The African Enlightenment and Liberal Ideals in 1500s

[Superfluous Man]

Continents have peoples and peoples have cultures.

Yes. Every individual person on the planet has a culture. Which one of those is the European one?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yes. Every individual person on the planet has a culture. Which one of those is the European one?

That would be "persons" not "peoples", when many persons share a great deal of culture they are a "people" and that people has a culture.

 

[Superfluous Man]

That would be "persons" not "peoples", when many persons share a great deal of culture they are a "people" and that people has a culture.

Oh. How many peoples are there in Europe?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Oh. How many peoples are there in Europe?

I don't know.

Keep in mind that it is possible for one people to be a subset of another or to exist in a venn diagram of peoples.

 

[Superfluous Man]

I don't know.

Keep in mind that it is possible for one people to be a subset of another or to exist in a venn diagram of peoples.

Yeah. It's pretty complicated. Isn't it.

Which brings me back to my original question about which of the people in Europe get to say that their culture is the only European one.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah. It's pretty complicated. Isn't it.

Which brings me back to my original question about which of the people in Europe get to say that their culture is the only European one.

Who said anything about that?

"European" culture is composed of the most common elements of the cultures of Europe.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Who said anything about that?

"European" culture is composed of the most common elements of the cultures of Europe.

What are some of those most common elements?

I'm guessing atheism has to be one of them. Right?

Also Marxism.

 

[Swordsmyth]

What are some of those most common elements?

I'm guessing atheism has to be one of them. Right?

Also Marxism.

These days you are right, something I have acknowledged in in thread multiple times.

 

[Madison320]

Most people care very little about freedom. People don't come to the US for political liberty. They come to make money. If Saudi Arabia was the richest country in the world
you can be sure Americans would be flooding it too. Perhaps they will is America's economic policies don't change.

It's not just "making money", most people move to achieve a higher standard of living. Higher standards of livings are generally found in places with more liberty.

Therefore people tend to move to places that have more liberty. Haitians risk their lives to escape and move to the US. You can come up with goofy subjective measures of liberty but the only objective one is "where are people moving?".

 

[acptulsa]

I mean America which is part of European culture, but Europe itself embraced more liberty culture than anywhere else in the world and anywhere else that adopted any did so under European influence.

Yer high, as usual.

People escaping the Kings, the Kaisers, the Czars, religious intolerance, the Marquis de Sade and his ilk, the Inquisition, and all that detritus of the Middle Ages came to North America and looked at the Iroquois. There is your birth of freedom in a nutshell. Kings and Dukes and Earls had nothing to do with it. Indians invented it, and thankfully for our fathers and grandfathers, if not us, the Europeans who were no longer Europeans said, 'When in America do as the Native Americans do.'

You can't deny it, white boy. Jefferson himself talked about it. Deal with it.

 

[RJB]

Your pictures don't demonstrate much.

This is also Europe.
...

Poverty exists everywhere. It is not an indicator of the greatness or superiority of a culture. Most of them it is more of an indicator of a lack of natural resources, as is mostly the case with Haiti. Poverty in Europe is especially bad because there are so many resources but Europe, following its long statist history, has chosen centralized economics over the free market. It literally eats up its prosperity before making it. If anything, Haiti's statism is following Europe's to a tee.

Most people care very little about freedom. People don't come to the US for political liberty. They come to make money. If Saudi Arabia was the richest country in the world you can be sure Americans would be flooding it too. Perhaps they will is America's economic policies don't change.

I wasn't pointing out the difference in poverty and wealth but rather the types of Tyranny. Europeans prefer order: Excessive building codes, hygienic and vagrancy laws, standards for standards. A boot on the face is preferred as long as the trains run on time. Those outdoor cafes are examples of European Tyranny.

Haiti on the other hand tends to imitate what you see in Somalia. Again the Dominican Republic tends to have imitated Europe better than Haiti. In fact the people I've met from the D.R. have done better. The three ladies I know from there seem to look straight into a person's heart rather than the angles they may attack. I envy their outlook.


Personally, I could happily live in a hammock on a tropical beach and hunt lobsters by snorkel and a waterproof flashlight at night or survive the Alaskan wilderness. However I married a woman who prefers the rules of civilization. So here I sit and type and argue with you. Yay.

 

[RJB]

Not once do I bash on Locke. Just the opposite in fact. I hold to Locke's ideals about universal human rights and the evils of the State while most of you do not.

I didn't say you bashed Locke. I may have mis-worded it. I meant instead of building your argument, you tear down the opposition. Blaming Haiti's mess on the European yoke that they overthrew 400 years ago is such an example. After that amount of time, they own it. Instead you should support your ideals by pointing out an example where an descendants of Africans fair pretty well, such as the Dominican Republic.

Nor did I say the Greek Genocide was nothing but "blowback." This is a simplification of my argument that the Greek Genocide has nothing to do with Islam as a religion and can be understood most correctly as part of an ongoing series of violence and retaliations that go farther back than either Christianity or Islam have even existed, at least as far back as the Greco-Persian Wars. It was asserted that Islam was evil because of the Greek Genocide and I pointed out that it is no more evil than what the Romans did in occupying Anatolia nor the many Byzantine wars waged to exterminate native populations for being political or religious threats. These acts of violence indeed have very little to do with the religions themselves, with being Muslim, Orthodox, Pagan, of "heretic," and more to do with the simmering hatreds created in different populations by thousands of years of warfare and occupation. In understanding this the concept of blowback is a big help a sit helps us see how retaliation only breeds more retaliation.

I never said Islam was evil in itself and caused the genocide (that may have been soeone else in the thread), but rather the that fundamentalists in the religion have a history of brutal oppression. Yes all groups are capable of it. That's why I prefer to live in a Christian or secular nation and I think our foreign policy makers should also stay out of Islamic lands. The people who vote for neocons are just as bad as the Young Turks who murdered the Greeks and Armenians, IMO .

The reason I bring it up is, if you can blame European ideals for the problems of Haiti as if tyranny is intrinsic to Europe, How can you NOT blame Islam for the Armenian genocide? I am not saying that you should blame Islam, but rather be nicer to Europe.

Haiti's problems are very much rooted in Europe. It inherited European statism and love of centralized power. It was created by people stolen from their homelands and shipped across the sea by Europeans to be worked to death by Europeans with no love of liberty or respect of human rights. To ignore the role of European actions and ideals in the mess that is Haiti is dishonest.

(I talked about this in the above post.)

And yes, I have no problem with outing liars because they like to twist and simplify things to fit their biases and lie about the thoughts and opinions of others to fit their narrative. A spade is a spade.

I mention this because you called me a despicable liar when I mentioned the genocide. However as we learned, I spoke the truth. You tend to fly off the handle when you don't understand something. You also called me a despicable liar when I said that if Vienna had fallen to the Turks or if Charlemagne had failed, Europe would have plunged into the a dark age. Maybe I worded it wrong, but I am sure the massacred Greeks would give back the numeral "0" for self rule.

So I was a bit surprised when you said that the Haitians were better off under self tyranny rather than that of French tyranny. (I agree that the Haitians should have overthrown the French) Do you now agree that Christians fair better under Christian tyranny and Muslims fair better under Muslim tyranny? Personally I prefer no tyranny, but, well you know... That's what brings us to this forum.

Actually, that may be it. A Christian Tyranny may not be good for Mormons. This pretty much just dawned on me (this very moment) why you take this so seriously (I can be dense sometimes even though Ender [ and you as well most likely] basically told me. I may step out of this debate for a while-- I've been arguing against you as if you have some deep seated and irrational hatred for Christianity and the west. And it has colored the way I approach you. You hear stories of Mormon oppression from people who experienced it and I know Greeks who have had relatives who suffered as well. Hmm.)

As for Mormons denying black people the Priesthood, you're exactly right that it wasn't until 1978 that the ban laid down in 1847 (or thereabouts, the history is murky) was lifted. The Book of Mormon says nothing of a "curse of Cain" though. This is actually a concept that made its way into Mormonism from Protestantism as American Protestants converted to Mormonism and brought their "curse of Ham" idea with them. And if you study Mormon theology you'll discover that there actually isn't a doctrinal explanation for why blacks were denied the Priesthood. In Mormon theological currents you have ideas about Cain, Ham, heavenly unworthiness, racial inferiority, and more all mixed together and all offered as reasons that might explain the ban by various Mormons at various times. To this day there is no actual doctrine explaining why given and, thankfully, Mormonism has begun moving past the Protestant influence it has had in the past by officially denouncing all such past justifications as wrong.

Protestant influence? I thought all Mormon belief came from God or at least an angel of God?

That said, none of this is relevant to why I posted this article. Too many here believe this myth that Europe ever enacted the ideals of men like Locke and that Europe is or was some special bastion of liberty ideals unlike any other. This is false. These ideals and culture exists across the world.

If European ideals from the yoke of 400 years ago still harm Haiti and the iniquities of the Greek Christians from 1000 or so years ago influence their genocide (even if distantly), why isn't something from less than 40 years ago in your religion relevant to your posting on a similar subject? That was originally why I posted about Mormonism. However as I stated above I feel that I understand you better. I kind of did from our last fight, but I held a grudge from being called a liar. I should not have, and I'm over that as I write this post. I will be much more cordial in the future debates-- or at least try Cheers.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yer high, as usual.

People escaping the Kings, the Kaisers, the Czars, religious intolerance, the Marquis de Sade and his ilk, the Inquisition, and all that detritus of the Middle Ages came to North America and looked at the Iroquois. There is your birth of freedom in a nutshell. Kings and Dukes and Earls had nothing to do with it. Indians invented it, and thankfully for our fathers and grandfathers, if not us, the Europeans who were no longer Europeans said, 'When in America do as the Native Americans do.'

You can't deny it, white boy. Jefferson himself talked about it. Deal with it.

Yeah they did look at the Iroquois and Republican Rome and Saxon common law and MANY other sources most of which were European.

 

[Origanalist]

I dont know why anyone would get defensive over this. But it got pounced on like a chunk of meat thrown in front of hungry dogs.

 

[Ender]

Yer high, as usual.

People escaping the Kings, the Kaisers, the Czars, religious intolerance, the Marquis de Sade and his ilk, the Inquisition, and all that detritus of the Middle Ages came to North America and looked at the Iroquois. There is your birth of freedom in a nutshell. Kings and Dukes and Earls had nothing to do with it. Indians invented it, and thankfully for our fathers and grandfathers, if not us, the Europeans who were no longer Europeans said, 'When in America do as the Native Americans do.'

You can't deny it, white boy. Jefferson himself talked about it. Deal with it.

So did Franklin. The Iroquois Nation also visited the FF, at their request, to speak and teach about their confederacy.

 

[acptulsa]

Yeah they did look at the Iroquois and Republican Rome and Saxon common law and MANY other sources most of which were European.

But the Romans and Saxons never put freedom into practice and proved it could work the way the Iroquois did.

White boy.

But irregardless of whether the Iroquois were superior or equal, your oft-spammed hypothesis that only people of European descent have any regard for liberty at all is right out the window. Stillborn, even, in addition to being white supremacist claptrap. So, stuff it somewhere, and spare us from any more efforts to repeat the lie so often idiots start to believe it's true, wouldja? Kthxbye.

 

[Superfluous Man]

But the Romans and Saxons never put freedom into practice and proved it could work the way the Iroquois did.

To be fair to his point, neither did America's founders.

 

[acptulsa]

To be fair to his point, neither did America's founders.

That's true, but it does nothing for his so-called point. The "founders" were of European descent. The people who "embraced more liberty culture than anywhere else in the world" came to "anywhere else" and "adopted [sic] any (liberty) did (not do) so under European influence"; in fact the Iroquois taught it to Europeans as surely as they taught Europeans that corn is edible. And Europeans weren't even able to imitate it very well.

No, you're not helping support the white supremacist claptrap. Kudos.

 

[Ender]

But the Romans and Saxons never put freedom into practice and proved it could work the way the Iroquois did.

White boy.

But irregardless of whether the Iroquois were superior or equal, your oft-spammed hypothesis that only people of European descent have any regard for liberty at all is right out the window. Stillborn, even, in addition to being white supremacist claptrap. So, stuff it somewhere, and spare us from any more efforts to repeat the lie so often idiots start to believe it's true, wouldja? Kthxbye.

YES!

 

[PierzStyx]

Responses in bold

I didn't say you bashed Locke. I may have mis-worded it. I meant instead of building your argument, you tear down the opposition. Blaming Haiti's mess on the European yoke that they overthrew 400 years ago is such an example. After that amount of time, they own it. Instead you should support your ideals by pointing out an example where an descendants of Africans fair pretty well, such as the Dominican Republic.

I never said Islam was evil in itself and caused the genocide (that may have been soeone else in the thread), but rather the that fundamentalists in the religion have a history of brutal oppression. Yes all groups are capable of it. That's why I prefer to live in a Christian or secular nation and I think our foreign policy makers should also stay out of Islamic lands. The people who vote for neocons are just as bad as the Young Turks who murdered the Greeks and Armenians, IMO .


The reason I bring it up is, if you can blame European ideals for the problems of Haiti as if tyranny is intrinsic to Europe, How can you NOT blame Islam for the Armenian genocide? I am not saying that you should blame Islam, but rather be nicer to Europe.

(I talked about this in the above post.)

The problem with this is that you're barging in halfway through a discussion without taking into consideration the entire context, just as you did with the one between me and TER. He was arguing that Islam was evil and his example was the Greek genocide as proof. I responded that the Greek Genocide isn't proof of the evils of Islam but can be best understood as a modern example of a continual history of violence between two groups of people and the Greek Genocide was in part retaliation for past wrongs, which had been retaliation for actions even farther back in history, which had been retaliation for even more violence before that, and so on. In other words, we are seeing generational blowback. The greater point was that Islam no more lead people to evil than Christianity does. My example of this was the repeated violence of the Eastern Empire on the native Anatolian people, among many others. If the emperors of Byzantium could carry out massive campaigns of violence against civilian populations and still become Saints and it not taint Eastern Christianity then surely the Turkish people could carry out mass violence against civilians without it tainting Islam. But you came into the conversation halfway, grabbed onto one piece -about the Greek genocide- and ran away with it, removing it totally from context.

You've done a similar thing here. I absolutely agree that Haiti is a mess. But it is exactly because they've carried on like Europe both economically and politically that they're in such a mess. The Dominican Republic on the other hand has taken after the United States, which in its infancy at least better followed Locke and Adam Smith's ideas than almost all of Europe ever has. The DR has free trade zones set up that reduce cost, increase production, minimize or eliminate tariffs, and spur economic growth. Haiti on the other hand has followed the European tradition of centralizing control of the economy into the hands of a powerful state. The result has been violence and poverty.

But the original statement was if it is better to be a slave under foreign rule or be poor but have more self-rule then I would definitely choose self-rule. And as talked about in the OP article, the Haitian Revolution was more successful than the French Revolution because while Haiti has always struggled with a strong man government it did liberate the people and abolish slavery while the French Revolution collapsed back into dictatorship, monarchy, and re-instituted slavery.

And all of this is in the context of responding to Swordsmyth and his/her ilk who have some sort of fantasy version of European history where everything was Liberty-oriented for some magical time before becoming Socialist and Fascist. This Europe never existed. The European countries that existed in actual history have all been (or at least attempts at being) powerful centralized governments, either as monarchies or modern nation-states, where either a king or a democracy have near absolute power to dictate to the people what will and will not be. Life, liberty, and property have been hardly, if ever, truly respected. Europe is in fact not much different from the rest of the world where the ideas of liberty have only rarely blossomed at anything more than a local level.

I mention this because you called me a despicable liar when I mentioned the genocide. However as we learned, I spoke the truth. You tend to fly off the handle when you don't understand something. You also called me a despicable liar when I said that if Vienna had fallen to the Turks or if Charlemagne had failed, Europe would have plunged into the a dark age. Maybe I worded it wrong, but I am sure the massacred Greeks would give back the numeral "0" for self rule.

I understand you. I simply see no merit to your argument. Not in 1683 and especially not in 778. If anything, the advanced medicine, science, education, and philosophy of the Islamic kingdoms would've been a benefit to Europe in the 8th century, maybe even aborting the Medieval Era altogether in Western Europe. By 1683 both sides were fairly equal, with Europe having already adopted many advancements from the Islamic kingdoms.

And I agree that the Greeks should have self-rule. I've never denied that. Nor does understanding blowback condone the actions of the Turks. Just as understanding 9/11 was blowback doesn't mean I sympathize with Osama bin Laden or think him just or good. Your implication that I somehow justify such evil is exactly why I called you a liar. The violence is still horrendous and evil and deserves to be condemned at every level. But if we're going to prevent it from happening again then we have to understand why it happened. We have to break the cycle of violence and retaliation. We have to stop fighting our ancestors' wars.

So I was a bit surprised when you said that the Haitians were better off under self tyranny rather than that of French tyranny. (I agree that the Haitians should have overthrown the French) Do you now agree that Christians fair better under Christian tyranny and Muslims fair better under Muslim tyranny? Personally I prefer no tyranny, but, well you know... That's what brings us to this forum.

I too prefer no tyranny. Radically so. But if you're asking me which I would prefer if I lived in Haiti: Literally slavery to the French or having a screwed up power hungry republic, I would answer screwed up power hungry republic any day. And I'm willing to wager so would you. It is more minarchist and libertarian, and more easily overthrown in the future. Part of the reason Haiti has run through so many governments is because smaller tyrannies are much easier to overthrow.

Actually, that may be it. A Christian Tyranny may not be good for Mormons. This pretty much just dawned on me (this very moment) why you take this so seriously (I can be dense sometimes even though Ender [ and you as well most likely] basically told me. I may step out of this debate for a while-- I've been arguing against you as if you have some deep seated and irrational hatred for Christianity and the west. And it has colored the way I approach you. You hear stories of Mormon oppression from people who experienced it and I know Greeks who have had relatives who suffered as well. Hmm.)

I don't think of myself as having an irrational hatred of the West. I think most of you have an irrational love of the West. Indeed, I'm not even certain such a thing as "Western" Civilization in the way most people use that term does now or ever has existed. There is nothing especially good or bad about Europe. Europe isn't nor ever has been this bastion of (classically) liberal ideals. Most of us are most familiar with Western ideals because they're the only things fed to us in our education, especially so for those whose only experience with world history ended in high school as most high school history courses are really just European history courses. The ideals of liberty have emerged in every civilization I've studied, across the world with what I would guess is just about the same success rate as in Europe. And so many on here want to ignore the long history of oppression and violence in Europe in favor of the minarchist/libertarian/Liberty-oriented fantasy version of Europe they've constructed. They also want to ignore the many places in the world where Europe's legacy has been a destructive one and pretend that the legacy of Europe is just liberty and freedom, ignoring the fact that Socialism, Fascism, and dictatorship are just as common in European history and in the places Europe used to dominate.

As for Mormonism, I won't deny the influence my faith and its heritage has on me. And I acknowledge that what you've had is a keen insight. Ironically, my disenchantment with the USA can be dated to just after my conversion to Mormonism when I started to study Mormon history in detail. (I say ironically because most American Mormons are very nationalistic. So you would think that my joining Mormonism would result in me becoming so as well.) Christian States, in turns out, are just as brutal and tyrannical as non-Christian states. Even Christian states founded on John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. I've long concluded then the problem isn't so much Christianity as it is the State. Power corrupts everything. And the power to use violence to impose your will on others is the most corrupting of all. Whether we are talking about the USA, the Ottomans, or Byzantium, the problem isn't faith; the problem is the State. The State loves to dress like a Christian and talk like a Christian while carrying out what can only be described as the work of Mammon, whether disguised as a Pharaoh, an Emperor, or a President, they're all idols. Indeed, Christianity truly practiced is near to anarchy as Christians have but one King and one Lord whom they obey and owe allegiance to.

In this case, the OP, Mormonism had little influence though. I came across this article as part of my continuing studied of other cultures. I've also been reading about Daoism and find many libertarian, even anarchist, ideals there as well, which I've shared on other threads in the past.


Protestant influence? I thought all Mormon belief came from God or at least an angel of God?

All Mormon doctrine does. But Mormons believe all sorts of things not doctrinal (a problem I think most churches are familiar with). And since many Mormons, especially that first generation Mormons, were all Protestants (or almost all) Protestantism has had an effect on how Mormons interpret things. I'll give you an example of what I mean:

Mormon doctrine effectively gets rid of the idea that God literally created the world in six literal days. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that the biblical references to such were metaphorical and that instead of seven 24 hours days the Bible is best understood as referring to creational periods. And the Book of Abraham, a uniquely Mormon scriptural text, refers to the Creation period as "times." So instead of the first day you have the "first time" and so on. This means that when scientists say that it may have taken 4 billion years for the Earth to form, Mormons don't have a problem with that. That is just how long that "time" took to occur.

But do you know how many Mormons, at least here in the States, are Young Earth Creationists? The vast majority. And if you challenge them on it they act like you've committed heresy. Why are there so many YEC Mormons? Not because of our doctrines, but because so many are converts from Protestantism, and American Protestantism is heavily invested in YEC as being *the* scriptural Truth.

The problem here isn't Mormonism itself or the doctrines revealed by God. The problem is the understanding of the members themselves is too colored by things that aren't Mormon doctrine. And that is what I mean when I talk about the influence of Protestantism.


If European ideals from the yoke of 400 years ago still harm Haiti and the iniquities of the Greek Christians from 1000 or so years ago influence their genocide (even if distantly), why isn't something from less than 40 years ago in your religion relevant to your posting on a similar subject? That was originally why I posted about Mormonism.

The Haitian Revolution wasn't 400 years ago. The Haitian Revolution ended in 1804, a little over 213 years ago. And European powers ruled it for 300 years before that. It shouldn't be surprising that Europe's influence has had a lasting legacy there. Being surprised by that is like discovering Thomas Jefferson still has influence on American politics today.

Similarly with the Greek Genocide. It wasn't just something that had happened a thousand years before. Violence between the two communities was (and may still be) ongoing. And had been for a long time. Heck, the Ottomans had just lost a chunk of the Balkans to Greece in the First Balkan War in 1912-1913. And you had political leaders in Greece proclaiming they were going to retake Constantinople and realize the Megali Ideal by forming Greater Greece. The violence and hatred wasn't that far in the past at all. So, no, I'm not surprised that such hatreds were turned against the Greeks in Turkey. I mourn it. I declaim it as evil and horrific. But it isn't surprising at all. Though I guess history is always that way. Genocide is the ultimate outcome of choosing violence. Retaliation can only end in extermination of one of the groups.

However as I stated above I feel that I understand you better. I kind of did from our last fight, but I held a grudge from being called a liar. I should not have, and I'm over that as I write this post. I will be much more cordial in the future debates-- or at least try Cheers.

I get what you're saying. And, for what its worth, I apologize for calling you a liar. I should have understood that you misunderstood me. Context can be hard to come, especially on these threads where you'd have to read through page after page of almost random posts to get it.