Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should the U.S. give reparations for slavery?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Emtos View Post

    A revolt leading ot independence is exactly a secession. And a perfidous betrayal by the way.
    I wonder how many other times you have stood on a position made of quicksand because your understanding of the language was equally shaky.

    The North American Colonies had no representation in Parliament, they were Colonies .
    The Southern States had full representation in Congress and Senate and were part of the nation itself.

    Most folks got that clue already, its the difference between the Congo going its own way and Flanders & Walloon going their separate ways.
    "Why is the Rum gone?"

    -Captain Jack

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post

      I wonder how many other times you have stood on a position made of quicksand because your understanding of the language was equally shaky.

      The North American Colonies had no representation in Parliament, they were Colonies .
      The Southern States had full representation in Congress and Senate and were part of the nation itself.

      Most folks got that clue already, its the difference between the Congo going its own way and Flanders & Walloon going their separate ways.
      Why colonies should have a representation in Parliament ? They're colonies for a reason. The goal of existence of colonies is to serve the metropolitan country.
      Southern States had a representation but why should it matter ? They wanted to separate and that's what they did.

      Flanders and Wallonia can go their separate ways in near future.
      There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
        Funnily enough THAT is a Marxist argument – straight up historic materialism. No one but them makes THAT argument.

        Though I am of course aware that Marxist is the LAST thing you are. What I assume you probably want to say here is that Catholic Church is morally destitute and only about filthy lucre, and always has been. Unlike morally upright, God-fearing Protestants.

        No, unless the king of France was going around saying "L'Églie c'est moi!" Philippe le Bel didn't however. He was the one who seized their assets and put them on the bonfires.

        The Dominican Order was tasked with the original Inquisition, in southern France and northern Italy, beginning in 1231, to convert the Cathars, Paterans, Bogomils, Waldensians etc. that had taken hold there. No seizures, though, and a process of peaceful conversion, in particular in Northen Italy where about HALF the population was initially considered heretics of some kind.
        The later SPANISH Inquisition, which was under the Spanish Crown, later did things somewhat differently. (Still, might want to watch that Marxist historical materialist streak showing.)

        No, again that was the kings. And when it wasn't it tended to be local Big Men out to make money, far away from any kind of either royal or church control. The Church argued that the natives were human being in need of being brought to Christ.

        Interestingly in the latest move by the Vatican we might be getting some better documentation of what went on.

        You are exaggerating MASSIVELY here. But it is NOT somehow random. What you have presented here is in effect the Anglosaxon Protestant Black Legend of Catholicism, poineered by the British, replanted in its New World colonies, and apparently still flourishing.

        You're from the South too?
        Those are great points. You clearly have a grasp of the middle ages and I am jealous.

        What do you know of Alphonso X, The Spanish King of the 13th Century. He was said to be a liberal man for his time. Now thats another thing, "his time". What do you make of progress of equality among man during the middle ages. For example in the 12th century, the famous Muslim scholar Ibn Jubair visited the Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem, said to be by some a violent Crusader State. Yet Jubair, said that Muslims preferred to live in the Catholic State due to success, the Muslims said they had it better off in the Catholic State compared to Islamic lands.

        What do you make of Christopher Columbus, perhaps responsible for paving the way for The Spanish Empire in 1492. Now Columbus was said to praise some of the natives he encountered in the so called New Land in the Taino People. Something along the line Columbus said to his Queen Isabella that there can be no better people then the Taino. Yet some say Columbus was some sort of monster. So what do you make of Columbus?

        Finally do you know of the English Catholic historian John Lingard? Lingard lives in 19th century England and apparently had some success in England and respect from Protestant English. Is someone like Lingard an exception in 19th Century Protestant England?
        Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
        Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

        George S Patton

        Comment


        • Forty acres and a mule. Deduct welfare, food stamps, affirmative action programs which paid for college education, hiring preferences, subsidized housing and health care.
          Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
          Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

          Comment


          • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

            When we 'round up the usual suspects' for who started Christ-ianity, for some strange reason, Jesus is top of the list..
            really ? he left a church and well defined doctrine when he was killed ? which historical source is that ?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by nastle View Post

              really ? he left a church and well defined doctrine when he was killed ? which historical source is that ?
              Certainly not the Bible...
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment





              • More on the E=Mountain Man;n5103909]

                Seriously? It was the Church that started the Holy Crusades in order to take control of the rich spice trading routes. It was the Church who destroyed the Templars for their money and lands. It was the Church that sponsored the Inquisition which was all about seizing money and property. It was the Church that rap[ed and enslaved and butchered the New World. And it was the Church that made a deal with the Nazis to protect themselves, said nothing and did nothing about the mass extinction of the Jews and then provided Vatican diplomatic passports, sanctuaries and transportation to help the murderer and torturers out of Germany to escape prosecution. The Church has a foul history when it comes to civil rights.

                And none of this has anything to do with 21st century demands for reparations by people who have never know slavery on their entire lives but whose ancestors were often enslaved in the past by Catholics.

                NO REPARATIONS, PERIOD.[/QUOTE]

                I do believe that the mods should spin off the Christian discussion to a separate thread, as it's relevance to the reparations debate is tangential...
                that said, there are a couple of commonly accepted facts:
                a. The first crusade was launched in response to the byzantine emperor's plea for aid, as the battle of Mazinkert in 1074 had Been a catastrophic defeat at the hands of the Seljuk Turks.

                b. the Seljuk's had occupied Palestine, and banned Christian pilgrimages. the few Christians trying to slip through had been horribly mistreated.
                c. the Spice trade went through Egypt. The Fatimid dynasty, a Shia Moslem caliphate, had a very tolerant attitude towards Christians when they controlled the Holy Land, and handled the trade well...

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...southern_Italy a primer on more causes of the first crusade...
                Last edited by marktwain; 17 Mar 19, 17:20.
                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                Comment


                • Actually, the First Crusade was in response to a call for help from the Eastern Roman Emperor. The Pope sold it as a religious crusade in order to get the troops to go. And those that went, especially those knights and nobles who would not inherit, went and fought for land and profit.
                  We are not now that strength which in old days
                  Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                  Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                  To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by marktwain View Post


                    More on the E=Mountain Man;n5103909]

                    Seriously? It was the Church that started the Holy Crusades in order to take control of the rich spice trading routes. It was the Church who destroyed the Templars for their money and lands. It was the Church that sponsored the Inquisition which was all about seizing money and property. It was the Church that rap[ed and enslaved and butchered the New World. And it was the Church that made a deal with the Nazis to protect themselves, said nothing and did nothing about the mass extinction of the Jews and then provided Vatican diplomatic passports, sanctuaries and transportation to help the murderer and torturers out of Germany to escape prosecution. The Church has a foul history when it comes to civil rights.

                    And none of this has anything to do with 21st century demands for reparations by people who have never know slavery on their entire lives but whose ancestors were often enslaved in the past by Catholics.

                    NO REPARATIONS, PERIOD.
                    I do believe that the mods should spin off the Christian discussion to a separate thread, as it's relevance to the reparations debate is tangential...
                    that said, there are a couple of commonly accepted facts:
                    a. The first crusade was launched in response to the byzantine emperor's plea for aid, as the battle of Mazinkert in 1074 had Been a catastrophic defeat at the hands of the Seljuk Turks.

                    b. the Seljuk's had occupied Palestine, and banned Christian pilgrimages. the few Christians trying to slip through had been horribly mistreated.
                    c. the Spice trade went through Egypt. The Fatimid dynasty, a Shia Moslem caliphate, had a very tolerant attitude towards Christians when they controlled the Holy Land, and handled the trade well...

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...southern_Italy a primer on more causes of the first crusade...[/QUOTE]

                    So the Crusades never happened? Is that your position?

                    If you check a map, Egypt is on the far side of the Holy Land. The Spice routes came from the East and went West.

                    Need a primer on geography?

                    BTW - wiki is not an acceptable reference, nor has it been since it was banned from collegiate resources.
                    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                      I do believe that the mods should spin off the Christian discussion to a separate thread, as it's relevance to the reparations debate is tangential...
                      that said, there are a couple of commonly accepted facts:
                      a. The first crusade was launched in response to the byzantine emperor's plea for aid, as the battle of Mazinkert in 1074 had Been a catastrophic defeat at the hands of the Seljuk Turks.

                      b. the Seljuk's had occupied Palestine, and banned Christian pilgrimages. the few Christians trying to slip through had been horribly mistreated.
                      c. the Spice trade went through Egypt. The Fatimid dynasty, a Shia Moslem caliphate, had a very tolerant attitude towards Christians when they controlled the Holy Land, and handled the trade well...

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...southern_Italy a primer on more causes of the first crusade...
                      So the Crusades never happened? Is that your position?

                      If you check a map, Egypt is on the far side of the Holy Land. The Spice routes came from the East and went West.

                      Need a primer on geography?

                      BTW - wiki is not an acceptable reference, nor has it been since it was banned from collegiate resources.[/QUOTE]

                      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_VII_1870.jpg
                      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                      Comment


                      • MM! You are starting to scare me....
                        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                          MM! You are starting to scare me....
                          Excellent...you starting to wake up!
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            Excellent...you starting to wake up!
                            Perhaps..

                            Anyhow, the bulk of the spice trade went by sea to the head of the gulf of Suez, and occasionally, through the Red sea- Nile canal, the ancient waterway , when it was open. The Fatimid's and the Italian principalities had reached a 'modus operati' after the Sicilian wars ceased. See my prev. link.

                            the Seljuk's were relatively recent converts to Islam. and rather fanatical.
                            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                              I do believe that the mods should spin off the Christian discussion to a separate thread, as it's relevance to the reparations debate is tangential...
                              that said, there are a couple of commonly accepted facts:
                              a. The first crusade was launched in response to the byzantine emperor's plea for aid, as the battle of Mazinkert in 1074 had Been a catastrophic defeat at the hands of the Seljuk Turks.

                              b. the Seljuk's had occupied Palestine, and banned Christian pilgrimages. the few Christians trying to slip through had been horribly mistreated.
                              c. the Spice trade went through Egypt. The Fatimid dynasty, a Shia Moslem caliphate, had a very tolerant attitude towards Christians when they controlled the Holy Land, and handled the trade well...

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...southern_Italy a primer on more causes of the first crusade...
                              So the Crusades never happened? Is that your position?

                              If you check a map, Egypt is on the far side of the Holy Land. The Spice routes came from the East and went West.

                              Need a primer on geography?

                              BTW - wiki is not an acceptable reference, nor has it been since it was banned from collegiate resources.[/QUOTE] References[edit]

                              1. ^ "Assessment of the status, development and diversification of fisheries-dependent communities: Mazara del Vallo Case study report" (PDF). European Commission. 2010. p. 2. Retrieved 28 September 2012. In the year 827, Mazara was occupied by the Arabs, who made the city an important commercial harbour. That period was probably the most prosperous in the history of Mazara.
                              2. ^ Krueger, Hilmar C.; Musca, Giosue (1966). "Review of L'emirato di Bari, 847-871by Giosuè Musca". Speculum. Medieval Academy of America. 41 (1): 761. doi:10.2307/2852342. JSTOR 2852342.
                              3. ^ Krueger, Hilmar C. (1969). "Conflict in the Mediterranean before the First Crusade: B. The Italian Cities and the Arabs before 1095". In Baldwin, M. W. A History of the Crusades, vol. I: The First Hundred Years. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 40–53.
                              4. ^ Jellinek, George (1994). History Through the Opera Glass: From the Rise of Caesar to the Fall of Napoleon. Kahn & Averill. ISBN 0-912483-90-3.
                              5. ^ Kenneth M. Setton, "The Byzantine Background to the Italian Renaissance" in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 100:1 (Feb. 24, 1956), pp. 1–76.
                              6. ^ Daftary, Farhad. The Ismāʻı̄lı̄s: Their History and Doctrines. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-37019-1.
                              7. ^ Julie Taylor, Muslims in Medieval Italy: The Colony at Lucera, (Rowman & Littlefield Inc., 2003), 18.
                              8. ^ Caroline Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples: Church Building in the Angevin Kingdom, 1266-1343, (Yale University Press, 2004), 107.
                              9. ^ Previté-Orton (1971), vol. 1, pg. 370
                              10. ^ Jump up to:a b Islam in Sicily Archived 2011-07-14 at the Wayback Machine, by Alwi Alatas
                              11. ^ Previté-Orton (1971), p. 370
                              12. ^ J. B. Bury, History of the Eastern Empire, (Cosimo Classic, 2008), 307.
                              13. ^ J. B. Bury, History of the Eastern Empire, 307.
                              14. ^ Overview of Italy in the late 9th century at cronologia.leonardo.it
                              15. ^ Farhad Daftary, The Isma'ilis: Their History and Doctrines, (Cambridge University Press, 1990), 156.
                              16. ^ Jump up to:a b c Alex Metcalfe, Muslims of Medieval Italy, ed. Carole Hillenbrand, (Edinburgh University Press, 2009), 47.
                              17. ^ Salvatori 2002, 23; Heywood 1921, 22 n2.
                              18. ^ Archived link: From Islam to Christianity: the Case of Sicily, Charles Dalli, page 153. In Religion, ritual and mythology : aspects of identity formation in Europe / edited by Joaquim Carvalho, 2006, ISBN 88-8492-404-9.
                              19. ^ Saracen Door and Battle of Palermo
                              20. ^ Previte-Orton (1971), pg. 507-11
                              21. ^ N.Daniel: The Arabs; op cit; p.154.
                              22. ^ A.Lowe: The Barrier and the bridge, op cit;p.92.
                              23. ^ Aubé, Pierre (2001). Roger Ii De Sicile - Un Normand En Méditerranée. Payot.
                              24. ^ Abulafia, David (1988). Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-9004-X.
                              25. ^ "The Military Factor in Social Change Vol. 2". google.it.
                              26. ^ Julie Taylor. Muslims in Medieval Italy: The Colony at Lucera. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books. 2003.
                              27. ^ Ataullah Bogdan Kopanski. Islamization of Shqeptaret: The clas of Religions in Medieval Albania. Archived 2009-11-25 at the Wayback Machine
                              28. ^ "Mercenaries in Medieval and Renaissance Europe". google.it.
                              29. ^ "Italian City States 1250-1453 by Sanderson Beck". beck.org.
                              30. ^ Jump up to:a b c Kreutz, 45.
                              31. ^ Crouzet-Pavan, Elisabeth; Cochrane, Lydia G. (16 February 2005). Venice Triumphant: The Horizons of a Myth. JHU Press. p. 60.
                              32. ^ Skinner, 32–33.
                              33. ^ Skinner, see first chapter. See also the vast literature on the coming of the Normans to southern Italy.
                              34. ^ Skinner, 2–3.
                              35. ^ Michele Amari, Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia, lt=Le Monnier, 1854, Vol. I, p. 364
                              36. ^ Barbara Kreutz (1996). Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 25–28.
                              37. ^ Skinner, 33, based on Leo of Ostia and the Chronica Monasterii Cassinensis.
                              38. ^ Mary Stroll, The Medieval Abbey of Farfa: Target of Papal and Imperial Ambitions, (Brill, 1997), 32-33.
                              39. ^ Mary Stroll, 24-25.
                              40. ^ Peter Partner (1 Jan 1972). The Lands of St. Peter: The Papal State in the Middle Ages and the Early Renaissance (illustrated ed.). University of California Press. pp. 81–2. ISBN 9780520021815.
                              41. ^ Joranson, 355 and n 19.
                              42. ^ Brown, R. Allen (1984). The Normans. Woodsbridge, Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer. p. 97. ISBN 0-85115-359-3.
                              43. ^ Casula, Francesco Cesare (1994). La Storia di Sardegna. Sassari, it: Carlo Delfino Editore. ISBN 978-88-7138-084-1.
                              44. ^ Omnia cum plano tenuit montana tyrampnus (III, 74). Bruce 2006, 132. For the Latin text of the Liber, cf. this PDF.
                              45. ^ Bruce 2006, 134.
                              46. ^ Tyerman 2006, 55.
                              47. ^ Between Salt Water and Holy Water: A History of Southern Italy, by Tommaso Astarita.
                              48. ^ Georgina Masson (1957). Frederick II of Hohenstaufen. A Life. London: Secker & Warburg. ISBN 0-436-27350-0.
                              Further reading

                              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                              you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                              Comment


                              • The sources on wiki are often unsourced. Sometimes they’re just old webpages with a few paragraphs on them: no sources whatsoever. Also, the wiki editors often don’t know how to interpret sources, and their information is skewed or misleading. I taught a 5th grader who edited Wikipedia at least once.

                                Its a a good source for casual reading if you want to find something to buy a book on or if you want the broad outlines of a topic. But using it in a discussion reveals your shallowness to people who actually study the topic.
                                "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                                "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X