|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I believe that slavery still exist in some Islamic countries. An former N.B.A basketball player Manute Bol was held as a slave in Sudan for some time.
Yes Kudos for the British anti-slavery effort, but they were the ones who introduced slavery into North America not Southern whites. They continued to profit from it even building warships for the South during the Civil war hoping that it would continue.
I am sure that Islamic calvary, the forces of the Songay empire exterminated some tribal groups in the 9th century in West Africa. Enslaved many also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nester Noodlemon
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| I agree with pretty much everything you said. Just going to say that serfdom/fuedal system can be more or less traced back to Diocletian. When he 'modernised' the trade unions he made it cumpulsory for sons to follow fathers in their trades, hence fuedalism. His reoganisation of the empire into dioceses and more fort based defense is also a precursor to midieval times. |
Keep in mind though, escaped slaves in Rome were hunted down and slaves were generally worked like animals. Serfs had to be treated somewhat reasonably or they just did a midnight run to the Lord next door or somewhere else, and nothing could be done about it. This kind of system led to some serfs eventually being villains, that is they could work on whatever property they wanted to on thier Lords manor and could actually manage groups of property. If the Lord's arrangement was unacceptable the skilled villian just fled somewhere else and got a better deal. Some villians lived and ate better than thier Lords. Some villians sent thier kids to Oxford or other universities. This was not likely to ever happen in Rome. When Rome fell good riddance. I'm suprised people think it was a catastrophe, because the standard of living in the dark ages for the common man (serf and peasant) was better than the common man in Rome. I am pretty sure that has been studied and that is the conclusion. |
That means I'm a serf. Wooopeeee! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rumdiary wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Just here to point out that "decimate" means to reduce by one tenth and that it is often actually an understatement of the effects of European colonization on indigenous populations. |
Yea it was a roman thing. Draw lots and the guy who gets the short stick gets killed by 9 of his buddies. |
Roman Roulette? |
lol..yea something like that. It was a rarely used punishment in the legions. Off the top of my head the only time I can think of it being used was by Crassus during the servile wars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| rumdiary wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Just here to point out that "decimate" means to reduce by one tenth and that it is often actually an understatement of the effects of European colonization on indigenous populations. |
Yea it was a roman thing. Draw lots and the guy who gets the short stick gets killed by 9 of his buddies. |
Roman Roulette? |
lol..yea something like that. It was a rarely used punishment in the legions. Off the top of my head the only time I can think of it being used was by Crassus during the servile wars. |
Crassus used it on on one of his legions that was chased away by Spartacus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
earthquakez
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| Huns? Do you mean the Magyars? The Huns aren't around anymore. Hungarians (Magyars) speak a Uralic language, but are mostly Germanic in ancestry not Uralic. The same with the Finns and Estonians. |
The 'Maygars' were not called that back in the day when Rome was being sacked by the Huns and later the Vandals and Goths. The Huns were a group of nomadic central Asian horsemen who deliberately set out for western Europe to pillage, rape, kill and takeover whatever promising territories they could.
Huns were the ancestors of many Koreans of today as well as the ancestors of some of the people known as Hungarians. Those Hungarians with Asian features - very dark hair, almond eyes - are Huns descendants. The Magyars are different people. The Huns are closely related to the Mongolians - another people known for their policies of ethnic cleansing and genocide against other peoples.
Genocide is nothing knew, it has existed since humans first started competing for resources and differentiating themselves and their kind from others. I like it when Koreans trot out slurs against whites for supposedly being the only people ever to do those kinds of things when many of them are descended from the Hun people whose kind did the Central Asian version of Nazi Germany's quest for "Living space" in Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| earthquakez wrote: |
| I like it when Koreans trot out slurs against whites for supposedly being the only people ever to do those kinds of things when many of them are descended from the Hun people whose kind did the Central Asian version of Nazi Germany's quest for "Living space" in Europe. |
The connection between Hun atrocities in Europe and Central Asia and ethnic Koreans today is extremely tenuous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| earthquakez wrote: |
| young_clinton wrote: |
| Huns? Do you mean the Magyars? The Huns aren't around anymore. Hungarians (Magyars) speak a Uralic language, but are mostly Germanic in ancestry not Uralic. The same with the Finns and Estonians. |
The 'Maygars' were not called that back in the day when Rome was being sacked by the Huns and later the Vandals and Goths. The Huns were a group of nomadic central Asian horsemen who deliberately set out for western Europe to pillage, rape, kill and takeover whatever promising territories they could.
Huns were the ancestors of many Koreans of today as well as the ancestors of some of the people known as Hungarians. Those Hungarians with Asian features - very dark hair, almond eyes - are Huns descendants. The Magyars are different people. The Huns are closely related to the Mongolians - another people known for their policies of ethnic cleansing and genocide against other peoples.
Genocide is nothing knew, it has existed since humans first started competing for resources and differentiating themselves and their kind from others. I like it when Koreans trot out slurs against whites for supposedly being the only people ever to do those kinds of things when many of them are descended from the Hun people whose kind did the Central Asian version of Nazi Germany's quest for "Living space" in Europe. |
I'm not exactly sure how all this pieces together. The Huns didn't arrive in Rome to pillage necessarily. They were pushed out of their traditional grounds by Chinese expansion in the late 4th century. The Chinese pushed out the Huns, the Huns pushed out the Eastern German tribes (Goths, Vandals) and they alll converged on Rome, completely destitute. They were looking for a place to stay in the Roman empire. Rome had no real way of accomodating them plus they were messed around with by corrupt Roman officials. They besieged Rome and forced money out of Rome because they had no other way of making it. They were extremely impoverished. The Magyars (Hungarians), ethnically Germanic even though they speak a Uric language, arrived on the scene about the same time the Vikings arrived on the scene and did the same things that the Vikings did. As for the Germans they had living space of thier own, and most of the Germans thought the Nazis were pretty disgusting except for the fact that they defeated France Germany's all time enemy. The Nazis wanted to liquidate non-Germans and take thier money as well as land. Germany had substantial wealth while it was making war. Those are three completely different scenarios. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| travel zen wrote: |
| Quote: |
Kuros wrote:
Christianity is a universal religion, as opposed to all the pagan tribal religions (Islam is a strange hybrid). This means that Christians generally, although occasionally confused particularly, believed in the equality of man beneath the Grace of God. Christianity was a fundamental and necessary precursor to Western notions of democracy and equality.
|
A large load of Western Supremacy.
Christianity was spread through conquest by Europeans mainly. Chistianlty endorses slavery as well as equality. Islam actually gives blessings on those who release slaves. Democracy has NOTHING to do with Christianity. Fascism can be comfortable with it as well. |
Facism is not comfortable with Christianity. Before Hitler consolidated his power, the Christians forced Hitler to change his euthanizing policies of the mentally ill and retarded. After Hitler consolidated power Christians could not speak out (including the pope) because he was capable of torturing and killing Christians including the Catholic clergy, there is no question about that. It was largely because of the Christian mindset in America that the American population became absolutely appalled by Hitler's killings and that the American politicians in power did everything they could do to help Britian. This is in spite of the fact that a large portion of the American public was somewhat anti-semitic at the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:01 am Post subject: Re: what was the first genocide? - before jews and even Arme |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Christianity is a universal religion, as opposed to all the pagan tribal religions (Islam is a strange hybrid). This means that Christians generally, although occasionally confused particularly, believed in the equality of man beneath the Grace of God. Christianity was a fundamental and necessary precursor to Western notions of democracy and equality. |
27: For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
This is generally the lynchpin for people who claim that Christianity is 'inherently' democratic. The same epistle speaks of the difference between Grace (as freedom) and Law (as bond), but this is to be understood in a spiritual sense, not a political one. I also note that the Gospels nowhere promise 'Grace for all'. Pre-destination of the elect is actually a Catholic dogma.
The method of quoting Scripture and ignoring centuries of Tradition - in which we find the symbiosis of throne and altar, even, as in Rome and Byzantium, their unification (which finds its justification in Christ-Melchizedek) - is typically Protestant, and indeed we see the first definite stirrings of the modern egalitarian prejudice in the Protestant Schism. Before that, unity in Christ was understood to mean that the Church was one body, not that people were all the same and should all have the same political rights.
These verses can also be understood in the metaphysical sense that the plurality of beings is illusory, since all are one in principle. That's neither here nor there. St. Paul was a mystical fellow, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fat_Elvis
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Jewish people's genocide of the Amalekites, as recorded in the Bible (somewhere in the book of Samuel from memory) would, if it is regarded as historical fact, be possibly the one of the first accounts of genocide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:26 am Post subject: Re: what was the first genocide? - before jews and even Arme |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Christianity is a universal religion, as opposed to all the pagan tribal religions (Islam is a strange hybrid). This means that Christians generally, although occasionally confused particularly, believed in the equality of man beneath the Grace of God. Christianity was a fundamental and necessary precursor to Western notions of democracy and equality. |
27: For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
This is generally the lynchpin for people who claim that Christianity is 'inherently' democratic. The same epistle speaks of the difference between Grace (as freedom) and Law (as bond), but this is to be understood in a spiritual sense, not a political one. I also note that the Gospels nowhere promise 'Grace for all'. Pre-destination of the elect is actually a Catholic dogma.
The method of quoting Scripture and ignoring centuries of Tradition - in which we find the symbiosis of throne and altar, even, as in Rome and Byzantium, their unification (which finds its justification in Christ-Melchizedek) - is typically Protestant, and indeed we see the first definite stirrings of the modern egalitarian prejudice in the Protestant Schism. Before that, unity in Christ was understood to mean that the Church was one body, not that people were all the same and should all have the same political rights.
These verses can also be understood in the metaphysical sense that the plurality of beings is illusory, since all are one in principle. That's neither here nor there. St. Paul was a mystical fellow, though. |
Point well taken. I don't know if I would say Christianity is inherently democratic, but I would agree that Protestantism is necessarily more democratic than Catholicism. Nevertheless, Christianity was a precursor to modern Western democracy, even if we must confine it to the Protestant variety.
The previous experiments with democracy in the West did not go well. Athenian democracy was a failure and Socrates did what he could to show it was a disaster. Although Athens was always a bit different from what we have today, the rule of the demos meant more simply the rule of the lower-middle class. Likewise, Florence was a failure, and the Venetian aristocratic/mixed Republic was always more highly regarded in comparison to Florence than Sparta was when compared to Athens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
