The Swiss Minaret Ban

[cock23]

I'll use the same argument here I use when debating about extraterrestrial life: You're thinking awfully narrowly. We may not have an exact facsimile of modern culture and society had religion not ever been, but I firmly feel that there would be some form of society, though likely radically different from when we are used to.

I'm not thinking narrowly. I'm just telling you that it is commonly accepted among all circles of historians that religion was fundamentally important to society's development and that we wouldn't be here today without it. The main argument about religion is its relevance to society in the modern period, more specifically after the turn of the 20th century. Before then, practically every historian accepts the fact that society couldn't do without it, even those who staunchly hate all religions. (And I personally know several that do).

Your view is always found among people who don't know a lot about history, no offence.

That being said, though, the fact that religion is so often used as an excuse for varying types aggression is truly saddening. It also exposes some of the inherent problems in allowing large, organized, dogmatic religions gain power of any sort in a society. A country's ruler may just want tighter control over the people, but should he package it as a religious mission, odds are good he'll get plenty of religious nutters to go along with it. If religion were not used as justification for warfare and other forms of aggression, odds are good we'd have fewer people so willingly fighting for unjust causes. The specter of religion and one's supposed eternal soul can really weigh heavily on people's minds when making that kind of decision, and though the root cause of a conflict may not be religious, those actually fighting could potentially make it so.

This is a bit confusing. So you're basically saying that religion isn't to blame, but then it kind of is?

But who says those tribes crave civilisation we live in????
Most of those people seem/ed happy, then civilised people brought them flu, and many more "civilised" goodies!!!
Plus, they have religion, in the eyes of christianity, primitive one, but they have religion.
Plus, I agree that religion has had a great part in creating modern world as we know it, BUT, i think that it brought more misdeed into this world

You do realise that by implying that Christian nations' invasions' of non-Christian countries did nothing but harm is a rather skewed view, right? While they might have made the people there unhappy by invading, at the same time it did those countries an awful lot of good.

 

[Drifterwood]

We used to have religious fundamentalism, then we had political fundamentalism, now we have both. I guess you call that progress of a type.

 

[luka82]

You do realise that by implying that Christian nations' invasions' of non-Christian countries did nothing but harm is a rather skewed view, right? While they might have made the people there unhappy by invading, at the same time it did those countries an awful lot of good.

I guess we will never know!!!

 

[Cobalt Blue]

I would suggest that Muslims in Europe live by Europeans values and laws. Sharia law is not compatible with European democracy. Free speech is one of our most sacred ideals. Basic human rights, especially for women and the gay community are not negotiable.
There has been alot of conflicting news about Islam in Europe. I'd point you towards that clip as a start, though it reflects a fundamentalist Islam that many probably moved to Europe to escape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU7T5fbJbq0

This is Islam as it's practiced in much of the Middle East.
Al Jazeera English - CENTRAL/S. ASIA - Abused Afghan women opt for suicide
Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Ending female abuse in Jordan

Decide for yourselves if you want that in Europe.

Exactly, justasimpleguy. Political Correctness has become so entrenched in the UK that politicians will not touch it with a bargepole. The media must present a picture of "moderate" muslims here. This mythical animal, as the youtube clip shows, is rarer than hens' teeth, and we must tolerate the violent protests and calls to Jihad in the streets of our cities, knowing that there will be no arrests. This inaction by the authorities threatens us all. Fifth-Columnists should not be allowed to spread their hatred without any fear of the law, and Switzerland has taken the only correct course by this first very small step in stemming what has already become the elephant in the room in Western Europe. We have no choice but to follow her lead, as do all other European countries.

 

[mitchymo]

Trust Mitchy. :tongue:

Haha, Seaside is going to be proved correct, i'm a radical! lol

And how exactly will that help the world?

It would'nt help the world exactly, it would merely be fairer, if one faith cannot build then why should any have preference, it is a simple solution, either religious freedom is maintained and no bans enforced or it remains but with restriction (of building) across the board.

Here we go again,the non-believers doing their 'holier than thou bit again.' Your arguement is (as usual) absurd and typical of the atheistic delution that the world would be a better place were there no religion blah,blah,blah.Such CRAP....

Let's analyze that statement!

Firstly, what argument? I made a simple response, my own opinion, no argument, i did'nt say that i support the ban, i think it is a good idea but...

If the vote were to take place in the UK i would'nt have concerned myself with it for the very basis that it bothers me not. This vote would have almost certainly have involved a section of the electorate that IS bothered, likely to be ultra conservative or religious neither of which i am. This ban happened with the thanks to bigots and probably more so to christians concerned with islamic growth. The idea of holier than thou sentiment does not exist, if anything the sentiment is one of apathy.

As long as there is religious freedom then i am free to choose NOT to follow a faith and i will not interfere with others who choose to do so nor mock their faith but will certainly ask questions.

Your attitude as a person of religion thus far has been to belittle the non-believer in the same way 'as usual'. You spin what you read and you snark at any ideological positions in opposition of your own.

Lastly you could not know to any level of certainty that life would be better or worse without religion in it so spouting the 'utter crap' comment is in itself absurd and deluded.

Lets stop for a minute here.

Religion is responsible for building the modern society, no one can deny that. Practically all European and US laws originated from the Bible (e.g. do not murder, do not steal), as well as the 7 day week, among other things. In short, society wouldn't be what it is today without religion, and you wouldn't be sitting there right now typing on your computer if it didn't exist!

I don't think anyone with common sense does not appreciate that religious development has aided us in our society but it is equally down to heretics who have challenged (most bravely in days gone by) that have changed the direction of society, religion gave us the basics but other than that it has conflicted with all sorts of improvements from scientific understanding to tolerance, from equal rights to integration.....and still doing.

 

[Zeuhl34]

Your view is always found among people who don't know a lot about history, no offence.

I'm not denying religion's impact on shaping modern society. What I am saying is that it's absurd to think that there would be no society of any kind without religion.

This is a bit confusing. So you're basically saying that religion isn't to blame, but then it kind of is?

I apologize for my writing style. I know I sometimes can get a bit convoluted. What I meant to say was that I acknowledge that in many cases (particularly in more historic contexts), religion is not the root cause of a war. What I do have issue with is when religion is used as a way to justify war to a country's/region's people. That just makes it a lot worse by incorporating (and occasionally validating) religious wingnuts' views.

I won't deny that the idea of god(s)/spirit(s)/power(s)/what-have-you, in a general, non-specific way, has a lot of potential for good. It gives people comfort, gives them a way to explain the unexplainable (until science does so, in many cases), and meditate upon. However, making a specific dogma is what allows the concept of god to be twisted for political (or other) ends.

 

[Zeuhl34]

I don't think anyone with common sense does not appreciate that religious development has aided us in our society but it is equally down to heretics who have challenged (most bravely in days gone by) that have changed the direction of society, religion gave us the basics but other than that it has conflicted with all sorts of improvements from scientific understanding to tolerance, from equal rights to integration.....and still doing.

Thank you! Very well put!

 

[luka82]

I don't think anyone with common sense does not appreciate that religious development has aided us in our society but it is equally down to heretics who have challenged (most bravely in days gone by) that have changed the direction of society, religion gave us the basics but other than that it has conflicted with all sorts of improvements from scientific understanding to tolerance, from equal rights to integration.....and still doing.

U are so fucking smart!!!!
can I be your Balkan boy?

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU7T5fbJbq0

Im getting increasingly disturbed by the anti islamic posts on these boards. im seeing it more and more and it fucks me off.

How many Muslims have you guys met? considering you views not many. how many have you ever become good close friends with? even less. How many of the ones that you have met, spoken too for a while have been radical fundamentalists? probably none. As much as you speak about the media protecting them and politicians being politically corrent, whatever you read probably gives out the same, extreme end of the spectrum shit.

like shown on the video, it is a small few that are a danger. many Muslims were outraged that no one was arrested at that protest. You say finally the truth from a reliable source. you missed out that the video mentioned and defended many muslims saying not to tie them in! And as a journalist, let me tell you. reliable source or not, we are trained to make things sound dramatic. i agree fundamentalism is a problem, but fuck me, if i took all that in i better go arm myself and join a militia to fight these fucking revolutionairies! Its not going to happen. We do need to stop political correctness but from reading some posts here, i feel your all biting your lip to not say hang them all!.

On topic to the Swiss ban, with that logic, why dont we ban shaven heads as its been hijacked by racist Neo-Nazis?

Speaking about Neo-Nazis recent studies show that facist activism is on the rise. IMO it is almost as big of a danger as Islamic terrorism. You may disagree, but how many islamic terror attacks have there been in the last decade in the UK? er...... two major ones, i cnt think of many others. Racism against, blacks, gays, jews, Muslims etc happens day in and day out, resulting in injury, death and even worse radicalisation.

what my point is, if we are going to be anti islamic and tie in all muslims with with these dangerous radicals, lets be as hard on all christians. lets all go out and wait outside a church and kick the shit and stab those that walk out. but lets only do the women and ones on their own. i mean us big group of bootboys cant give the enemy a fighting chance can we?

If we want to tackle fundamental islam, i suggest against fundamental everything. Fundamental free marketeers, fundamental socialists and communists, WestBorough (sp?) baptist church, the muslim organisations on the video. What has been said on here and other threads stinks of nothing more but pure intolerance.

 

[dreamer20]

But who says those tribes crave civilization we live in????
Most of those people seem/ed happy, then civilized people brought them flu, and many more "civilized" goodies!!!
Plus, they have religion, in the eyes of Christianity, primitive one, but they have religion.
Plus, I agree that religion has had a great part in creating modern world as we know it, BUT, i think that it brought more misdeed into this world

You do realise that by implying that Christian nations' invasions' of non-Christian countries did nothing but harm is a rather skewed view, right? While they might have made the people there unhappy by invading, at the same time it did those countries an awful lot of good.

In those invasions vanquished peoples' civilizations were destroyed, they were dispossessed of their land, robbed, raped, killed and enslaved. Which makes your statement "at the same time it did those countries an awful of of good" most ridiculous cock23.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl08n8_b3Sw

 

[cock23]

How many Muslims have you guys met? considering you views not many. how many have you ever become good close friends with? even less. How many of the ones that you have met, spoken too for a while have been radical fundamentalists? probably none. As much as you speak about the media protecting them and politicians being politically corrent, whatever you read probably gives out the same, extreme end of the spectrum shit.

Hallelujah! Excellent post! :biggrin1:

In those invasions vanquished peoples' civilizations were destroyed, they were dispossessed of their land, robbed, raped, killed and enslaved. Which makes your statement "at the same time it did those countries an awful of of good" most ridiculous cock23.

You'l find it isn't ridicilous, and I can tell you have a very poor understanding of history as well. In history, you NEVER look at things from just one sides point of view, which is exactly what you're doing there.

If you want, name me some of these "unfortunate civilisations" and I'l tell you exactly what good the invading force did.

 

[vince]

Tell me what good the Christian European invading force did for... let's say the Seminole Indians.
Or..
The Arawaks or the Incas, the Aztecs, the Zulu, or the Hereros. That's a start for you. Let's hear about the "awful [lot] of good" they invaders did for these societies.

 

[Zeuhl34]

You'l find it isn't ridicilous, and I can tell you have a very poor understanding of history as well. In history, you NEVER look at things from just one sides point of view, which is exactly what you're doing there.

If you want, name me some of these "unfortunate civilisations" and I'l tell you exactly what good the invading force did.

What about almost all of Africa? When the European colonizers came, they fucked over the entire continent pretty badly by imposing European-style government on peoples in contexts where large nation-states were very uncommon for a number of reasons. And let's not forget the economic and environmental rape of the continent, as well.

And as pointed out by vince, what about New World civilizations? Prior to contact with Europeans, history indicates they were doing fine on their own. No, they may not have had Old World technologies, but the civilizations had lived that way for centuries. They'd gone through the natural cycle of cultures and civilizations building up and decaying. Just a couple centuries after Europeans arrived in the New World, any vestiges of the Aztec, Inca, etc, had been totally eliminated and subjugated to European powers. And particularly in North America, native populations were cut down by up to 95%.

The British partitioning of the Middle East in the early 20th Century laid the foundation for much of the ethnic tensions in the region, most notably the 1986-1989 Kurdish genocide, as much of Kurdistan was arbitrarily lumped into Iraq. Some regions in the Middle East are quite akin to Yugoslavia (and we all know how well that arbitrary grouping-together of ethnic groups went).

From your previous posts, you seem to equate "good" with Christian, European-style governance and culture, and all other types of cultures as inherently lesser.

 

[cock23]

Tell me what good the Christian European invading force did for... let's say the Seminole Indians.
Or..
The Arawaks or the Incas, the Aztecs, the Zulu, or the Hereros. That's a start for you. Let's hear about the "awful [lot] of good" they invaders did for these societies.

Very well. I can't speak for the Seminole Indians or the Hereros because I've never heard of them (but I presume they're small North American Indian tribes).

As for the Incas, Aztecs and much of South America under the rule of Catholic Spain, the first big positive change was the introduction of advaned Western technology, such as gunpowder and greatly superior naval technology and shipbuilding methods, as well as professional standing armies. Road and communication networks were improved massively (admittedly, the Incan road system was advanced for its day at this time, but many other parts of South and Central America were isolated and had poor communication links). Contacts with the outside world was increased and these countries had new, previously unknown goods imported into them as well as having their gold, silver and tobacco exported out of them. The practises in these countries were bought up to date with the rest of the world, for example the 7 day week was introduced and Western infrastrcture improved the housing of the normal people. Western education and knowledge was introduced, such as Arabic numerals and Mathematics and the Roman alphabet, allowing the native people to write down their languages for the first time. (Prior to the arrival of Spain, most countries in Central and South America had primative ways of writing down their counting systems but their anguages had no method for which it could be written down). Schools were also built, and the Church also started providing advanced Western education to the common people. A more advanced system of law and punishments was introduced.

Later, as Western medicine developed, these countries also benefitted from its introduction, as well as the building of hospitals. The Church also allowed the concept of charity to begin to take hold, and desperate people with nowhere to go could now turn to the Church for help, and later the network of charities that they set up. Some very quiestionable practises which didn't do very much good for anyone there were also abolished (such as sacrificing each other and then going on to eat the body parts), and sanitation was introduced, improving the health of the cities.

As for the Zulu (and much of Africa which was ruled by the British) many of the same concepts were introduced: Western medicine and hospitals (which in the 19th century, much like today, were among the most advanced and best in the world), greater communication links in the form of good road links, railroads and the newly invented telephone, Western education and the building of schools and the establishment of an education system (much like their South American counterparts, the people of these regions didn't really have reliable methods of writing down and reading their languages).

More opportunities were introduced for groups such as the poor hunter-gatherers, Western infrastructure greatly improved the quality of the towns and cities and the quality of shelter for the common people, sanitation also improved both health and living conditions. (Before the Europeans came, no country in Africa or South America had efficient systems of sanitation, and as I'm sure you know there are still large areas there that don't have it to this day).

So is that a big enough list for you, or do you want me to carry on?

Obviously the Europeans also committed some horrors upon the local populace, particularly in the first few years of the takeover, and I don't deny this in any way. But in the long term, the technlogies and concepts that they introduced ultimately did wonders.

 

[midlifebear]

Very well. I can't speak for the Seminole Indians or the Hereros because I've never heard of them (but I presume they're small North American Indian tribes).

First, it's quite obvious you have heard of very little. This post is one of the most idiotic one's lacking any serious knowledge that I've see in a long time.

As for the Incas, Aztecs and much of South America under the rule of Catholic Spain, the first big positive change was the introduction of advaned Western technology, such as gunpowder and greatly superior naval technology and shipbuilding methods, as well as professional standing armies.

Ah, yes. By all means introducing more efficient means of killing must surely be a great advancement in human knowledge.

Road and communication networks were improved massively (admittedly, the Incan road system was advanced for its day at this time, but many other parts of South and Central America were isolated and had poor communication links).

Again, you're certainly no student of the native peoples of Mexico, Central, and South America. Communication and trade was just as "advanced" among those cultures as it was in Europe at that time.

Contacts with the outside world was increased and these countries had new, previously unknown goods imported into them as well as having their gold, silver and tobacco exported out of them.

Ah, we have a revisionist historian here. Actually, the people were enslaved and their "previously unknown goods" were wrested from them by forced labor and outright theft.

The practises in these countries were bought up to date with the rest of the world, for example the 7 day week was introduced and Western infrastrcture improved the housing of the normal people. Western education and knowledge was introduced, such as Arabic numerals and Mathematics and the Roman alphabet, allowing the native people to write down their languages for the first time. (Prior to the arrival of Spain, most countries in Central and South America had primative ways of writing down their counting systems but their anguages had no method for which it could be written down).

Mayan and Aztec writing systems and mathematics were primitive? Absolute bullshit! Obviously you know less than nothing, especially these two particular cultures. You are beyond being a major tool. There is screaming evidence from the two codexes (out of thousands) that were not burned by catholic priests that these cultures were anything but primitive. Consider the Mayan calendar that only needs adjustment every few thousand years. It's still more accurate than what we use in "western" culture. Just imagine: no leap years!

Schools were also built, and the Church also started providing advanced Western education to the common people. A more advanced system of law and punishments was introduced.

Advanced in your ethnocentric view of the world. That's a good word -- ethnocentric -- you should look it up and learn how it colors you as a flaming twit!


Later, as Western medicine developed, these countries also benefitted from its introduction, as well as the building of hospitals.

Western medicine would have not "blossomed" without the introduction of plants from the Americas. These plants were already in use when European invaders supposedly "discovered" them.

The Church also allowed the concept of charity to begin to take hold, and desperate people with nowhere to go could now turn to the Church for help, and later the network of charities that they set up.


Human charity was invented by "the Church"? That's news to the Algonquins, another group of native people you've probably never heard of, but upon whose organization of protective "states" the USA borrowed heavily to create the system of state government currently in use today. But I'm sure such facts are beyond your ability to understand.

Some very quiestionable practises which didn't do very much good for anyone there were also abolished (such as sacrificing each other and then going on to eat the body parts), and sanitation was introduced, improving the health of the cities.

It was a tit for tat deal, kid. In the case of the Aztecs (from what can be gleaned of the history washed away by "the Church") seriously, what's the big deal about human sacrifices when "the Church" enslaved these same people in the name of "Christ" and introduced diseases that were previously unknown in the Americas, thus killing off far more than those previously sacrificed by cultures that practiced that behavior?

As for the Zulu (and much of Africa which was ruled by the British) many of the same concepts were introduced: Western medicine and hospitals (which in the 19th century, much like today, were among the most advanced and best in the world), greater communication links in the form of good road links, railroads and the newly invented telephone, Western education and the building of schools and the establishment of an education system (much like their South American counterparts, the people of these regions didn't really have reliable methods of writing down and reading their languages).


This is just too amusing. I'm certain you have verifiable evidence of this from having talked with and interviewed many Zulus? Bullshit!


More opportunities were introduced for groups such as the poor hunter-gatherers, Western infrastructure greatly improved the quality of the towns and cities and the quality of shelter for the common people, sanitation also improved both health and living conditions. (Before the Europeans came, no country in Africa or South America had efficient systems of sanitation, and as I'm sure you know there are still large areas there that don't have it to this day).

Sorry, pookie, but again the Aztecs and Incans have rather amazing systems of sanitation that worked just fine until Europeans dismantled them, using the stones to build your highly regarded churches. Take a trip to Mexico City someday and tour the Temple Mayor right next to the oldest cathedrals in the Western World. You actually might learn something that will enlighten your otherwise poor education.


So is that a big enough list for you, or do you want me to carry on?

Please, please, oh God! please do not carry on! You are so badly misinformed that it makes my eyes bleed to read the crap you think you're actually getting away with. You should find a job with FOX.

Obviously the Europeans also committed some horrors upon the local populace, particularly in the first few years of the takeover, and I don't deny this in any way. But in the long term, the technlogies and concepts that they introduced ultimately did wonders.

[Photo of midlifebear blowing chunks, here]

Dear misinformed: There's a seminal work with the title Indian Givers, written by a nice, well-informed professor named Jack Weatherford who teaches at a little university near St. Paul, Minn. He is also universally respected by his peers. Buy yourself a copy. It's not terribly difficult to read. I bet Sarah Palin could even manage it. But it's chock full of information that you obviously have missed in your very ethnocentric and very clueless education. Seriously, buy a copy or check it out at your lending library. You need something better to do with your life before ever attempting to post your views about how wonderful European Society has affected the Americas.

 

[vince]

Dear misinformed: You need something better to do with your life before ever attempting to post your views about how wonderful European Society has affected the Americas.

Thank you Mr. Bear. I didn't know quite where or how to begin with Mr. Cock's astonishingly ignorant post. I had expected something along the lines of what he wrote, but I have to admit I was unprepared for what he came up with.

 

[cock23]

Ah, yes. By all means introducing more efficient means of killing must surely be a great advancement in human knowledge.

Hmmm so they were so amazingly advanced in that respect to the point that they were able to win wars against the Europeans? So they wern't mroe advanced in shipbuilding and warfare, I'm glad we've sorted that one out.

And by the way, efficient warfare is vital for a civilization's survival. No one likes wars, but it's always necessary to defend your borders when power greedy biggots enter your country. It's a fact of history. And another fact for you: the most succesful civilisations in history have been so succesful purely because they were so good at warfare and killing people. The Aztects and Incans were experts at that too, hence why they held such enourmous empires! Oh and then someone who was even better at warfare and had much mroe advanced technology for killing people (i.e. Spain) came along and knocked both of them down. So like it or not, efficient killing is an important-and some would say vital-advancement in human knowledge. Efficient killing and advanced weapons technology is what has made little civilisations become powerful and geographically large, and it has allowed already powerful and large civilisations to carry on existing.

Again, you're certainly no student of the native peoples of Mexico, Central, and South America. Communication and trade was just as "advanced" among those cultures as it was in Europe at that time.

Do feel free to actually point out what made it just as advanced.

Mayan and Aztec writing systems and mathematics were primitive? Absolute bullshit! Obviously you know less than nothing, especially these two particular cultures. You are beyond being a major tool. There is screaming evidence from the two codexes (out of thousands) that were not burned by catholic priests that these cultures were anything but primitive. Consider the Mayan calendar that only needs adjustment every few thousand years. It's still more accurate than what we use in "western" culture. Just imagine: no leap years!

Hang on, so writing fancy codexes (which took a lot of time and effort) is clearly 10 times more efficient then the Roman alphabet and getting apiece of paper and a pen out?

And also, look at how the number 586 is written here: Inca mathematics

So what's more efficient, taking several strings and making some elaborate knot thing or just writing "586" on a piece of paper?
Compared to Arabic numerals and the Roman alphabet, this was primative and inefficient stuff. And also, the Incans didn't even have a writing system-clearly much more advanced in that respect then!

And here's a key phrase for you: In comparison (hint, key phrase there) to the Europeans, this was pretty primative and inefficient.

Advanced in your ethnocentric view of the world. That's a good word -- ethnocentric -- you should look it up and learn how it colors you as a flaming twit!

I know exactly what that word means and no I'm not an ethnocentric. I'm simply trying to get the people in this thread to look at things from both perspectives rather then just saying "oh everything the Europeans did was completely bad". Surely you must at least agree that anyone who looks at things from only one point of view is doomed?

Western medicine would have not "blossomed" without the introduction of plants from the Americas. These plants were already in use when European invaders supposedly "discovered" them.

So Western medicine owes its efficiency all because of South American herbal plants? Bullshit. The Chinese had a much more highly advanced system of medicine and Europeans had been in contact with them for literally 1000+ years before they got to South America. South American herbal plants have helped Western medicine, but Western medicine doesn't only exist because of these same plants.

Human charity was invented by "the Church"? That's news to the Algonquins, another group of native people you've probably never heard of, but upon whose organization of protective "states" the USA borrowed heavily to create the system of state government currently in use today. But I'm sure such facts are beyond your ability to understand.

Where did I once say that the Church invented the concept of charity?
And just because one group in South America had an efficient system of charity does that mean every single other group there did? Somehow, I don't think so.

It was a tit for tat deal, kid. In the case of the Aztecs (from what can be gleaned of the history washed away by "the Church") seriously, what's the big deal about human sacrifices when "the Church" enslaved these same people in the name of "Christ" and introduced diseases that were previously unknown in the Americas?

Yes and I don't deny any of that. In fact, I tell that to European/Church lovers whenever they bleat on how "pure" the Church is. All I was saying was that a good change of European rule was that this horrible practise was done away with, and it is a good thing!

This is just too amusing. I'm certain you have verifiable evidence of this from having talked with and interviewed many Zulus? Bullshit!

And I'm certain you've never read up on what positive things the British introduced to Africa. Admittedly a lot of bad things done were bad, but there were positives that changed society and life there for the better. And that's all I'm trying to get people here thinking rather then "EVERYTHING THEY DID WAS BAD" and not looking at 2 points of view.

And also, railroads, hospitals and an established system of education existed in most pats of Africa before the Europeans came? Don't think so!

Sorry, pookie, but again the Aztecs and Incans have rather amazing systems of sanitation that worked just fine until Europeans dismantled them, using the stones to build your highly regarded churches. Take a trip to Mexico City someday and tour the Temple Mayor right next to the oldest cathedrals in the Western World. You actually might learn something that will enlighten your otherwise poor education.

Oh when I go to Mexico City next year I'l do that, thanks for the suggestions. :wink:

Please, please, oh God! please do not carry on! You are so badly misinformed that it makes my eyes bleed to read the crap you think you're actually getting away with. You should find a job with FOX.

And may I ask what qualifications you have to give you the right to elevate yourself as some sort of world authority on South American history and culture?

Dear misinformed: There's a seminal work with the title Indian Givers, written by a nice, well-informed professor named Jack Weatherford who teaches at a little university near St. Paul, Minn. He is also universally respected by his peers. Buy yourself a copy. It's not terribly difficult to read. I bet Sarah Palin could even manage it. But it's chock full of information that you obviously have missed in your very ethnocentric and very clueless education. Seriously, buy a copy or check it out at your lending library. You need something better to do with your life before ever attempting to post your views about how wonderful European Society has affected the Americas.

Never presume anything. I'm no ethnocentric. I was merely trying to point out that European colonisation of other cultures (and indeed colonisation in general) isn't completely doom and gloom. I fully agree with you and accept the fact that Euopeans did a hell of a lot of damage to South America (and in some cases probably did more harm then good) but it wasn't completely doom and gloom. What's so wrong with trying to get people to see things from 2 points of view?

And once again: I never said that European society did more good than harm to these countries. I was just trying to get people thinking about some of the good things they introduced! In fact, I could make another post listing all the areas they majorly fucked things up for the people and made a disaster.

And I do plenty of things with my life, thanks for the concern though! In the spring I'm travelling to the USA, then to the Balkans, in the summer I'm going to China for a month to do a volunteering project, and in the autumn I'm starting an honours degree in history. And by the way the university I'm going to is directly below in the categorical tier in which Oxford and Cambridge are in (and I will have an opportunity to do a postgraduate course at Oxford as a result) so my education can't be poor or clueless if I managed to get in. But again, thank for the concern!

 

[houtx48]

just how many minarets per year get built in Switzerland anyway? what brought this up anyway?

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

Switzerland has a very wierd version of semi-direct democracy. one of the few in the world to hold many referendums. i think someone proposed it, such as a far right party and the public latched onto it. it may not seem big but its more of a sign of possible things to come.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

Switzerland is not a progressive country; it is rich and has good social provision for its people and guest workers. It is deeply conservative - it has more privately owned firearms than the inhabitants of Donkeyhead County, Alabama. It provided a safe haven for Nazi money. It is religious and that may not be a bad thing. Remeber all you need to do to be a real Christian is have faith and do quiet good works of charity. The Swiss are never in your face, if you have the money they will let anyone across their borders. I am not right wing but I will object to the ban on minarets when America's friend,Saudi Arabia permits the building of churches and Christian burial for the people who really keep it afloat.