trade.
Again, this doesn’t reduce the barbarity of the English slave trade.
You are the one making comparison claims here, so back it up. List every method that the Europeans killed each other with (don’t forget drawing-and-quartering), and tally up all the numbers of people killed by each method. Then do the same for the Aztecs. Otherwise, you’re just attempting to downplay European brutality.
And your complete ignorance of British history doesn’t help your credibility either. The Aztecs ruled in what is present-day Mexico. Los Angeles, as you seem to be unaware, is in the present-day US. I haven’t studied the history of every country in depth, nor is there any requirement I do so.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed that the Mughals were local.
Again, you’ve put words in my mouth, and this is completely dishonest. I never claimed that the Mughals were bastions of complete justice or that I hold them in fond memory. I pointed out your factual errors about the Mughals.
I already dealth with slavery in a previous post.
Perhaps you do need to learn English. Calling something immoral is a condemnation of it. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly attempted to defend and justify brutal European practices.
See from above–immoral connotes evil behavior. Again, I’ve made my condemnation. LustforLife, as is his/her wont in downplaying and justifying European brutality, refers to the British slave trade as “unpleasant” and respecting the rights of “the lowest of the low.”
What does it take to get you to condemn anything? :rolleyes:
Well I must say thats amazing !
Heres me a born and bred Englishman but I’m not tooo proud to admit that I’m still learning new things about my language.
Next time I see an article about the slaughter of whole families in say the Sudan or Rwanda,or maybe the illegal burning to death of a widow on her husbands funeral pyre in rural India I’ll say" I think thats immoral,did you know that that means exactly the same as pure evil?"
It will certainly amaze and impress my friends and colleagues.
What the point of this sidetrack? That the Aztecs deserved what they got, or something? Fine, whatever. Institutionalized brutality didn’t die out with them, though. It’s still around and even in the “civilized” European nations is well within living memory.
Yes well as usual you’ve certainly made some serious ethical ,historical and political points of great relevance to the issue based on your so readily apparent in depth and detailed historical knowledge,both generally and specifically .
No doubt I’ll have to spend my every waking moment trying to find some sort of flaw in your probably irrefutable logic.
May I say how refreshing I have found it to debate with somebody of your obvious maturity and who is so obviously a master of their subject .
In the meantime I’ll leave you to hone your wits to an even higher level with somebody of your own equivalent intellectual stature .
Who knows there may well be someone who answers to that description in the very playground you’re standing in at this very moment .
I will always wonder if you live in the Hindi speaking part of L.A. or the Urdu speaking part but I suspect the latter.
So I’ll just wish you farewell,goodbye ,cheerio and have a good rest of your life .
Dont call us ,I’ll get in touch …honest.