A world without Islam?

Apr 2015
1,704
Italy
The most important things on earth every Historians ( particularly European Historian ) should remember is the fact that Western Europe has been shaped by Christians.
And they did a great "job"..
we've fundamentally exterminated natives in two continents and wiped out their cultures, not bad, guess what we would have done if we were shaped by satanists
 
Apr 2014
1,067
Malaysia
we've fundamentally exterminated natives in two continents and wiped out their cultures, not bad, guess what we would have done if we were shaped by satanists
Extermination was done largely through diseases. Natives still exist today in latin america and north america. The episode in Africa during the scramble was a sad episode and was a product of pseudoscientific theory about human race, which was treated as a proper science as we are willing to accept big bang theory today (through hawkins had developed another no-beginning-and-end theory) a cutting edge of science.

It should be noted that extermination happens throughout human history and is a necessary action in keeping hold of vast colonies with minimal resources. It just seemed that europeans were able to do it in a more conspicuous manner, and that is because europeans then were able to do things at levels yet seen on earth.

It should also be noted that for the contributions the west made to the creation of the modern globalised world, no alternative substituting solution was to be found in any other old civilisation. I am speaking in terms of history, that means for good and for bad; not christian-biased; therefore i stressed the importance of the existence of islam as well, for the change of world order they had brought, the destruction and extermination they had done, and the constant threat that they created against europe which is important for europe's evolution in necessity.

In many instances, oppression was felt when the class-based system was heavily foreign-controlled, in which almost all the top class persons were for example Spanish. The problem with foreign rule is that the resources were not circulating within a state, but outwards.

And all in all, it is of utmost naivety for anyone to think of the possibility of the advent of the modern world we now enjoy, with all the laptop in front of us, running electric and water, technological and social advancement, human rights; that the possibility of all these can be achieved without evolution of europe as a strong civilisation. For people tend to be emotional in taking pride in national heritage and not be willing to submit. People miss the importance of acknowledging the truth and integrating the good things into their own culture for advancement. Europe has only been able to dominate in the last 500 years, why being jealous? Easterners had a long history to boast and they are jealous over some instances of success, forgetting all the pride in their long survival. Just take the lessons and be strong, move on! Even in real life we met one or two persons who become from weaker to stronger than we are; so learn from them and enrich oneself!

This is not about the superiority or inferiority of something; but rather, the causes and the effects. The point of discussion is not about what is stronger or better or holier; but rather, how is something better and why is that so. In short, I am more interested in the causes rather than the names.
 
Feb 2017
36
New England
Extermination was done largely through diseases. Natives still exist today in latin america and north america. The episode in Africa during the scramble was a sad episode and was a product of pseudoscientific theory about human race, which was treated as a proper science as we are willing to accept big bang theory today (through hawkins had developed another no-beginning-and-end theory) a cutting edge of science.
Perhaps largely, but not nearly entirely. Much of the extermination of Native Americans occurred under concerted effort by colonizers. Benjamin Madley has done a good job arguing this in terms of California, but there is much more (in the US alone, in addition to everywhere else). We can look at the Plains Natives in the 1860s-90s for a solid example of this.

It should be noted that extermination happens throughout human history and is a necessary action in keeping hold of vast colonies with minimal resources. It just seemed that europeans were able to do it in a more conspicuous manner, and that is because europeans then were able to do things at levels yet seen on earth.
It does happen throughout human history, but the extermination of peoples over resources is never necessary. This should not have to be explained.

It should also be noted that for the contributions the west made to the creation of the modern globalised world, no alternative substituting solution was to be found in any other old civilisation. I am speaking in terms of history, that means for good and for bad; not christian-biased; therefore i stressed the importance of the existence of islam as well, for the change of world order they had brought, the destruction and extermination they had done, and the constant threat that they created against europe which is important for europe's evolution in necessity.
Globalization kicked off well before Europeans made their faces known on the world stage. Hell, Europe was still behind China as late as the 1820s. Globalization was (and is) inevitable. We can see this by looking at an early high point in globalization: Pax Mongolica. Things were going really well and globalizing really quickly. The reason why Europeans were forced to look to the seas for spices in the late 15th century was due to the end of Pax Mongolica. I am not going to play alt-history, but I will say that peoples of the world would have pulled themselves together regardless if it was by Europeans or Bantus or anyone. I am not going to downplay the contributions that Europeans made, but the argument that there were no alternatives is misguided.

In many instances, oppression was felt when the class-based system was heavily foreign-controlled, in which almost all the top class persons were for example Spanish. The problem with foreign rule is that the resources were not circulating within a state, but outwards.
I don't fully understand what you're trying to say here. Can you elaborate?

And all in all, it is of utmost naivety for anyone to think of the possibility of the advent of the modern world we now enjoy, with all the laptop in front of us, running electric and water, technological and social advancement, human rights; that the possibility of all these can be achieved without evolution of europe as a strong civilisation.
Why not? The Chinese invented a million things that Europeans use; why wouldn't they have been capable of it?

Europe has only been able to dominate in the last 500 years, why being jealous?
Europeans only dominated for about 120 years, from the 1820s to 1945. Both India and China were far more advanced than Europe until the early 19th century. To add to this, I'm curious about how useful "Europe" is as a category of analysis here. Europeans most frequently exhibited power within their nation-state, or through the guise of the nation-state. Should we look at the UK as a unit, or at "Europe" as a unit? These are complicated questions that we must ask to make any sense of this.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,986
Lisbon, Portugal
Europeans only dominated for about 120 years, from the 1820s to 1945. Both India and China were far more advanced than Europe until the early 19th century. To add to this, I'm curious about how useful "Europe" is as a category of analysis here. Europeans most frequently exhibited power within their nation-state, or through the guise of the nation-state. Should we look at the UK as a unit, or at "Europe" as a unit? These are complicated questions that we must ask to make any sense of this.
Those 120 years of Western domination outweights, historically speaking, almost everything the Indian or Chinese civilisations did in the last 1000 years.

Europe and North America during that period, created, spearheaded and expanded the largest Revolution humanity has ever witnessed since the Neolithic period, and the Globalization process that they lead was the most expansive one.

You can very well treat "Europe" or Western civilisation as a single unit when analysing major historical themes, just like you are analysing India and China as a single entity, when for many periods in history both China and India were not unified political entities.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,336
Florania
Those 120 years of Western domination outweights, historically speaking, almost everything the Indian or Chinese civilisations did in the last 1000 years.

Europe and North America during that period, created, spearheaded and expanded the largest Revolution humanity has ever witnessed since the Neolithic period, and the Globalization process that they lead was the most expansive one.

You can very well treat "Europe" or Western civilisation as a single unit when analysing major historical themes, just like you are analysing India and China as a single entity, when for many periods in history both China and India were not unified political entities.
Certainly Europeans have caused the greatest human progresses in the last 200 years, and arguably, they also have caused the largest environmental disasters.
Unfortunately, we are only environmentally conscious for the last few decades!
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,722
Seattle
I don't even think there was a "problem" with Islam in the beginning of the XX century...till oil was found in Saudi Arabia, was it in 1938?
After that, two problems emerged, one, poor desert bedouins who lived by showing way to Mecca became rich overnight...And that is a problem for the Arab world, because it is not developing, just using the money from oil. And there is a problem for us, because greed.
Another problem, in the big human sense, is overpopulation, and the fact that we shall soon run out of clean water and face a huge humanitarian crisis.
In this aspect, any country that has positive population increment contributes into the problem. I know that the countries with the biggest population, such as China and India, produce more people, but show me a chinese family with three kids.
In some countries, such as Iran, despite all measures, the population growth is negative. But in the ones where it is positive, there is poverty, and here is where I see islamic religion being a negative factor.
 
Feb 2017
36
New England
I don't even think there was a "problem" with Islam in the beginning of the XX century...till oil was found in Saudi Arabia, was it in 1938?
After that, two problems emerged, one, poor desert bedouins who lived by showing way to Mecca became rich overnight...And that is a problem for the Arab world, because it is not developing, just using the money from oil. And there is a problem for us, because greed.
Another problem, in the big human sense, is overpopulation, and the fact that we shall soon run out of clean water and face a huge humanitarian crisis.
In this aspect, any country that has positive population increment contributes into the problem. I know that the countries with the biggest population, such as China and India, produce more people, but show me a chinese family with three kids.
In some countries, such as Iran, despite all measures, the population growth is negative. But in the ones where it is positive, there is poverty, and here is where I see islamic religion being a negative factor.
I disagree with this quite a lot. I don't think the problems originated with oil or overpopulation, but with colonization. Unlike a lot of other colonial possessions, many people in the Islamic world could articulate their anti-colonial views through Islam, hence why we have thinkers like Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani and Sayyid Qutb. Wahabbism had existed in Saudi Arabia, but it was fairly mute until later in the 20th century.

Beginning with the Iranian Revolution's success at overthrowing the Shah, shockwaves of new forms of Islamic thought spread throughout the Islamic world (especially the Middle East). Men like Osama bin Laden, Abd Musab al-Zarqawi, and Ayman al-Zawahiri latched on and wreaked havoc. We know for certain that Osama bin Laden, for example, fought against the West for reasons that he perceived were neo-colonialism. Whether he is right or not is a question for another day, but it is important to look at what he said and thought.

Before 1979, Islamic terrorism is not a thing that anybody would have thought much about. People would have seen Muslims as backwards and exotic, perhaps, but not terroristic. This changed as incredibly violent measures were taken in the Iran-Iraq War, Lebanese Civil War, and Libyan terrorist attacks against the West. Within just a few decades, "Muslim" came to be synonymous with "terrorist."

Now, we have to navigate these ideological pitfalls and figure out how to solve these issues. It's clear that what we've been trying simply is not working.
 
Apr 2014
1,067
Malaysia
Perhaps largely, but not nearly entirely. Much of the extermination of Native Americans occurred under concerted effort by colonizers. Benjamin Madley has done a good job arguing this in terms of California, but there is much more (in the US alone, in addition to everywhere else). We can look at the Plains Natives in the 1860s-90s for a solid example of this.
I am not talking about north america.

It does happen throughout human history, but the extermination of peoples over resources is never necessary. This should not have to be explained.
Extermination from forceful eviction, which certainly include war, thus indirect extermination. By the way, what kind of extermination didnt happen out of desire for resources? Both mineral resources and societal resources, such as land for plantation, population trade routes for taxation...

Globalization kicked off well before Europeans made their faces known on the world stage. Hell, Europe was still behind China as late as the 1820s. Globalization was (and is) inevitable. We can see this by looking at an early high point in globalization: Pax Mongolica. Things were going really well and globalizing really quickly. The reason why Europeans were forced to look to the seas for spices in the late 15th century was due to the end of Pax Mongolica. I am not going to play alt-history, but I will say that peoples of the world would have pulled themselves together regardless if it was by Europeans or Bantus or anyone. I am not going to downplay the contributions that Europeans made, but the argument that there were no alternatives is misguided.
How is the modern globalised world in which we live in synonymous with the medieval world? So Pax Mongolica was the point where things were improving? Things were going really well but unfortunately pax mongolica fell apart due to some anti-globalists? There is no alternative to our modern world without the social and scientific revolution which began during the renaissance.

I don't fully understand what you're trying to say here. Can you elaborate?
There is a big difference between north american economy and south. Land rights and class. English came to north america to produce, own land and build, while spanish continued to see south america as a land to tap wealth for their empire. Land right plays an important role.

Why not? The Chinese invented a million things that Europeans use; why wouldn't they have been capable of it?
Why wouldnt chinese have been capable of modernising? Because of the slave mentality, the ancient habit of deference in a traditionally closed society where submission to higher classes was seen as a virtue. Imperial government had never allowed any merchants to rise in wealth above the ruling class. There were some high-class scientists and mathematicians during the dangerous times of Southern Song (Pax Mongolica? lol) yet there was a usual lack of interest in science and technology right after Song (the european thing was very unusual indeed). But above all, for the last two mighty dynasty of china, the Ming and the Manchu, there were peace and security which were founded on number, thus lack of competition. A similar situation happened in japan, where during the warring period the military of various states were quickly westernised, but right after unification there was a closed door mentality.

Europeans only dominated for about 120 years, from the 1820s to 1945. Both India and China were far more advanced than Europe until the early 19th century. To add to this, I'm curious about how useful "Europe" is as a category of analysis here. Europeans most frequently exhibited power within their nation-state, or through the guise of the nation-state. Should we look at the UK as a unit, or at "Europe" as a unit? These are complicated questions that we must ask to make any sense of this.
by 1600 there was nothing europeans lack in comparison with india and china. Everything the chinese and the indian had had been dispersed by the portuguese and the dutch throughout europe. By 1644 western trainers were in Ming's military camps.
 
Apr 2014
1,067
Malaysia
Before 1979, Islamic terrorism is not a thing that anybody would have thought much about. People would have seen Muslims as backwards and exotic, perhaps, but not terroristic.
I remembered Abhishek our historumite once argued about submissive mentality of the muslim world brought about by european colonialism. At that time (a year ago?) I didn't quite understand it, but now I can get it now. The point when general muslims became mild people and came to be regarded as exotic, was during very late colonial period when people had much contact with western mentality, infrastructure and education and had acknowledged their cultural inferiority.

Of course things would go on well without western meddling, which was inevitable during the iron curtain; once islamist fire was kindled, nothing can quench it, save another colonialism.