Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 17th, 2012, 04:55 PM   #181

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,488

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Again, pretending to use this territory as any control for the effect of any colonialism over the Philippines (the only relevant point for the OP) coudln't be any more biased.

It was as colonial as any other Western protectorate of the time, let say Lesotho or Bhutan.
The point is the Sultanate of Sulo had its own government and laws which was beyond the Christian Philippines under the Spanish rule. Likewise those territories where headhunting was practiced was never occupied by the Spaniards though they were within the area where Spain proclaimed as their own, but they were not able to impose their laws over them and that is a manifestation of their failure to control them, in contrast to the American colonization of the Philippines. That was also the reason why in those territories slavery and headhunting were widely practiced during the era, which is not in keeping with what it takes to be called civilized. Thus, those which were not colonized by the Spaniards have backward culture in the Philippines, and that is a fact.
dagul is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 17th, 2012, 05:02 PM   #182
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
The point is the Sultanate of Sulo had its own government and laws which was beyond the Christian Philippines under the Spanish rule. Likewise those territories where headhunting was practiced was never occupied by the Spaniards though they were within the area where Spain proclaimed as their own, but they were not able to impose their laws over them and that is a manifestation of their failure to control them, in contrast to the American colonization of the Philippines. That was also the reason why in those territories slavery and headhunting were widely practiced during the era, which is not in keeping with what it takes to be called civilized. Thus, those which were not colonized by the Spaniards have backward culture in the Philippines, and that is a fact.
The fact is that it was just another colonial protectorate as literally hundreds more.

BTW, slavery was a rather Christian & civilized practice in America until the end of the Civil War and in Spanish territories (Cuba) until 1886.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 05:21 PM   #183

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,488

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
The fact is that it was just another colonial protectorate as literally hundreds more.

BTW, slavery was a rather Christian & civilized practice in America until the end of the Civil War and in Spanish territories (Cuba) until 1886.
There is no question that the Spaniards claimed it after the Madrid Protocol, but, its culture was never influenced by Spain, and territories in the country where there was headhunting was also beyond the Christian Philippines and that was a manifestation of lack of civility. There was continuous war between them, and until now that remains as the problem of the Philippine government.

In the U.S. slavery was practiced but that is not Christian at all because the Vatican or any Christian leader did not order these slave owners to practice it in the name of Jesus. There is nothing Christian in that. While these people who were into it maybe members of Christian religion, but the faith never encourage them to execute such vicious acts.
dagul is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 06:07 PM   #184
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
There is no question that the Spaniards claimed it after the Madrid Protocol, but, its culture was never influenced by Spain, and territories in the country where there was headhunting was also beyond the Christian Philippines and that was a manifestation of lack of civility. There was continuous war between them, and until now that remains as the problem of the Philippine government.

In the U.S. slavery was practiced but that is not Christian at all because the Vatican or any Christian leader did not order these slave owners to practice it in the name of Jesus. There is nothing Christian in that. While these people who were into it maybe members of Christian religion, but the faith never encourage them to execute such vicious acts.
Please don't forget the most catholic & civilized centuries-long Spanish slavery, as already mentioned still extant as late as 1886.

Just for the record, with all due respect, this must be the most absurd excuse for slavery I have ever read.

I could of course show you and anyone else here literally tons of hard evidence on the direct participation of the Church in slavery all along centuries, starting at least from Paulus of Tarsus: but that is well beyond the OP here and it will have to wait for the proper Forum.

Back to the OP, your comparison couldn't be any more biased; the Sulu state was as colonial a protectorate as any other, like it or not.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 07:29 PM   #185

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,488

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Please don't forget the most catholic & civilized centuries-long Spanish slavery, as already mentioned still extant as late as 1886.

Just for the record, with all due respect, this must be the most absurd excuse for slavery I have ever read.

I could of course show you and anyone else here literally tons of hard evidence on the direct participation of the Church in slavery all along centuries, starting at least from Paulus of Tarsus: but that is well beyond the OP here and it will have to wait for the proper Forum.

Back to the OP, your comparison couldn't be any more biased; the Sulu state was as colonial a protectorate as any other, like it or not.
Christianity as faith that's based on the teachings of Jesus never encourage slavery because of the belief is anchored on two principles and they are love to God and fellowmen, and there is nothing that is an expression of love in slavery. There is nothing that is Christian in it. There might be some situations where religious leaders could had practiced such because they're human and commission of mistakes or sins is not an impossibility, the way inquisition was institutionalized which was one of the dark era of Catholic history, but, Christianity never ordered to practice slavery.

The territory of the Sultanate of Sulo, was only invaded by Spain in the late 1848 which was more than 300 years after the Philippines was colonized being a Spanish territory counting from 1521, the moment Ferdinand Magellan discovered the territory from the point of view of the West. Though there was a treaty between the Sultanate of Sulo and the Colonial Government of Spain in 1851, yet, their culture remained as they were and thus the civilization of the rest of the Philippine Archipelago under the Spaniards was never felt in the territory maintaining their backward ways like engaging in slavery.

Those areas in the Philippines which was not influenced by the Spanish ways remained to be head hunters and ate the brains of their captives and decorating their houses with skulls of their victims, and that is not civil at all. Such practice was only demolished during the American colonial rule.

Syla, I never make any excuse about slavery, and calling it absurd is not in keeping with decency in presenting a well thought of argument in my humble opinion. That being said, is the end of myself using an adjective to describe your post.
dagul is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 10:06 PM   #186
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Christianity as faith that's based on the teachings of Jesus never encourage slavery because of the belief is anchored on two principles and they are love to God and fellowmen, and there is nothing that is an expression of love in slavery. There is nothing that is Christian in it. There might be some situations where religious leaders could had practiced such because they're human and commission of mistakes or sins is not an impossibility, the way inquisition was institutionalized which was one of the dark era of Catholic history, but, Christianity never ordered to practice slavery.

The territory of the Sultanate of Sulo, was only invaded by Spain in the late 1848 which was more than 300 years after the Philippines was colonized being a Spanish territory counting from 1521, the moment Ferdinand Magellan discovered the territory from the point of view of the West. Though there was a treaty between the Sultanate of Sulo and the Colonial Government of Spain in 1851, yet, their culture remained as they were and thus the civilization of the rest of the Philippine Archipelago under the Spaniards was never felt in the territory maintaining their backward ways like engaging in slavery.

Those areas in the Philippines which was not influenced by the Spanish ways remained to be head hunters and ate the brains of their captives and decorating their houses with skulls of their victims, and that is not civil at all. Such practice was only demolished during the American colonial rule.

Syla, I never make any excuse about slavery, and calling it absurd is not in keeping with decency in presenting a well thought of argument in my humble opinion. That being said, is the end of myself using an adjective to describe your post.
I'm truly sorry if you may find any problem with the decency of my posts.
Rest assured that such was not my intention.
Please accept my apologies.

Again, this is not the place to discuss about religion in any depth; this is just one of the good reasons why it is so,

My observations on slavery are just to emphasize how poor is your opposition between "civilization" versus "head-hunters"; the conquerors could hardly have been considered as any role model.

Simply stated, even the control of any prevalence of head-hunting (which BTW as you rightly pointed out was actually largely neglected by the Spanish Crown in the Sulu protectorate) could hardly have been any valid justification for the "blessings" of any colonialism.

I understand that your perfectly legitimate enthusiasm for Catholicism might allow you to conclude that the adoption of this religion would have been worth virtually any sacrifice, even the colossal Amerindian genocide of the European conquest.

But please understand that any of us who might not be so extremely enthusiastic may consider that the imposition of any religion by violence is never ever justified; ergo some of us might reach entirely different conclusions on this same issue.

That said, this is the last time I'm going to mention anything related to religion in any post between us out of the religion Forum
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 11:07 PM   #187

WeisSaul's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Amsterdam
Posts: 2,418

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Interesting cherry-picking; have you any hard evidence to back such "shocking" claims on both specific examples?

Would you be so kind to share it with us here?
Thanks in advance.
The Post-Colonial Hangover - by Joshua E. Keating | Foreign Policy
Somaliland Somaliland

Quote:
Originally Posted by The merchant of Venice View Post
What about sudan and lybia (one of the most developed african countries)?

I think that making simple comparisons can lead to wrong considerations, and that the current state of ex-colonies has more to do with their postcolonial period
Also very true.

Last edited by WeisSaul; November 17th, 2012 at 11:14 PM.
WeisSaul is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 11:11 PM   #188

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,488

My reply to your last post, Sylla:

For sure, I am not discussing with you about the aspects of religion and if ever I mentioned Catholicism and Christianity in my posts it is because, such was the primary reason why the caste system and slavery were abolished in the Philippines when the Spaniards arrive, which was the practice of ancient Filipinos before the colonization.

Of course the Spaniard do not qualify as role models because in fact they were known as lazy bigots to the Filipino natives, but, friendship was developed as the Spaniards unlike other European conquerors married with the locals and they treated them humanely bearing children which were of Asian and European blood. These Spanish conquerors changed the lives of Filipinos because polygamy was considered illegal, thus, there was equality between a man and a woman in terms of marital rights.

The tradition of Filipinos who lived in the mountainous territory of Central Luzon which is that of the head hunters was so popular in that area because the Spaniards failed to set foothold over those areas and they also maintained their traditional ways of relying on the ancient ways, thus, modern medicine and formal education were unheard of them, until, the Americans came. That human condition of living in houses with skulls around it being the head of their victims was a way of life, and that is far behind from being called a civilized man who respects the rule of the law. These are the people who put the law unto their own hands by killing their victims without any reason except that they just want to kill the person as a prey. The Americans were right when they call them savages.

You are so wrong when you discussed about head hunting in the Sultanate of Sulo because the human rights violation that they had there, during the Spanish era, was that of slavery. They raided Christian villages, rape the women, kill the men and gather children and made them as their slaves. It is the reason why the Spanish colonization in the Philippines created a better society for dismantling the practice of slavery that was then the ways of the ancient Filipinos, which was practiced in the Sultanate of Sulo, being a territory that was not imposed with the Spanish laws.

Regarding your discussions about the Amerindian genocide, I do not disagree with you about the fact that lots of Indians in the U.S. were killed by the European invaders, but the Spaniards were also responsible for ending human sacrifice that was the brutal and violent ways of the Aztecs. The importance of human life was given a premium by these colonizers, though, they also robbed them with their gold and killed thousands of them, but, the fact remains that the acts of human sacrifice was abolished, and that is attributable to the Spanish colonization.
dagul is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 02:08 AM   #189

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 4,698

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol View Post
Out of curosity which are those 13 countries
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
Hong Kong
Israel
Singapore
UAE
Cyprus
Brunei
Malta
Quatar
Bahrein
Barbados

Now the fact that these places (excluding Ireland and the USA) were once under British administration does not prove any magic British bullet any more than former British ruled places such as Zimbabwe or Sierra Leone languishing at the bottom proves British neglect.
Statistics, as I have said before can be twisted to any use one wants, and is, especially by people with a dubious agenda.
The HDI index itself is seriously flawed. It links education, literacy, life expectancy and “living standards” calculated by an ever-changing and highly flexible methodology.
It does not take into account any personal freedoms, ignores such things as environmental factors and as far as access to health care and education is concerned, the quality of that access is not measured.
The Economist highlighted the failings well here International rankings: Wrong numbers | The Economist

I noted some immediate glaring problems. Swaziland is classified below South Africa, yet the country exists as a de facto province of South Africa. Swazis have use of South African medical facilities free of charge, which local South Africans do not. Education is based on the British system and at the primary and secondary level is of a higher standard and literacy is more widespread so Swaziland, like Botswana, should rate higher than South Africa. The answer may be that half of the Swazi workforce works in South Africa and with a common currency area, there is no way to measure the repatriation of earnings in order to measure GDP.
Likewise Malawi, has a very high rate of literacy, schooling and a good health system and virtually no crime or pollution. But the AIDS epidemic has reduced life expectancy from the mid ‘60s thirty years ago to just 45.
If the HDI index proves anything, it proves that the only people who live like the Swedes are the Swedes

Last edited by Ancientgeezer; November 18th, 2012 at 02:32 AM.
Ancientgeezer is online now  
Old November 18th, 2012, 02:24 AM   #190

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 4,698

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Once evidence is not enough, it is always useful to call fro straw men and bratuitous disqualifications.

It was simply noted that a less bigoted way of expressing the same message could have been used here.

It would be hard to deny, right?

Especially regarding the incredibly pretentious, hilarious and absurd analogy that any colonial master may become any paternal figure who may "have a responsibility to correct a child" just for having conquered, decimated, plundered, & enslaved for decades and additionally eventually negligently abandoned any number of native populations all around this nice planet.

Is simply possible any more ridiculous bigotry than this cheap fanatic version of the white-man's-burden crap at its acme?

Rest assured something similar could be said with exponentially less bigotry.

It's easy if you try.

In your own words, all that you require is a little relevant hard evidence for your own libels.
Some people have a perverted, twisted and biased view of the wonders and benefits of British Colonialism, European hegemony, American supremacy and the innate superiority of Anglo Saxon culture. They blame them for all of their own inadequacies and failings.
Of course, we can't all be winners, but there is no need to continue sulking, traditonal British education has always taught that being a good sport is the mark of gentleman.
Of course people with intellect, like the populations of Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Cyprus, Malta, Botswana, Barbados, Bermuda and many other didn't bother to keep a chip on their shoulder and got on with life.
If one person (usually you) wishes to take a position of overt opposition to the benefits of Imperialism, especially the beneficent British variety and spews out venom, lies and vituperation and believes that that is a rational, valid view--why do you believe that there cannot be an equally valid opposite view?
I suppose it's all down to civilisation.
Ancientgeezer is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
colonial, colonies, european, power, treated, worsts


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How did the colonisation of Africa give European countries power? kate1001 History Help 5 November 18th, 2012 02:16 PM
What would it have been like had India been ruled by any other colonial power? St. Anselm Speculative History 25 March 23rd, 2012 10:52 AM
Which European nation has the most power. rory1497 European History 85 May 7th, 2011 08:45 PM
Why are Chinese Dynasties treated differently from European ones? Kiwi Asian History 31 November 2nd, 2010 09:19 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.