Popes comments in Brazil

Dirk Gently

Just read THIS over on the bbc website and thought someone might be able to explain to me what the pope is saying.

BBC wrote:

Pope Benedict XVI has criticised "authoritarian governments" in Latin America. In his opening address to the two-week bishops' conference, the Pope attacked unnamed governments in Latin America that he said were "wedded to old-fashioned ideologies which do not correspond to the Christian vision of man and society".

He blamed both Marxism and capitalism for social problems in the region, and warned that the worsening gap between rich and poor was causing a loss of dignity through drugs, alcohol "and deceptive illusions of happiness".

POPE wrote:

"This is the faith that has made [Latin] America the 'continent of hope'", the Pope said.

"Not a political ideology, not a social movement, not an economic system."

Which governments is he criticising and what does he mean by authoritarian. (I assume he means more authoritarian than the church, or does he mean not compatible with church authority) Is he arguing for more freedoms in society or more strict catholic regimes?

What’s his solution to the economic problems and the gap between the rich and the poor seen as how Marxism and capitalism are non runners? I can understand his gripe with Marxism (the whole atheist part of it) and he can hardly promote capitalism in the region after what various free trade arrangements have done to regional economies (although lack of an education stystem + poor people looking for some hope = good church recruiting ground) but if he done his homework he would realize that these “unnamed governments” aren’t actually wedded to old-fashioned ideologies, but are infact hybrids of Marxism / capitalism to varying degrees, with catholic leaders looking for practical solutions to feed / house and educate their populations. (A bit like Jesus actually when you think about it, except well, practical).

Is he suggesting the church can run the country and provide all the education and services people need or is he doing a Tony Blair with a "third way" approach? (Still don't know what Tony’s third way was all about)

Why does he oppose social movements? Are all social movements damaging to the church? Why?

What does he mean by "deceptive illusions of happiness"? (I thought that was a bit cheeky ) Who is he claiming is trying to deceive the population into believing a certain dogma will make every thing ok?

Which part of his message was actually constructive ? what is his point? I see nothing of substance in the popes statement except an attempt at keeping up the church numbers (new local saint is always a crowd puller) and the usual socialist bashing. If he fears people leaving the church why does he blame it on economics and social movements? Why doesn’t he make any attempt to interact with these unnamed governments who he claims are “wedded to old-fashioned ideologies” (I still can’t believe he actually said that) and work with those governments on areas which “do correspond to the Christian vision of man and society”. Maybe he would like to see another General Pinochet sort out the “unnamed governments” problem?

robindch

The pope is in a difficult situation -- he can't risk offending any political establishments (Chavez springs to mind), so all he's able to do is to retreat to implication and rely on, er, the ever-flexible "context" to fill in what he actually means which in this context, means pretty much whatever the hearer wants to believe.

This kind of public finger-pointing was a lot easier when the catholic church and various states were fist in glove and the pope could say pretty much what he wanted.

Ultimately, as the article says, the pope is there to prop up the institution of the catholic church and try to keep the protestants from reducing his share of the religious marketplace much more than they already have. Reading the (possibly biassed) voxpops, I wouldn't imagine he's achieved much.

There's a reasonably good diary of the five-day trip here.

clown_bag wrote:

Why does he oppose social movements?

Because they erode the authority that he has (or had), and as a social/cultural movement itself, the church must assert its own authority over others.

liamdubh

Who better to talk about autocracies than the supreme leader of an authoritarian autocratic men-only organisation like the Church? It's laughable.

Seeing he didn't have the spine to say who he was making accusations against, I'll have to presume it Chavez and Morales, both of whom have won free and fair elections. They are democratically elected. In the case of Chavez he has won vote after vote after vote since he came to power. Clearly this isn't good enough for the former Nazi. As far as I know no country in South America, with right or left wing governments, denies it's citizens freedom of political association and the opportunity to vote and participate in elections, freedom of religion or personal freedoms in general, unless you count economic inequality as denying personal freedom - something Chavez and Morales are trying to do something about. But this is in keeping with the Catholic Church's strong anti-democratic position in South America. The
Catholic Church were strong supporters of the coup that deposed Chavez a few years ago. Anybody who has seen "Inside The Coup" will have seen a Catholic cleric on his phone talking to people celebrating the coup's success from inside the palace. And a senior Venezuelan Catholic cleric led Carmona into his inaugural dinner after the democratically elected Chavez was deposed. Presumably, this form of engagement is politics is ok as far as The Vatican is concerned, just not the social-change, increasing equality kind.

He also took a swipe at liberation theology, saying the Church isn't an economic or political system, in the process ignoring hundreds of years of the history of the Catholic Church in South America, which has always been a political power. And clearly that doesn't extend to the man himself, who is free to make political statements, denouncing democratically elected governments as "autocratic". Given that the Pope is a supreme autocrat this hyprocrisy is breathtaking. From his statements it's clear the Pope is anti-democratic and anti-social change, according to him the poor should wallow in their poverty and concentrate on the important things like pre-marital sex and thinking about God. Social justice, extreme inequality and basic human rights can be safely ignored when you sit on the throne of a city-palace in a 1st world country, the supreme leader of a multi-billion dollar corporation. Social problems and inequality don't constitute "reality" according to the Pope (his actual words). The mind boggles.

He made other comments which I regard as deeply racist. He said native peoples had been "silently longing" for Christianity to arrive on their shores. Presumably he means they were silently longing for the Conquistadores to come to the new world, read out in Spanish the Requirement document that ordered them to accept the rule of the Spanish King and the authority of the Pope and then slaughter those who resisted. This and subsequent genocide, according to the Pope, enriched their lives and gave their society meaning.

The turnout for the Pope was pathetic. It's the Pope's insular & chauvinist religious idealogy that has been "superseded". Silly and stupid old men like him have seen to that. I had no opinion on the Pope before this, I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt even after he almost started WWIII by
quoting something that associated Islam with violence and forcible conversion (of course, the Catholic Church has never been guilty of this), but now the mask has slipped. I'm disgusted by it.

karen3212

Hi, I'm surprised anyone would think Chavez in Venezuela is bad for his country. As far as I can see he is hugely improving the lives of the desperately poor there.
I mean of course the rich elite who identify more with the US are pissed off, but really what good have they done the common citizens in all they years they have had power there. Oh yeah, Chavez is forcibly buying land back from them that they are not using and setting poor people up in a subsistence kind of way, as in at least the very poor will have some food from a small farm for now.

Please why would anyone denounce his policies, he is taking some from the very rich who've had many years to improve the lives of the poor there, and giving to the poor. Why would anyone who believes in justice not see this as a good thing.

robindch

He said native peoples had been "silently longing" for Christianity to arrive on their shores.

Yes, I missed that one the first time around and can't believe that somebody could claim this and expect to be taken seriously, given that the Spanish invaders, through murder and disease, wiped out (according to Jared Diamond) around 90% of the indigenous populations of South America. I wonder what on earth the pope was thinking of when he said this?

It reminds me of GW Bush a year or two back when he thanked the Japanese for "contributing so much to peace in the Pacific over the last century".

BrianCalgary

Let's see liamdubh, you start off by making an assumption about the leaders that the pope was talking about, you then fininsh off by blasting the pope for assuming that the natives of South America where waiting silently for Christianity.

Also the Spaniards did their damage in Central America, to the Mayan culture, not South America. Central American culture was devastated by the conquistadores.

Maybe just maybe, the South American tribes had heard of this God and were waiting to hear from Him?

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

Maybe just maybe, the South American tribes had heard of this God and were waiting to hear from Him?

There are a few cases where native cultures were anxious to hear more about Christ once they heard rumours of him, but the cultures of South America were not one of them. If you read about the Valdivia or the Chimú, you'll see they expected very different things from a god than what the Christian God offered.

PDN

I heard the tribesmen of Central and South America are falling over themselves in their eagerness to embrace Christianity, albeit in its evangelical/Pentecostal form.

I agree that the arrival of Catholicism in the Americas was pretty bloody. But what did it replace:

Until the mid-20th century, scholars believed the Maya to be a peaceful, stargazing people, fully absorbed in their religion and astronomy and not violent like their neighboring civilizations to the north. This was based on the Maya's impressive culture and scientific discoveries and a very limited translation of their written texts.

But since then, nearly all of the Mayan hieroglyphic writings have been deciphered, and a much different picture has emerged. The texts record that the Mayan rulers waged war on rival Mayan cities, took their rulers captive, then tortured them and ritually sacrificed them to the gods.

In fact, human sacrifice seems to have been a central Mayan religious practice. It was believed to encourage fertility, demonstrate piety, and propitiate the gods. The Mayan gods were thought to be nourished by human blood, and ritual bloodletting was seen as the only means of making contact with them. The Maya believed that if they neglected these rituals, cosmic disorder and chaos would result.

At important ceremonies, the sacrificial victim was held down at the top of a pyramid or raised platform while a priest made an incision below the rib cage and ripped out the heart with his hands. The heart was then burned in order to nourish the gods.

It was not only the captives who suffered for the sake of the gods: the Mayan aristocracy themselves, as mediators between the gods and their people, underwent ritual bloodletting and self-torture. The higher one's position, the more blood was expected. Blood was drawn by jabbing spines through the ear or penis, or by drawing a thorn-studded cord through the tongue; it was then spattered on paper or otherwise collected as an offering to the gods.

Yep, I think I would have been silently longing for Christianity as well!

Dirk Gently

BrianCalgary wrote:

Let's see liamdubh, you start off by making an assumption about the leaders that the pope was talking about

I think it's safe to say he's talking about Chavez and Morales.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

Also the Spaniards did their damage in Central America, to the Mayan culture, not South America. Central American culture was devastated by the conquistadores.

The Conquistadores weren't Spanish?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Maybe just maybe, the South American tribes had heard of this God and were waiting to hear from Him?

Can you see how this idea might seem preposterous to a non-Christian, and deeply offensive to an adherent of the South American traditions that Christianity largely replaced?

humanji

PDN wrote:

Yep, I think I would have been silently longing for Christianity as well!

Because Christians never waged war, captured enemies, tortured them or sacrificed them to their god?

Sapien

PDN wrote:

I heard the tribesmen of Central and South America are falling over themselves in their eagerness to embrace Christianity, albeit in its evangelical/Pentecostal form.

I'm sure there are other factors at work than merely the spiritual.

PDN wrote:

I agree that the arrival of Catholicism in the Americas was pretty bloody. But what did it replace:

Yep, I think I would have been silently longing for Christianity as well!

Anthropoligically and theologicall speaking, were the autos de fé of the Spanish of the time really very different from the sacrifices of the Mayans? Bloody appeasement of hungry gods on one continent and brutal executions of deniers of an angry God on another. Either way, I'm sure they felt very much the same to the victims - the Mayan method being perhaps slightly less beastly.

And the blood-letting of the Mayan nobles immediately put me in mind of Opus Dei (a slightly more modern Spanish contribution to Catholicism) numeraries and their hobbies.

Much of a muchness really.

liamdubh

For those of you asking what so called European civilisation replaced - for a start, and this is something we all learned as 4 year olds in school, it comes down to two wrongs not making a right. If native societies (of which there were many, varying wildly in almost every way) were unpleasant and murdered their own people (ignoring that the fact the European powers were the same if not worse in that respect) does it make it acceptable for European powers to come over and kill 90% of the people on the continent? By design or otherwise. Where's the logic in that?

Oh wait, there is none, just like there is absolutely no logic in the Pope's comments, which were deeply ignorant.

And in relation to the comment about the Conquistadores only having conquered Central America (does it really matter? the precise geography, the Pope was talking about all native peoples of the Americas) you couldn't be more wrong. The only place their reach didn't extend to was Brazil. Everywhere else east, south and north they reached.

I don't expect much from religious people, who have been indoctrinated to an extreme degree, in the way of logic and reasoned arguments but you can start by getting basic facts right.

BrianCalgary

Sapien wrote:

The Conquistadores weren't Spanish??

Well aware of that. My point being is that the ravaging of culture by the conquistadores happend in Central America to the Mayan culture. This culture was centred around what is now Southern Mexico and Guatemala. The Mayan capital was located on the present site of Mexico City. So, liamdubh is placing the Central American conquistadores into South America in order to criticize the pope's comments. Which is incorrect.

Christianity has been welcomed by many cultures throughout Brazil and Venezuela.

Sapien wrote:

Can you see how this idea might seem preposterous to a non-Christian, and deeply offensive to an adherent of the South American traditions that Christianity largely replaced?

Which idea?

The Mayan culture was a vicious and bloody culture as pointed out by PDN. Regular human and animal sacrifices occured.

I'm not letting the conquistadores off the hook by any stretch of the imagination, but they were interested in gold and riches for the Spanish crown and not conversion of the Mayans.

Today in Central America there is a vibrant Christian church. Christian organisations doing what they can to educate the populace, provide food for those in need and also to increase the standard of living of those who need it.

There are also areas of Guatemala where animal sacrifices happen every week.

liamdubh

BrianCalgary wrote:

Well aware of that. My point being is that the ravaging of culture by the conquistadores happend in Central America to the Mayan culture....liamdubh is placing the Central American conquistadores into South America in order to criticize the pope's comments. Which is incorrect.

Sorry, you're very wrong. It wasn't "just" there. Ever heard of the Incas? Peru perhaps?

Repeatedly ignoring basic facts isn't a good way to engage in debate.

Christianity has been welcomed by many cultures throughout Brazil and Venezuela.

Welcomed by those who avoided having a red hot poker stuck up their arse or gold poured down their throat.

The Mayan culture was a vicious and bloody culture as pointed out by PDN.

And the warlord Popes weren't vicious and bloody? European civilisation wasn't?

Today in Central America there is a vibrant Christian church. Christian organisations doing what they can to educate the populace, provide food for those in need and also to increase the standard of living of those who need it.

The Pope's comments explicitly opposed this type of work. He has been a staunch opponent of this type of stuff.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

Well aware of that. My point being is that the ravaging of culture by the conquistadores happend in Central America to the Mayan culture. This culture was centred around what is now Southern Mexico and Guatemala. The Mayan capital was located on the present site of Mexico City. So, liamdubh is placing the Central American conquistadores into South America in order to criticize the pope's comments. Which is incorrect.

Right. It seemed from what you wrote that you were separating the Spanish and the Conquistadores somehow. Regardless - the ravaging of South and Central America was perpetrated by Catholic Spaniards - not much getting away from that.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Christianity has been welcomed by many cultures throughout Brazil and Venezuela.

Sure. But mostly in a synchretistic way, you realise.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Which idea?

The "secret longing" thing.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Mayan culture was a vicious and bloody culture as pointed out by PDN.

As was Spanish Catholicism, as pointed out by me.

BrianCalgary

liamdubh wrote:

For those of you asking what so called European civilisation replaced - for a start, and this is something we all learned as 4 year olds in school, it comes down to two wrongs not making a right. If native societies (of which there were many, varying wildly in almost every way) were unpleasant and murdered their own people (ignoring that the fact the European powers were the same if not worse in that respect) does it make it acceptable for European powers to come over and kill 90% of the people on the continent? By design or otherwise. Where's the logic in that?

Oh wait, there is none, just like there is absolutely no logic in the Pope's comments, which were deeply ignorant.

And in relation to the comment about the Conquistadores only having conquered Central America (does it really matter? the precise geography, the Pope was talking about all native peoples of the Americas) you couldn't be more wrong. The only place their reach didn't extend to was Brazil. Everywhere else east, south and north they reached.

I don't expect much from religious people, who have been indoctrinated to an extreme degree, in the way of logic and reasoned arguments but you can start by getting basic facts right.

90% liamdubh? Check your figures. A large portion of those deaths have been attributed to disease and not killing a conquered people.

The mistake made by the European powers was to declare natives as being backward and uneducated and attempting to assimilate them into a European society. Natives children were taken by the rulers sent to boarding schools were they were forbidden to speak anything but English, this only happened in Western Canada in the 19th and 20th centuries by British rulers.

Throughout North America natives were put onto reservations and the rules which govern those are quite different between Canada and the US.

When you arrive into Central America the experience is even that much more different.

You are making vast generalizations and assumptions of the Popes meanings. Benedict did not mention any countries, yet the reporter did mention four, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

He is in South America speaking of South Americans to South Americans, he is not speaking af ALL native North Americans.

PDN

liamdubh wrote:

For those of you asking what so called European civilisation replaced - for a start, and this is something we all learned as 4 year olds in school, it comes down to two wrongs not making a right.

I have often read posts on this board that over-simplified complex historical situations & processes and have thought to myself, "This reads like it has been written by someone with the intellectual level of a 4 year old." This is the closest I have yet seen to someone actually admitting it.

liamdubh

BrianCalgary wrote:

90% liamdubh? Check your figures. A large portion of those deaths have been attributed to disease and not killing a conquered people.

*sigh*. Which is why I said "by design or otherwise". 90% figure is quoted here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples

Some more information here:

http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/art/STANN-01.ART

I suggest you read it and stop trying to deny reality and historical fact. Denying a particular genocide is a crime in some countries. They take it that seriously, quite rightly in my view.

The mistake made by the European powers was to declare natives as being backward and uneducated and attempting to assimilate them into a European society. Natives children were taken by the rulers sent to boarding schools were they were forbidden to speak anything but English, this only happened in Western Canada in the 19th and 20th centuries by British rulers.

Mistake? Launching armies, invading a continent and destroying civilisation
across it, enslaving and slaughtering the natives and appropriating all of the land for yourself, cannot be attributed to a "mistake".

He is in South America speaking of South Americans to South Americans, he is not speaking af ALL native North Americans.

Why are you bringing North America into it? Although the situation is much the same with the Northern continent, we're talking about South America and the Pope's comments.

liamdubh

PDN wrote:

I have often read posts on this board that over-simplified complex historical situations & processes and have thought to myself, "This reads like it has been written by someone with the intellectual level of a 4 year old." This is the closest I have yet seen to someone actually admitting it.

Clever.

BrianCalgary

liamdubh wrote:

Sorry, you're very wrong. It wasn't "just" there. Ever heard of the Incas? Peru perhaps?.

What wasn't just there?
Well aware of the Incas and Peru, different circumstances and a few hundred years later than the experience to teh Mayans in Central America.

liamdubh wrote:

Repeatedly ignoring basic facts isn't a good way to engage in debate..

Which facts have I ignored? I am happy to hear and learn anything I don;t know of South and Central American history.

liamdubh wrote:

Welcomed by those who avoided having a red hot poker stuck up their arse or gold poured down their throat..

And you have evidence of this happening?

liamdubh wrote:

And the warlord Popes weren't vicious and bloody? European civilisation wasn't?.

European civilisation and their powers struggled for control over other areas of the continent. Sometimes blessed by a Pope, sometimes not. Please be a little more specific of who the warlord popes are that you are referencing and their crimes?

liamdubh wrote:

The Pope's comments explicitly opposed this type of work. He has been a staunch opponent of this type of stuff.

Must have missed soemthing. He doesn't say anything against the humanitarian work being done by Christian organisations, he mentions his concern with people leaving the RC church and moving to other denominations.

BrianCalgary

Sapien wrote:

Right. It seemed from what you wrote that you were separating the Spanish and the Conquistadores somehow. Regardless - the ravaging of South and Central America was perpetrated by Catholic Spaniards - not much getting away from that..

I agree, but the cause was riches and not conversion.

Sapien wrote:

Sure. But mostly in a synchretistic way, you realise. .

Yes, and it is the way it should be done. You can't force English or Western Culture on an Amazonian tribe.

Sapien wrote:

The "secret longing" thing..

I agree bizarre statement, It would be interesting to ask what he means by it.

Sapien wrote:

As was Spanish Catholicism, as pointed out by me.

That is open for research.:)

BrianCalgary

liamdubh wrote:

*sigh*. Which is why I said "by design or otherwise". 90% figure is quoted here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples).

Couldn't find that 90% figure anywhere in the article. Also wikipedia doesn't really prove much as a reliable source.

Some more information here:

liamdubh wrote:

*http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/art/STANN-01.ART

find it interesting to see the Millersville articel quote population figures and teh wikipedia say that the estimates of population vary so much that you can't peg it down.

liamdubh wrote:

I suggest you read it and stop trying to deny reality and historical fact. Denying a particular genocide is a crime in some countries. They take it that seriously, quite rightly in my view.

i am not denying any genocide didn't happen. I am saying that the reason for it is quite different from what you are saying. the genicide happend because of teh conquistadores passion for obtaining gold not because they wished to convert the Mayan to Christianity.

And yes disease was very unfortuante as was teh Blcak Death that ravaged Europe in the 15th century. Are you going to blame that one on teh church as well?

liamdubh wrote:

Mistake? Launching armies, invading a continent and destroying civilisation
across it, enslaving and slaughtering the natives and appropriating all of the land for yourself, cannot be attributed to a "mistake"..

What I am getting at is the method of conversion being in error.
I in no way agree with the slaughtering and butchering of anyone, natives or Europeans for any reason.

liamdubh wrote:

*Why are you bringing North America into it? Although the situation is much the same with the Northern continent, we're talking about South America and the Pope's comments.

Just because you did:

liamdubh wrote:

(does it really matter? the precise geography, the Pope was talking about all native peoples of the Americas).

PDN

liamdubh wrote:

Clever.

No, quite seriously, no-one here is suggesting that 2 wrongs make a right.

What I am saying is that the arrival of Catholicism in Central and South America was frequently vicious and bloodthirsty. In my opinion it was a perverted religion with very little resemblance to true Christianity at all. Nevertheless, it as a huge improvement on what already existed in those regions.

There is a revisionist attempt to rewrite history so as to portray evil bloodthirsty Christians going round the world and hurting noble savages who were living peaceably among themselves. In fact the record of history shows that generally the spread of various forms of Christianity proved, on the whole, to be more beneficial than otherwise.

liamdubh

BrianCalgary wrote:

What wasn't just there?
Well aware of the Incas and Peru, different circumstances and a few hundred years later than the experience to teh Mayans in Central America.

Btw, the Spanish attacks on the Aztecs, the Mayans and Incas all started within 10-20 years of each other. You're completely wrong.

And why then did you say this?

Also the Spaniards did their damage in Central America, to the Mayan culture, not South America. Central American culture was devastated by the conquistadores.

Well aware of that. My point being is that the ravaging of culture by the conquistadores happend in Central America to the Mayan culture. This culture was centred around what is now Southern Mexico and Guatemala. The Mayan capital was located on the present site of Mexico City. So, liamdubh is placing the Central American conquistadores into South America in order to criticize the pope's comments. Which is incorrect.

Which facts have I ignored? I am happy to hear and learn anything I don;t know of South and Central American history.

Seems to be quite a lot, to be honest.

European civilisation and their powers struggled for control over other areas of the continent. Sometimes blessed by a Pope, sometimes not. Please be a little more specific of who the warlord popes are that you are referencing and their crimes?

There were many warlord Popes. That's another debate.

Must have missed soemthing. He doesn't say anything against the humanitarian work being done by Christian organisations, he mentions his concern with people leaving the RC church and moving to other denominations.

He said the Church such concentrate on religious and spiritual matters. And not on addressing inequality. He is a strong opponent of liberation theology.

liamdubh

Never argue with an idiot....

BrianCalgary wrote:

Couldn't find that 90% figure anywhere in the article. Also wikipedia doesn't really prove much as a reliable source.

It's there in the article. Do a search. Your web browser has a find function. Search for "90". And it's reasonably reliable, you can also use google to do your own research.

find it interesting to see the Millersville articel quote population figures and teh wikipedia say that the estimates of population vary so much that you can't peg it down.

You can't peg it down to the exact percentage/person. Even with the European Holocast of 50 years ago, they weren't sure if it was 8 million or 6 million or 5 million Jews who were murdered. This was 60 years ago in central Europe. But you can a very good idea, a very close estimate, of the number.
And I've provided some evidence, evidence you asked me to back up, and when I do you question the sources.

PDN

Does anybody else see a pattern in how the opponents of Christianity on this board view history?

Anything bad that has occurred in nominally Christian societies over the last 2000 years is blamed as an evil caused by Christianity. Anything that was good, or represents progress, is seen as happening despite Christianity. By this one-eyed interpretation of history you can blame the deaths of South American tribespeople by disease, slavery and the holocaust on Christians, but deny Christians any credit for the Renaissance, scientific progress, liberalism etc.

It's quite laughable really.

BrianCalgary

liamdubh wrote:

Btw, the Spanish attacks on the Aztecs, the Mayans and Incas all started within 10-20 years of each other. You're completely wrong.?.

I stand corrected, as stated above always willing to learn a little more.

liamdubh wrote:

And why then did you say this?

Also the Spaniards did their damage in Central America, to the Mayan culture, not South America. Central American culture was devastated by the conquistadores.

Well aware of that. My point being is that the ravaging of culture by the conquistadores happend in Central America to the Mayan culture. This culture was centred around what is now Southern Mexico and Guatemala. The Mayan capital was located on the present site of Mexico City. So, liamdubh is placing the Central American conquistadores into South America in order to criticize the pope's comments. Which is incorrect

The Incas ruled for a short period of time in the Andes mountains. The conquistadores conquered the Mayan, and Incan civilizations. For the purpose of securing gold. Not for the purpose of evangelisation.

The pope was in Brazil and a very different culture, location and history than the Mayan's and Incas.

liamdubh wrote:

Seems to be quite a lot, to be honest.

Start naming them.

liamdubh wrote:

What happening?.

Red hot pokers and gold poured down mouths.

He said the Church such concentrate on religious and spiritual matters. And not on addressing inequality. He is a strong opponent of liberation theology.

I know he is a strong opponent of moving away from traditional Catholic theology. But when I read the article I see a man who is quite concerned about the gap between rich and poor in South America, and the consequences of both capitalist and marxist governments in South America.

I didn't see him decry any attempts at humanitarian work in the region.
He seems more concerned with the loss of parishioners to other denominations.

liamdubh

PDN wrote:

No, quite seriously, no-one here is suggesting that 2 wrongs make a right.

People are saying that the Spanish conquest wasn't all that bad because, well, the natives were savages and engaged in ritual murder. They are saying, explicitly, that the bad sides of each society cancel each other out. We can approximate it this to the logic of "2 wrongs make a right". Something that we teach to kids is wrong.

What I am saying is that the arrival of Catholicism in Central and South America was frequently vicious and bloodthirsty. In my opinion it was a perverted religion with very little resemblance to true Christianity at all. Nevertheless, it as a huge improvement on what already existed in those regions.

A grossly racist comment to make, in my view. Did you ask them? How can wiping out a civilisation be a "huge improvement"? Huge improvement for whom? The millions who died?

There is a revisionist attempt to rewrite history so as to portray evil bloodthirsty Christians going round the world and hurting noble savages who were living peaceably among themselves. In fact the record of history shows that generally the spread of various forms of Christianity proved, on the whole, to be more beneficial than otherwise.

Christianity could have been spread completely peacefully, it was in fact spread on the back of a vicious conquest of a inferior (strengh/militarily) people who basically couldn't defend themselves.

All my arguments are summed up here, I won't keep repeating them.....pissing into the wind.

http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/art/STANN-01.ART

BrianCalgary

liamdubh wrote:

Never argue with an idiot.....

careful liam, this goes against the charter and will lead to banning.

BrianCalgary

liamdubh wrote:

It's there in the article. Do a search. Your web browser has a find function. Search for "90". And it's reasonably reliable, you can also use google to do your own research.



You can't peg it down to the exact percentage/person. Even with the European Holocast of 50 years ago, they weren't sure if it was 8 million or 6 million or 5 million Jews who were murdered. This was 60 years ago in central Europe. But you can a very good idea, a very close estimate, of the number.
And I've provided some evidence, evidence you asked me to back up, and when I do you question the sources.

Why not just pull out the piece in the article and quote it?

Sources have to be questioned, it happens all the time. Nip over to the creation thread. Quite a few of the posters there dismiss any reference to the AiG website.

liamdubh

The Incas ruled for a short period of time in the Andes mountains. The conquistadores conquered the Mayan, and Incan civilizations. For the purpose of securing gold. Not for the purpose of evangelisation.

What we were actually talking about was your assertion that the Spanish conquest didn't touch South America. I was correctly that. Presumably you think it colonized itself.

The pope was in Brazil and a very different culture, location and history than the Mayan's and Incas.

And the relevance of this point is....?

Star naming them.

I'll name one Pope, guilty of what we would call genocide today,

Pope Innocent III.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

Red hot pokers and gold poured down mouths.

This was retribution handed out to one particular Conquistadore, I've read somewhere that this was the punishment handed out by the Conquistadores themselves. I don't have time to search for "evidence" to back up every single sentence in every single one of my posts. I think I've proved you wrong enough for one day.

I know he is a strong opponent of moving away from traditional Catholic theology. But when I read the article I see a man who is quite concerned about the gap between rich and poor in South America, and the consequences of both capitalist and marxist governments in South America.

I see a man concerned that the Church doesn't get involved in social change (this sort of thinking has a long tradition in the Church, back in medievel times those on the bottom would be told that they would have their riches in heaven, in the afterlife, and shouldn't worry that they were poor, this was the logic spread by filthy rich clerics living off the backs of the poor so it's hardly surprising this sort of thing was taught, while I don't believe the Pope is quite that cynical it's easy for him to talk seeing as he lives in a city-palace with billions of euro at his disposal) and concerned that people like Chavez and Morales will do something about it. The Pope wrongly associates this with "autocratic" behaviour, the Pope would prefer the status quo to be maintained. The thing is, like a good CEO he's defending his position, if poverty was eradicated his market would be wiped out with it, in his view. Sounds extreme but it's true. He is saying that people should forget about things like human rights and equality - and by association idealogies that try to address it - and simply concentrate on God instead. The kind of help for the poor the Church likes is the help it gives to poor people while they are desperately poor. Like Mother Theresa's. The other kind, helping them build a better society, is akin to Marxism and is clearly evil and has to be stopped.

BrianCalgary

liamdubh wrote:

What we were actually talking about was your assertion that the Spanish conquest didn't touch South America. I was correctly that. Presumably you think it colonized itself..

Never said that, I was wrong in thinkng that it happened much later than it did. The type of conquest that the conquistadores practiced was localized to the Inca civilisation alone and did not involve all of South America.

Brazil was colonozed by the Portuguese.

liamdubh wrote:

And the relevance of this point is....?..

That Brazil was colonized by the Portuguese and not the Spanish, so the assertion of Spanish conquistadores wiping out 90% of the South American population and sticking red hot pokers were the sun doesn't shine was way off base.

liamdubh wrote:

I'll name one Pope, guilty of what we would call genocide today,

Pope Innocent III.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade.

liamdubh wrote:

This was retribution handed out to one particular Conquistadore, I've read somewhere that this was the punishment handed out by the Conquistadores themselves. I don't have time to search for "evidence" to back up every single sentence in every single one of my posts..

Then don't make such a statement without something to back it up.

liamdubh wrote:

I think I've proved you wrong enough for one day..

The only place I see this happened was the timing of the Incan encounter with the Spanish.

liamdubh wrote:

I see a man concerned that the Church doesn't get involved in social change (this sort of thinking has a long tradition in the Church, back in medievel times those on the bottom would be told that they would have their riches in heaven, in the afterlife, and shouldn't worry that they were poor, this was the logic spread by filthy rich clerics living off the backs of the poor so it's hardly surprising this sort of thing was taught, while I don't believe the Pope is quite that cynical it's easy for him to talk seeing as he lives in a city-palace with billions of euro at his disposal) and concerned that people like Chavez and Morales will do something about it. The Pope wrongly associates this with "autocratic" behaviour, the Pope would prefer the status quo to be maintained. The thing is, like a good CEO he's defending his position, if poverty was eradicated his market would be wiped out with it, in his view. Sounds extreme but it's true. He is saying that people should forget about things like human rights and equality - and by association idealogies that try to address it - and simply concentrate on God instead. The kind of help for the poor the Church likes is the help it gives to poor people while they are desperately poor. Like Mother Theresa's. The other kind, helping them build a better society, is akin to Marxism and is clearly evil and has to be stopped.

He decries both Marxist and capitalist governments that have failed the people in South America. He doesn't mention any particular ruler at anytime. You seem to be reading into the comments what you want based on your own anti-Catholic bias.

PDN

liamdubh wrote:

People are saying that the Spanish conquest wasn't all that bad because, well, the natives were savages and engaged in ritual murder. They are saying, explicitly, that the bad sides of each society cancel each other out. We can approximate it this to the logic of "2 wrongs make a right". Something that we teach to kids is wrong.

Who is saying that the Spanish conquest wasn't that bad? I haven't noticed anyone saying that. No-one, as far as I can see, has argued that the bad sides of each society canceled each other out. Why not try to address the points people are actually making?

A grossly racist comment to make, in my view. Did you ask them? How can wiping out a civilisation be a "huge improvement"? Huge improvement for whom? The millions who died?

So it's grossly racist to say that you think one form of religion was an improvement upon another? The fact that millions died, primarily of disease brought by Europeans, has no bearing whatsoever on the respective merits of two religious systems. I cannot even begin to imagine how someone's mind must work for them to think that is relevant to what we are talking about.

Christianity could have been spread completely peacefully, it was in fact spread on the back of a vicious conquest of a inferior (strengh/militarily) people who basically couldn't defend themselves.

I quite agree with you. So you are now arguing that the problem was not in Christianity per se, but rather in the wrong way it was spread. Thank you for conceding that point.

All my arguments are summed up here, I won't keep repeating them.....pissing into the wind.

Yes, into the wind indeed. And like most little boys that do that you've managed to urinate all over yourself in the process, haven't you?

liamdubh

BrianCalgary wrote:

Never said that

You did explicitly say that. I've included the quotes. Why do you repeatedly deny what's in front of your eyes? Just accept your mistake. You'll come off better for it. You explictly said the Spanish (and/or the Conquistadores) never went to South America.

Brazil was colonozed by the Portuguese.

Agreed, I pointed that out earlier.

That Brazil was colonized by the Portuguese and not the Spanish, so the assertion of Spanish conquistadores wiping out 90% of the South American population and sticking red hot pokers were the sun doesn't shine was way off base

It's not way off base. I've provided sources to back it up. The fact that Brazil was not conquered by the Spanish does not mean that 90% of indigenous people were not wiped out by the Spanish. If Brazil was home to 1% and the rest of the Americas home to 99%, for example. Again, engaging in basic exercises in logic and rational thinking will mean you won't end up making illogical, irrational statements. I've included references to back up what I've said, you've chosen to ignore/attack them. I could continue to provide references but presumaby you'd continue do the same. It would be a pointless exercise.

Then don't make such a statement without something to back it up.

So every post made here should be thoroughly reference to an academic standard? I've included far more to back up my statements than you have yours. You've done nothing but post waffle, blatantly incorrect statements and confused ramblings......

The only place I see this happened was the timing of the Incan encounter with the Spanish.

You've been wrong more than once and repeated your mistakes even after being corrected. Still, flying in the face of reality and logic is par for the course for religious types.

He decries both Marxist and capitalist governments that have failed the people in South America. He doesn't mention any particular ruler at anytime. You seem to be reading into the comments what you want based on your own anti-Catholic bias.

There has never been a Marxist government in South America. One was democractically elected and overthrown. Chavez is not a Marxist, he make take elements of it but he's not a Marxist. Far from it. The Pope quite simply doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't have the first idea about what Hugo Chavez is about.

I don't have any anti-Catholic bias. I've no problem with the belief system, it's no more or less bizarre and nonsensical than any other religious belief system like Scientology or whatever. People are free to believe if they want.
A belief never hurt anybody. It's the actions of the Church, not the belief system, we are talking about. Any true Christian or Catholic would and should be appalled at the nature of the Catholic Church.

liamdubh

PDN wrote:

Who is saying that the Spanish conquest wasn't that bad? I haven't noticed anyone saying that. No-one, as far as I can see, has argued that the bad sides of each society canceled each other out. Why not try to address the points people are actually making?

Okay. Nobody said those exact words. But they did imply it, you were one of them.

"I agree that the arrival of Catholicism in the Americas was pretty bloody. But what did it replace. Yep, I think I would have been silently longing for Christianity as well!"

"Anthropoligically and theologicall speaking, were the autos de fé of the Spanish of the time really very different from the sacrifices of the Mayans? Bloody appeasement of hungry gods on one continent and brutal executions of deniers of an angry God on another. Either way, I'm sure they felt very much the same to the victims - the Mayan method being perhaps slightly less beastly"

Case closed.

So it's grossly racist to say that you think one form of religion was an improvement upon another?

That's 300 billion light years from what we were discussing. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. We're talking about the Spanish conquest of the Americas and the religious aspect of it (in fact, the whole thing was driven and justified by religion, it was an integral part of it).

The fact that millions died, primarily of disease brought by Europeans, has no bearing whatsoever on the respective merits of two religious systems.

We're not talking about the respective merits of 2 religions. Again, we're talking about the Spanish conquest of the Americas and the religious aspect of it. Let's get back to the topic and not start revising the topic retrospectively. It's a complete waste of time.

I cannot even begin to imagine how someone's mind must work for them to think that is relevant to what we are talking about.

Eh....exactly.

I quite agree with you. So you are now arguing that the problem was not in Christianity per se, but rather in the wrong way it was spread. Thank you for conceding that point.

And if my aunt had balls....

Eh.....yes exactly. I'm not conceding any point. Had true Christians arrived on the shores of the Americas instead of bloodthirsty fundamentalists there to control and enslave a whole continent (sent by God and his representatives on earth of course, King & Pope) and treated the people there with even basic humanity (not murdering and enslaving them would be a good start), there would have been no problem. Agreed. This is a very basic point I think everybody could agree on.

BrianCalgary

liamdubh wrote:

You did explicitly say that. I've included the quotes. Why do you repeatedly deny what's in front of your eyes? Just accept your mistake. You'll come off better for it. You explictly said the Spanish (and/or the Conquistadores) never went to South America..

What I said was that the Spanish did not affect the South American continent for a couple of hundered years after the conquistadores conquered teh Mayan civiliastion of central America.

I stood corrected.

liamdubh wrote:

Agreed, I pointed that out earlier...

I went through all your posts and not once did you mention the Portuguese colonization of Brazil.

liamdubh wrote:

It's not way off base. I've provided sources to back it up. The fact that Brazil was not conquered by the Spanish does not mean that 90% of indigenous people were not wiped out by the Spanish...

Wouldn't it stand to reason that for teh Spanish to wipe out 90% of the brazilains they would have to go there?

liamdubh wrote:

If Brazil was home to 1% and the rest of the Americas home to 99%, for example. Again, engaging in basic exercises in logic and rational thinking will mean you won't end up making illogical, irrational statements. I've included references to back up what I've said, you've chosen to ignore/attack them. I could continue to provide references but presumaby you'd continue do the same. It would be a pointless exercise....

You have no basis for Brazil only having 1% of the population of South and Central America.

You have not provided references at all. You linked to wikipedia article that doesn't even have the number 90% in it.

Just do a copy and paste of the particular paragraph and then we'll shut up about it.

liamdubh wrote:

So every post made here should be thoroughly reference to an academic standard? I've included far more to back up my statements than you have yours. You've done nothing but post waffle, blatantly incorrect statements and confused ramblings.......

Pretty well. If you want any credibility.

liamdubh wrote:

You've been wrong more than once and repeated your mistakes even after being corrected. Still, flying in the face of reality and logic is par for the course for religious types........

The only place I see being wrong is my timing of the Spanish arrival into the Andes.

liamdubh wrote:

There has never been a Marxist government in South America. One was democractically elected and overthrown.........

There never has been one, yet one was elected and then overthrown, now I'mlost.

liamdubh wrote:

Chavez is not a Marxist, he make take elements of it but he's not a Marxist. Far from it. The Pope quite simply doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't have the first idea about what Hugo Chavez is about..

The pope never mentioned Chavez. Can you show us in the article where he did? In fact the article states quite explicitly that the pope did not mention any rulers of any South American country.

liamdubh wrote:

I don't have any anti-Catholic bias. I've no problem with the belief system, it's no more or less bizarre and nonsensical than any other religious belief system like Scientology or whatever. People are free to believe if they want.
A belief never hurt anybody. It's the actions of the Church, not the belief system, we are talking about. Any true Christian or Catholic would and should be appalled at the nature of the Catholic Church.

You last statement shows a clear and definite bias that you are appaled at the RC church. I think it is quite obvious of your bias.

PDN

liamdubh wrote:

Okay. Nobody said those exact words. But they did imply it, you were one of them.

"I agree that the arrival of Catholicism in the Americas was pretty bloody. But what did it replace. Yep, I think I would have been silently longing for Christianity as well!"

That simply says that Catholicism was, in my opinion, more humane than what it replaced. How does that equate to saying that the Spanish Conquest was not too bad? And it most certainly, by any stretch of the imagination, does not argue that two wrongs make a right (unless you are 4 years old).

PDN wrote:

So it's grossly racist to say that you think one form of religion was an improvement upon another?

liamdubh wrote:

That's 300 billion light years from what we were discussing. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. We're talking about the Spanish conquest of the Americas and the religious aspect of it (in fact, the whole thing was driven and justified by religion, it was an integral part of it).

No, it's exactly what we were discussing. I said that Catholicism, despite its obvious faults, was a huge improvement on what already existed. Your direct response was that I had made a grossly racist comment.
By the way, the Conquest was driven by gold, not religion.

liamdubh

BrianCalgary wrote:

What I said was that the Spanish did not affect the South American continent for a couple of hundered years after the conquistadores conquered teh Mayan civiliastion of central America.

I stood corrected.

No that's not what you said. Anyway, it's there for everybody else to see.

I went through all your posts and not once did you mention the Portuguese colonization of Brazil.

Well go back and read them again. You clearly didn't look closely enough. I'll spoonfeed you the required answer yet again:

"The only place their reach didn't extend to was Brazil. Everywhere else east, south and north they reached."

Do a search for that quote on the first page of this thread. CTRL + F using IE.
It was a quote by somebody called "Liamdubh".

Wouldn't it stand to reason that for teh Spanish to wipe out 90% of the brazilains they would have to go there?

Who said they wiped out 90% of indigenous populations of Brazil?
What did the 90% figure refer to? Was it Brazil? Or was it for somewhere else? Was it the Americas perhaps?

You have no basis for Brazil only having 1% of the population of South and Central America.

Correct. Do you know what "for example" means?

You have not provided references at all. You linked to wikipedia article that doesn't even have the number 90% in it.

I have to resist quite strongly insulting your intelligence here. But it's very hard. It's in the article, as I said before, hit CTRL + F, type in "90" (minus quotes) and hit FIND. It's there. I'm not going to go any further, anybody else reading this thread knows it's there. They can use the FIND function in their web browser.

Pretty well. If you want any credibility.

The only credibility I'd worry about is your own.

The only place I see being wrong is my timing of the Spanish arrival into the Andes.

First you said the Spanish never reached South America. Repeatedly. Then you said they were hundreds of years apart.

There never has been one, yet one was elected and then overthrown, now I'mlost.

Bad phrasing. There was one elected but it never got very far. Although it's fair to say the Church in that case wasn't a supporter of the coup, it was a strong opponent of what the coup replaced - a democratically elected government.

The pope never mentioned Chavez. Can you show us in the article where he did? In fact the article states quite explicitly that the pope did not mention any rulers of any South American country.

I never ever said he mentioned him by name. Go back to my first post in this thread and you'll see that I pointed that out, I said he didn't have the spine to name those he was making accusations against. Seeing as the only person the "autocrat" slur is made against in South America is Chavez, there is high degree of probability that it was him he was referring to. Please, for both our sakes, read the thread closely, it will save a lot of my time and yours.

You last statement shows a clear and definite bias that you are appaled at the RC church. I think it is quite obvious of your bias.

Exactly. You've just repeated exactly what I said, but in way that implies I was arguing something else. Again, please read the thread closely.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

Yes, and it is the way it should be done. You can't force English or Western Culture on an Amazonian tribe.

You think so? You approve of the worship of Christ as part of a pantheon alongside other, ancestral deities? I would have thought you would consider practioners of such sunchretistic religions, like Macumba, to be on the road to damnation.

BrianCalgary

Sapien wrote:

You think so? You approve of the worship of Christ as part of a pantheon alongside other, ancestral deities? I would have thought you would consider practioners of such sunchretistic religions, like Macumba, to be on the road to damnation.

You're right I wouldn't approve of the worship of another God.

What is possible in Christianity is to seperate western culture from Christianity.

The attitude of past missionaries was that to be Christian was to be Westren European, which included speaking, in the case of Canada, English. Certain missionaries viewed native Canadian languages as being of the Devil, as an example.

To do anything that wasn't westernmeant going against Christianity.

liamdubh

PDN wrote:

That simply says that Catholicism was, in my opinion, more humane than what it replaced.

Okay. Even at that, this "Catholicism" brought to the Americas was in fact barbarism of the worst possible kind. Reminiscent of Genghis Khan. I would strongly disagree with your assertion and say that it has no basis in reality, not by any stretch of the imagination. Okay, the day to day stuff, saying Mass, praying or whatever, fine, completely harmless....but that's not what Catholicism was about in that time in that place. It was part of an overall process of subjugation (and near annihilation) of a people. What was left afterwards was Catholicism.

No, it's exactly what we were discussing. I said that Catholicism, despite its obvious faults, was a huge improvement on what already existed. Your direct response was that I had made a grossly racist comment.

Yes, because calling wiping out a whole civilisation, terrorising and enslaving it's population in the name of Roman Catholicism a "huge improvement" is deeply deeply racist and chauvinistic. I've asked the question, an improvement for whom? What did it improve for those people?

By the way, the Conquest was driven by gold, not religion.

Perhaps not driven, you're right in saying that it was gold/riches that was the primary motivating factor, but it was certainly justified by it. And you can't deny the strong religious aspect to the whole exercise. As with everything in society at that time.

PDN

BrianCalgary wrote:

You're right I wouldn't approve of the worship of another God.

What is possible in Christianity is to seperate western culture from Christianity.

The attitude of past missionaries was that to be Christian was to be Westren European, which included speaking, in the case of Canada, English. Certain missionaries viewed native Canadian languages as being of the Devil, as an example.

To do anything that wasn't westernmeant going against Christianity.

Brian, this would probably fall under the heading of contextualisation rather than syncretism.

Dirk Gently

The thread seems to have gone in a different direction than I Had hoped when I made the OP.

anyway, some reaction HERE

bbc wrote:

He said the comments had even been criticised by the Catholic Church's Indian advocacy group in Brazil, which described the Pope's statement as wrong and indefensible.

brian wrote:

The pope never mentioned Chavez

Brian, to be fair it is clear he is talking about venezuela and boliva's attempt to introduce some socialist solutions into their economies.

BrianCalgary

Ok Liamdubh

Let me put it all into one post that hopefully will make it clear.

I was seperating the actions of the Spanish conquistadores in Central America with the Spanish in South America, I wrongfully had them pegged as two different groups. Funny how a very good frend of mine is Columbian and whose first language is Spanish, that I wouldn't clue in to the fact that the Spanisgh inluenced S. America. It is possible for the Spanish to influence and takeover a country without Pizzaros' conquistadores.

I had my timing wrong and admitted it so. I guess I wasn't clear.

You said that Brazil wasn't affected by the Spanish, you did not mention the Portuguese, which you were implying that you had mentioned the Portugiuese first which you hadn't.

I have understood you to have attributed the wipeout of 90% of American Natives to Chriatianity. The Americas include; North, Central and South.

If this is not the case, clear your view up, and I stll can't find the 90% number in that article. If it is that easy to do, please do a cut and paste.

BrianCalgary

PDN wrote:

Brian, this would probably fall under the heading of contextualisation rather than syncretism.

Fair enough.

BrianCalgary

liamdubh wrote:

Okay. Even at that, this "Catholicism" brought to the Americas was in fact barbarism of the worst possible kind. Reminiscent of Genghis Khan. I would strongly disagree with your assertion and say that it has no basis in reality, not by any stretch of the imagination. Okay, the day to day stuff, saying Mass, praying or whatever, fine, completely harmless....but that's not what Catholicism was about in that time in that place. It was part of an overall process of subjugation (and near annihilation) of a people. What was left afterwards was Catholicism..

Not exactly. The RC missionaries to the natives of South and Central Ontarion were not barbarous at all. They went into native villages and spoke the gospel to the peole and were martyred for their work. The natives were in North America were not subjugated to teh church at all.

liamdubh wrote:

Yes, because calling wiping out a whole civilisation, terrorising and enslaving it's population in the name of Roman Catholicism a "huge improvement" is deeply deeply racist and chauvinistic. I've asked the question, an improvement for whom? What did it improve for those people?.

Terrorising and enslavement did not happen as you state. The North American natives were viewed as trade partners in much of the Canadas as they were in the US.

An attempt was made to live peaceably together but there were enough clashes between unscrupulous people on both sides and the clash of cultures was too much. I am speaking of the time of the initial discovery of our continent here.

As for improvement between Christianity and native religions. No human sacrifice in Christianity for one.

liamdubh

BrianCalgary wrote:

I was seperating the actions of the Spanish conquistadores in Central America with the Spanish in South America, I wrongfully had them pegged as two different groups. Funny how a very good frend of mine is Columbian and whose first language is Spanish, that I wouldn't clue in to the fact that the Spanisgh inluenced S. America. It is possible for the Spanish to influence and takeover a country without Pizzaros' conquistadores.

I had my timing wrong and admitted it so. I guess I wasn't clear.

So which is it? You either got your timing wrong or you weren't clued in to the fact the Spanish influenced South America? Which is it? The 2 statements contradict each other.

You said that Brazil wasn't affected by the Spanish, you did not mention the Portuguese, which you were implying that you had mentioned the Portugiuese first which you hadn't.

*sigh*

No I didn't mention them directly, I did say that the Spanish did not colonize Brazil, it was me who pointed that out to you, not the other way around. Which implies somebody else did, I, unlike you, am not almost completely ignorant (by your own admission, in a quote above, you didn't even know Spain colonized it) of South American history and I knew this. You introduced this revelation out of nowhere, for some reason, you didn't make any argument in relation to this fact, except to say that Brazil had a different culture to the Mayans (?) and that the Portugese who colonized it, implying not Spain. I informed you I had already pointed out that it wasn't Spain. And now we get to this point. At this stage you are confusing even yourself. Do you have any actual point to make in relation to the whole Brazil/Portugal connection? Or was it just a random statement?

I have understood you to have attributed the wipeout of 90% of American Natives to Chriatianity. The Americas include; North, Central and South.

I'm not saying Chriatianity wiped out 90% of the population. I was pointing out that the process that brought Chriatianity to the Americas was the same process that committed genocide, wiping out much of the indigenous population and civilisation and ultimately was responsible for wiping out 90% of the native population (yes, disease was a factor, an important one but not wholly responsible). It was barbarism of Genghis Khan proportions that brought Christianity to the Americas. Coming back to the original point, I'm contradicting the Pope's assertion that the indigenous population was silently longing for it's Christianity, seeing as it was the same process that brought near-annihilation. The Pope was saying they were silently longing for their own annihilation. Such utterly illogical and racist drivel. They may have been silently longing for true Christianity, but what came was something completely different.

and I stll can't find the 90% number in that article. If it is that easy to do, please do a cut and paste.

It's there. I don't know what else to say or how to break it down any further for you. I've given instructions on how to use the FIND function on your web browser.

PDN

liamdubh wrote:

Okay. Even at that, this "Catholicism" brought to the Americas was in fact barbarism of the worst possible kind. Reminiscent of Genghis Khan. I would strongly disagree with your assertion and say that it has no basis in reality, not by any stretch of the imagination. Okay, the day to day stuff, saying Mass, praying or whatever, fine, completely harmless....but that's not what Catholicism was about in that time in that place. It was part of an overall process of subjugation (and near annihilation) of a people. What was left afterwards was Catholicism.

Actually Genghis was not nearly as bad as some have painted him. Several very revealing histories of Genghis and the Mongols have been published recently. Yes the Spanish Conquest was barbaric, but probably not to the extent of ripping people's hearts out of their bodies while they were still alive, as was the practice of the Mayans. However, an argument of who was worst will always be subjective and therefore endless.

Yes, because calling wiping out a whole civilisation, terrorising and enslaving it's population in the name of Roman Catholicism a "huge improvement" is deeply deeply racist and chauvinistic. I've asked the question, an improvement for whom? What did it improve for those people?

Firstly, it was not the Catholic Church but rather the Spanish who terrorised and enslaved (the wiping out, while horrible, could not have been foreseen by anyone since nobody understood how smallpox spread or about genetic resistance to disease). It is a matter of historical record that clergy tried to defend many of the Indians against the depredations of European settlers. For example, Bartolome de Las Casas in Venezuala was instrumental in persuading the Spanish crown to enact the New Laws of Indies in 1542 which outlawed war against any of the Indians who were willing to live at peace with the Spanish. Also Gil Gonzalez de San Nicolas, in Chile, persuaded all the clergy there to refuse absolution and communion to all those who participated in, or profited from, the violent confiscation of land from the natives. The Jesuits actually armed Indian tribes so they could resist European settlers (one of the reasons why the Jesuits were suppressed in the eighteenth century). Pope Urban VIII excommunicated any settlers who would venture into Jesuit territory to hunt Indians, and forced Philip IV to declare that the Indians were free and not subject to slavery.

Who had their lot improved by Catholicism? Quite a lot of people actually. Most of the population were terrorised and enslaved (as well as running the risk of being tortured, sacrificed or eaten) by a tiny elite under the pre-Columbian religious systems. While there were still atrocities committed by religious orders under the Spanish Conquest (and in my opinion just one is one too many) the lot of the average Indian who was not killed by disease was almost certainly better under Catholicism than not.

liamdubh

BrianCalgary wrote:

Not exactly. The RC missionaries to the natives of South and Central Ontarion were not barbarous at all. They went into native villages and spoke the gospel to the peole and were martyred for their work.

Those ungrateful natives. I wonder why their reactions to Europeans were so extreme? Couldn't be because of the whole genocide "mistake" could it?

The natives were in North America were not subjugated to teh church at all.

There are some differences between North and South. For sure. You can talk about the North if you like. But stop hopping between the two. Saying "that didn't happen in the South, because this happened in the North" is really silly and pointless.

Terrorising and enslavement did not happen as you state.

Yes it did. It's an uncontroversial historical fact.

The North American natives were viewed as trade partners in much of the Canadas as they were in the US.

The fate of the North American indigenous was much the same as the South/Central American indigenous. Perhaps what happened north of Mexico wasn't nearly as barbarous but the end result was the same. The natives were driven off their lands and if they resisted, when they resisted, they were slaughtered. Yes, in initial stages of European involvement with the Americas, in the North things were much better than in the south, but as time moved on the end result was much the same.

An attempt was made to live peaceably together but there were enough clashes between unscrupulous people on both sides and the clash of cultures was too much. I am speaking of the time of the initial discovery of our continent here.

I might expect something similar from a right-wing 11 year old. But presumably you're an adult. I don't know where to begin correcting such a simple-minded opinion.

As for improvement between Christianity and native religions. No human sacrifice in Christianity for one.

Again, this is highly illogical. At the time, weren't Catholics burning people at the stake for being witches? Wasn't the Inquisition murdering people? Heretics were burned and their stomachs cut open, no? Even much later, the Salem witch trials? What about that? Would the Buddhists world be justified in coming to America and imposing their non-witch killing religion on those who killed "witches"?

This occurred at the same time as the savages in the Americas were being Christianised. Are you saying it is absolutely not the case that the savage natives would never have grown out of this? In the same way that European Christianity grew out of it?

liamdubh

PDN wrote:

Actually Genghis was not nearly as bad as some have painted him. Several very revealing histories of Genghis and the Mongols have been published recently.

What happened in Baghdad was a barrel of laughs wasn't it? Just a misunderstanding.

Yes the Spanish Conquest was barbaric, but probably not to the extent of ripping people's hearts out of their bodies while they were still alive, as was the practice of the Mayans. However, an argument of who was worst will always be subjective and therefore endless.

Any more barbaric than burning people alive? Cutting their stomachs open?

Firstly, it was not the Catholic Church but rather the Spanish who terrorised and enslaved

I've dealt with this point in other posts.

I'll bow out at this point, I've made all the points I need to. I think it's very sad though that what all rational, non-indoctrinated people regard as uncontroversial historical fact can be so twisted and misunderstood by those seeing the same thing through a religious perspective, in doing so defending grotesque acts on a par with the Holocaust in Europe 60 years ago, or arguably worse. People have being jailed for denying crimes of a similar degree in different circumstances. It's ok to question what went on in the 1500s in the Americas and history without being a non-Catholic, non-Christian....anti-Catholic whatever. But I guess that's what religion does to people, warps minds.

I'm out!