|
Post by clusium on Feb 17, 2024 15:40:23 GMT
The graves were not so much as "empty," as they did NOT contain the bodies of any MISSING CHILDREN. Your comparison to Hitler & the Nazis as well as the Hutus is quite frankly, offensive. The Nazis specifically created the camps to MURDER THE JEWISH PEOPLE & OTHER TYPES THEY DEEMED UNWORTHY OF EXISTENCE. Likewise, the Hutus intentionally wanted to kill all Tutsis, back in 1994, in Rwanda.All hell broke loose in Rwanda. The residential schools were intended to educate & update First Nations people. The parents themselves, wanted their children to attend. The graves were not so much as "empty," as they did NOT contain the bodies of any MISSING CHILDREN.
You keep stating this, on the basis of zero evidence, as we have graves that either have not been exhumed, so we don't know what they contain; or graves that had been previously dug, but which when excavated, turned out to be empty for reasons that haven't been given any explanation--and one is required, as no one goes about digging massive numbers of graves for no reason. (Oh yeah, I forgot--'ground anomalies' .) Where did the bodies in those graves go? If any of them contained the remains of Catholic clergy or laity, why is the RCC not seeking an investigation as to the disposal of those remains? The residential schools were intended to educate & update First Nations people. The parents themselves, wanted their children to attend. Because parents want to send their children to a particular school/camp/what-have-you does not then mean that the institution in question is inviolately safe. Parents have sent their children to places where, unbeknownst to them--or others--the children were horrendously treated. This has happened even among 'upper-class' Whites; hardly improbable that institutions serving less influential populations may not have been given especially rigorous oversight. You're offended by mentioning Nazis, but I don't see why: I specifically said that the schools were likely not places of organized torture or death, as the Nazi apparatus was; but they were being run by people who, unfortunately, probably had scant respect or sympathy for the native cultures they were dealing with, and one of these schools main thrusts was to eradicate that native culture and replace it with a 'Christian' one. And, like it or not, where there is little respect for a people's indigenous culture, it can frequently be not that far of a step from losing respect for their physical persons. I can see that happening in these sorts of institutions on a not-insignificant scale. The onus is on the ACCUSERS to seek an investigation. Yes, there was ZERO EVIDENCE for any missing or murdered children in those graves. Therefore, the media falsely accused the people running the residential schools of murder. You are correct that just because parents send their children to a particular school, camp, etc. does not mean that the place is in violently safe. What it does mean is, the parents ENTRUSTED their own children to said institution to care fore said children.Nobody is saying that abuse NEVER OCCURRED at the residential schools. Obviously there were cases of abuse, just like everywhere else. But, to say that they were ALL ABUSED, or that the purpose of the schools were to abuse & even kill students is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Feb 17, 2024 16:07:32 GMT
The graves were not so much as "empty," as they did NOT contain the bodies of any MISSING CHILDREN.
You keep stating this, on the basis of zero evidence, as we have graves that either have not been exhumed, so we don't know what they contain; or graves that had been previously dug, but which when excavated, turned out to be empty for reasons that haven't been given any explanation--and one is required, as no one goes about digging massive numbers of graves for no reason. (Oh yeah, I forgot--'ground anomalies' .) Where did the bodies in those graves go? If any of them contained the remains of Catholic clergy or laity, why is the RCC not seeking an investigation as to the disposal of those remains? The residential schools were intended to educate & update First Nations people. The parents themselves, wanted their children to attend. Because parents want to send their children to a particular school/camp/what-have-you does not then mean that the institution in question is inviolately safe. Parents have sent their children to places where, unbeknownst to them--or others--the children were horrendously treated. This has happened even among 'upper-class' Whites; hardly improbable that institutions serving less influential populations may not have been given especially rigorous oversight. You're offended by mentioning Nazis, but I don't see why: I specifically said that the schools were likely not places of organized torture or death, as the Nazi apparatus was; but they were being run by people who, unfortunately, probably had scant respect or sympathy for the native cultures they were dealing with, and one of these schools main thrusts was to eradicate that native culture and replace it with a 'Christian' one. And, like it or not, where there is little respect for a people's indigenous culture, it can frequently be not that far of a step from losing respect for their physical persons. I can see that happening in these sorts of institutions on a not-insignificant scale. The onus is on the ACCUSERS to seek an investigation. Yes, there was ZERO EVIDENCE for any missing or murdered children in those graves. Therefore, the media falsely accused the people running the residential schools of murder. You are correct that just because parents send their children to a particular school, camp, etc. does not mean that the place is in violently safe. What it does mean is, the parents ENTRUSTED their own children to said institution to care fore said children.Nobody is saying that abuse NEVER OCCURRED at the residential schools. Obviously there were cases of abuse, just like everywhere else. But, to say that they were ALL ABUSED, or that the purpose of the schools were to abuse & even kill students is wrong. No one has said--at least on this thread--that the 'purpose' of those schools was to abuse/murder children. But we're working from a premise, like it or no, that re-indoctrination of those children from a 'primitive' culture to a more 'advanced' one was the aim. Given the fact that Step One proceeds from an inevitable level of lowered respect for those kids in the first place, it's not improbable to think that a sort of 'any means necessary' mentality prevailed among those doing the indoctrinating. That mentality, in the hands of zealots, can turn ugly and even deadly. And I think there's little point in denying that the RCC has always harbored no small number of zealots among its numbers. Because the parents entrusted their children to these places, it does not automatically follow that the places were trustworthy, as you seem to imply. You still insist on the 'zero evidence' rubric. I see no way of talking around that, as you refuse to appear to understand the basic concept that, for evidence to be at zero, there has to have been evidence presented in the first place. As some graves have been found empty, and others have not been exhumed, we do not have the primary piece of physical evidence--human remains--to extrapolate from. Therefore we can't make any conclusion as to what happened to those bodies while they were still living, or what became of them once they were not.
|
|
|
Post by OffTheBoatPsycho on Feb 17, 2024 17:10:16 GMT
Yep, the alleged pitchfork mob about as real as the graves and 215 bodies of murdered indigenous children. She did not say who the denialists were or when they came to the site.The reality. Excavation after 14 anomalies detected at former residential school site found no evidence of graves: Manitoba chief
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 17, 2024 18:07:19 GMT
The onus is on the ACCUSERS to seek an investigation. Yes, there was ZERO EVIDENCE for any missing or murdered children in those graves. Therefore, the media falsely accused the people running the residential schools of murder. You are correct that just because parents send their children to a particular school, camp, etc. does not mean that the place is in violently safe. What it does mean is, the parents ENTRUSTED their own children to said institution to care fore said children.Nobody is saying that abuse NEVER OCCURRED at the residential schools. Obviously there were cases of abuse, just like everywhere else. But, to say that they were ALL ABUSED, or that the purpose of the schools were to abuse & even kill students is wrong. No one has said--at least on this thread--that the 'purpose' of those schools was to abuse/murder children. But we're working from a premise, like it or no, that re-indoctrination of those children from a 'primitive' culture to a more 'advanced' one was the aim. Given the fact that Step One proceeds from an inevitable level of lowered respect for those kids in the first place, it's not improbable to think that a sort of 'any means necessary' mentality prevailed among those doing the indoctrinating. That mentality, in the hands of zealots, can turn ugly and even deadly. And I think there's little point in denying that the RCC has always harbored no small number of zealots among its numbers. Because the parents entrusted their children to these places, it does not automatically follow that the places were trustworthy, as you seem to imply. You still insist on the 'zero evidence' rubric. I see no way of talking around that, as you refuse to appear to understand the basic concept that, for evidence to be at zero, there has to have been evidence presented in the first place. As some graves have been found empty, and others have not been exhumed, we do not have the primary piece of physical evidence--human remains--to extrapolate from. Therefore we can't make any conclusion as to what happened to those bodies while they were still living, or what became of them once they were not. How does the fact that educating people from a more primitive culture to a more advanced one amount to "lowered respect?" I would think that keeping people in a more primitive mindset rather than teaching them more advanced ways of living & doing things, is giving lack of respect for their intelligence & potential, as opposed to helping them learn to adapt to a better way of life. And Native Americans & First Nations peoples DO RETAIN much of their traditions & culture, in spite of living in more modern societies & converting to Christianity (they observe the Christian lifestyle in a Native American/First Nations sort of way).
|
|
|
Post by jon snow loves sansa on Feb 17, 2024 19:51:35 GMT
I said its not ok to blame innocent people for crimes others committed. Since you pretend you didn't understand. so you think its ok for innocent people to be blamed for crimes they didn't commit? Good to know. I never said that. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Those people who did those things, you seem to support. That is exactly what you are saying. You are condemning everyone and that is wrong. I support innocent people something ,you don't.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Feb 18, 2024 4:49:12 GMT
No one has said--at least on this thread--that the 'purpose' of those schools was to abuse/murder children. But we're working from a premise, like it or no, that re-indoctrination of those children from a 'primitive' culture to a more 'advanced' one was the aim. Given the fact that Step One proceeds from an inevitable level of lowered respect for those kids in the first place, it's not improbable to think that a sort of 'any means necessary' mentality prevailed among those doing the indoctrinating. That mentality, in the hands of zealots, can turn ugly and even deadly. And I think there's little point in denying that the RCC has always harbored no small number of zealots among its numbers. Because the parents entrusted their children to these places, it does not automatically follow that the places were trustworthy, as you seem to imply. You still insist on the 'zero evidence' rubric. I see no way of talking around that, as you refuse to appear to understand the basic concept that, for evidence to be at zero, there has to have been evidence presented in the first place. As some graves have been found empty, and others have not been exhumed, we do not have the primary piece of physical evidence--human remains--to extrapolate from. Therefore we can't make any conclusion as to what happened to those bodies while they were still living, or what became of them once they were not. How does the fact that educating people from a more primitive culture to a more advanced one amount to "lowered respect?" I would think that keeping people in a more primitive mindset rather than teaching them more advanced ways of living & doing things, is giving lack of respect for their intelligence & potential, as opposed to helping them learn to adapt to a better way of life. And Native Americans & First Nations peoples DO RETAIN much of their traditions & culture, in spite of living in more modern societies & converting to Christianity (they observe the Christian lifestyle in a Native American/First Nations sort of way). First of all: do you not think you might be displaying just a touch of arrogance to unilaterally decide that they're living in a more 'primitive' mindset? Does it it occur to you that they've been getting along for millenia without that 'advanced' way of living? And by more 'advanced' does this mean foisting a religious culture on them that's in many ways antithetical to the one they have? Why is this necessarily a better way of life for them? Because it's the way of life you, in your culture, have been taught is best? To even employ the terms you're employing here is to demonstrate, however unconsciously, a lack of basic respect for these people, and their pre-missionary way of life. You apparently feel that no respect for intelligence or potential of an individual can possibly exist within a so-called primitive culture, and that the White man's way is the only hope they have of this. And let's face it, they'd best adapt to the White man's way of doing things, since he's running the show and they're going to suffer for it if they don't. Speaking of their retaining 'much' of their traditions and culture (how much, exactly?) is absurd, because the very underpinnings of that culture have been deracinated by adopting the majority culture and its religious trappings, which necessarily displaces their traditional culture by its very introduction into their environment. To the Christian, as long as this 'leads to Jesus', even in a cute oh-so-quaintly-native sort of way, that's just fine. To those who actually do respect disparate, non-Christian cultures and the people within them it's a disturbing and deeply depressing spectacle. Once again, the state of many present day Native reservations is sad testimony to the damage that this sort of cultural incursion and invasion hes wreaked on a people.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Feb 18, 2024 4:55:07 GMT
Yep, the alleged pitchfork mob about as real as the graves and 215 bodies of murdered indigenous children. She did not say who the denialists were or when they came to the site.The reality. Excavation after 14 anomalies detected at former residential school site found no evidence of graves: Manitoba chiefOf course you don't think it's real. White thugs don't exist, so White thugs can't go around desecrating burial places. Go back to Stormfront.
|
|
|
Post by OffTheBoatPsycho on Feb 18, 2024 5:38:59 GMT
Yep, the alleged pitchfork mob about as real as the graves and 215 bodies of murdered indigenous children. She did not say who the denialists were or when they came to the site.The reality. Excavation after 14 anomalies detected at former residential school site found no evidence of graves: Manitoba chiefOf course you don't think it's real. White thugs don't exist, so White thugs can't go around desecrating burial places. Go back to Stormfront. It's an obvious pack of lies. A pitchfork mob of white thugs show up with shovels and nobody thought to pull out a phone and record? Very convenient. All about as real as the graves and bodies.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 18, 2024 6:09:05 GMT
How does the fact that educating people from a more primitive culture to a more advanced one amount to "lowered respect?" I would think that keeping people in a more primitive mindset rather than teaching them more advanced ways of living & doing things, is giving lack of respect for their intelligence & potential, as opposed to helping them learn to adapt to a better way of life. And Native Americans & First Nations peoples DO RETAIN much of their traditions & culture, in spite of living in more modern societies & converting to Christianity (they observe the Christian lifestyle in a Native American/First Nations sort of way). First of all: do you not think you might be displaying just a touch of arrogance to unilaterally decide that they're living in a more 'primitive' mindset? Does it it occur to you that they've been getting along for millenia without that 'advanced' way of living? And by more 'advanced' does this mean foisting a religious culture on them that's in many ways antithetical to the one they have? Why is this necessarily a better way of life for them? Because it's the way of life you, in your culture, have been taught is best? To even employ the terms you're employing here is to demonstrate, however unconsciously, a lack of basic respect for these people, and their pre-missionary way of life. You apparently feel that no respect for intelligence or potential of an individual can possibly exist within a so-called primitive culture, and that the White man's way is the only hope they have of this. And let's face it, they'd best adapt to the White man's way of doing things, since he's running the show and they're going to suffer for it if they don't. Speaking of their retaining 'much' of their traditions and culture (how much, exactly?) is absurd, because the very underpinnings of that culture have been deracinated by adopting the majority culture and its religious trappings, which necessarily displaces their traditional culture by its very introduction into their environment. To the Christian, as long as this 'leads to Jesus', even in a cute oh-so-quaintly-native sort of way, that's just fine. To those who actually do respect disparate, non-Christian cultures and the people within them it's a disturbing and deeply depressing spectacle. Once again, the state of many present day Native reservations is sad testimony to the damage that this sort of cultural incursion and invasion hes wreaked on a people. No I do not. When the European travellers came to what is now known as the Americas (North, Central, & South), & discovered its inhabitants, they were literally living in the stone age, & even those Natives that did have some advanced societies (as you had already noted), such as the Incas, the Mayans, etc., even they were not as far as how European, Asian, & even African societies had gotten, because those 3 afore-mentioned continents being linked up at the centre, were able to share with one another their knowledge, expertise, etc. Native peoples in the Americas, as well as Australia, New Zealand, etc., had no such contact, & were left with their hunter-gatherer mindsets. And in regards to bringing religion along with it: If Asians had been the ones to discover what is now known as North America (& ditto for South America, etc), they would have taught Buddhism to the the Natives, etc. It's what humanity has ALWAYS done. Scapegoating The Residential Schools
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Feb 18, 2024 13:48:45 GMT
First of all: do you not think you might be displaying just a touch of arrogance to unilaterally decide that they're living in a more 'primitive' mindset? Does it it occur to you that they've been getting along for millenia without that 'advanced' way of living? And by more 'advanced' does this mean foisting a religious culture on them that's in many ways antithetical to the one they have? Why is this necessarily a better way of life for them? Because it's the way of life you, in your culture, have been taught is best? To even employ the terms you're employing here is to demonstrate, however unconsciously, a lack of basic respect for these people, and their pre-missionary way of life. You apparently feel that no respect for intelligence or potential of an individual can possibly exist within a so-called primitive culture, and that the White man's way is the only hope they have of this. And let's face it, they'd best adapt to the White man's way of doing things, since he's running the show and they're going to suffer for it if they don't. Speaking of their retaining 'much' of their traditions and culture (how much, exactly?) is absurd, because the very underpinnings of that culture have been deracinated by adopting the majority culture and its religious trappings, which necessarily displaces their traditional culture by its very introduction into their environment. To the Christian, as long as this 'leads to Jesus', even in a cute oh-so-quaintly-native sort of way, that's just fine. To those who actually do respect disparate, non-Christian cultures and the people within them it's a disturbing and deeply depressing spectacle. Once again, the state of many present day Native reservations is sad testimony to the damage that this sort of cultural incursion and invasion hes wreaked on a people. No I do not. When the European travellers came to what is now known as the Americas (North, Central, & South), & discovered its inhabitants, they were literally living in the stone age, & even those Natives that did have some advanced societies (as you had already noted), such as the Incas, the Mayans, etc., even they were not as far as how European, Asian, & even African societies had gotten, because those 3 afore-mentioned continents being linked up at the centre, were able to share with one another their knowledge, expertise, etc. Native peoples in the Americas, as well as Australia, New Zealand, etc., had no such contact, & were left with their hunter-gatherer mindsets. And in regards to bringing religion along with it: If Asians had been the ones to discover what is now known as North America (& ditto for South America, etc), they would have taught Buddhism to the the Natives, etc. It's what humanity has ALWAYS done. Scapegoating The Residential SchoolsHumanity has not 'always' proselytized its religions to others, and once again you're attempting to claim mendicant Buddhist monks were on the same type of 'conversion' missionary work as Christians. This is nonsense; we've been through it before. You obviously have a poor understanding of the advances being made in Mesoamerican studies, which have yielded up evidence of civilizations far in advance of what had been believed until quite recently ( www.google.com/search?q=advances+in+mesoamerican+studies&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS879US879&oq=advances+in+mesoamerican+studies&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRifBTIHCAMQIRifBdIBCjExNjQ5ajBqMTWoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1). Much of this evidence is deeply buried in vegetative canopy in some areas, and what has been seen is through infrared and forms of x-ray photography, as it cannot be excavated without the probable destruction of fragile ecosystems. Also, a good bit of 'written' knowledge of these cultures is still to be known, as many of their pictographic carvings haven't yet been deciphered. They were living in the 'stone age' according to 15th and 16th century Europeans who were utterly ignorant of the depth and nuances of these cultures, and predisposed to automatically brand any non-European culture as inferior; a mindset that's passed down largely unchanged to all too many present day descendants of those early visitants, as your attitude amply demonstrates. And the Christian mindset that teaches 'No Jesus, no good' reinforces that. That you dismiss the entire Mesoamerican history as being made up of people who were living in their 'hunter-gatherer mindsets' that somehow stumbled along until saved by the lordly Euros and their technologies is patently patronizing, arrogant, and utterly false. And a breathtaking display of ignorance, to boot. You seem to show some interest in learning judging by some of the material you post on this site; you should be a bit ashamed of yourself that this interest can't seem to extend to learning more than you apparently presently know about cultures outside of the pre-Christian and pre-European incursion.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 18, 2024 17:06:44 GMT
No I do not. When the European travellers came to what is now known as the Americas (North, Central, & South), & discovered its inhabitants, they were literally living in the stone age, & even those Natives that did have some advanced societies (as you had already noted), such as the Incas, the Mayans, etc., even they were not as far as how European, Asian, & even African societies had gotten, because those 3 afore-mentioned continents being linked up at the centre, were able to share with one another their knowledge, expertise, etc. Native peoples in the Americas, as well as Australia, New Zealand, etc., had no such contact, & were left with their hunter-gatherer mindsets. And in regards to bringing religion along with it: If Asians had been the ones to discover what is now known as North America (& ditto for South America, etc), they would have taught Buddhism to the the Natives, etc. It's what humanity has ALWAYS done. Scapegoating The Residential SchoolsHumanity has not 'always' proselytized its religions to others, and once again you're attempting to claim mendicant Buddhist monks were on the same type of 'conversion' missionary work as Christians. This is nonsense; we've been through it before. You obviously have a poor understanding of the advances being made in Mesoamerican studies, which have yielded up evidence of civilizations far in advance of what had been believed until quite recently ( www.google.com/search?q=advances+in+mesoamerican+studies&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS879US879&oq=advances+in+mesoamerican+studies&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRifBTIHCAMQIRifBdIBCjExNjQ5ajBqMTWoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1). Much of this evidence is deeply buried in vegetative canopy in some areas, and what has been seen is through infrared and forms of x-ray photography, as it cannot be excavated without the probable destruction of fragile ecosystems. Also, a good bit of 'written' knowledge of these cultures is still to be known, as many of their pictographic carvings haven't yet been deciphered. They were living in the 'stone age' according to 15th and 16th century Europeans who were utterly ignorant of the depth and nuances of these cultures, and predisposed to automatically brand any non-European culture as inferior; a mindset that's passed down largely unchanged to all too many present day descendants of those early visitants, as your attitude amply demonstrates. And the Christian mindset that teaches 'No Jesus, no good' reinforces that. That you dismiss the entire Mesoamerican history as being made up of people who were living in their 'hunter-gatherer mindsets' that somehow stumbled along until saved by the lordly Euros and their technologies is patently patronizing, arrogant, and utterly false. And a breathtaking display of ignorance, to boot. You seem to show some interest in learning judging by some of the material you post on this site; you should be a bit ashamed of yourself that this interest can't seem to extend to learning more than you apparently presently know about cultures outside of the pre-Christian and pre-European incursion. Yes, proselytizing goes back millennia, & yes, Buddhist missionaries have spread their beliefs. Otherwise, Asia would not be predominantly Buddhist (as well as Confucianist, etc) today. Buddhist MissionariesBuddhist Proselytizing
Buddhist Missionaries Have Mostly Escaped The Label Of ProselytizersI didn't that Mesoamericans were living in their "hunter-gatherer mindsets." I acknowledged that they were further along than Natives/First Nations peoples further north. I said that they were not as far as Europeans, Asians, etc., at that particular point in history. They were more on par with that as Egyptian society, from thousands of years ago. Similarities Between Egyptian & Mesoamerican Societies
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Feb 18, 2024 19:54:41 GMT
Humanity has not 'always' proselytized its religions to others, and once again you're attempting to claim mendicant Buddhist monks were on the same type of 'conversion' missionary work as Christians. This is nonsense; we've been through it before. You obviously have a poor understanding of the advances being made in Mesoamerican studies, which have yielded up evidence of civilizations far in advance of what had been believed until quite recently ( www.google.com/search?q=advances+in+mesoamerican+studies&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS879US879&oq=advances+in+mesoamerican+studies&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRifBTIHCAMQIRifBdIBCjExNjQ5ajBqMTWoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1). Much of this evidence is deeply buried in vegetative canopy in some areas, and what has been seen is through infrared and forms of x-ray photography, as it cannot be excavated without the probable destruction of fragile ecosystems. Also, a good bit of 'written' knowledge of these cultures is still to be known, as many of their pictographic carvings haven't yet been deciphered. They were living in the 'stone age' according to 15th and 16th century Europeans who were utterly ignorant of the depth and nuances of these cultures, and predisposed to automatically brand any non-European culture as inferior; a mindset that's passed down largely unchanged to all too many present day descendants of those early visitants, as your attitude amply demonstrates. And the Christian mindset that teaches 'No Jesus, no good' reinforces that. That you dismiss the entire Mesoamerican history as being made up of people who were living in their 'hunter-gatherer mindsets' that somehow stumbled along until saved by the lordly Euros and their technologies is patently patronizing, arrogant, and utterly false. And a breathtaking display of ignorance, to boot. You seem to show some interest in learning judging by some of the material you post on this site; you should be a bit ashamed of yourself that this interest can't seem to extend to learning more than you apparently presently know about cultures outside of the pre-Christian and pre-European incursion. Yes, proselytizing goes back millennia, & yes, Buddhist missionaries have spread their beliefs. Otherwise, Asia would not be predominantly Buddhist (as well as Confucianist, etc) today. Buddhist MissionariesBuddhist Proselytizing
Buddhist Missionaries Have Mostly Escaped The Label Of ProselytizersI didn't that Mesoamericans were living in their "hunter-gatherer mindsets." I acknowledged that they were further along than Natives/First Nations peoples further north. I said that they were not as far as Europeans, Asians, etc., at that particular point in history. They were more on par with that as Egyptian society, from thousands of years ago. Similarities Between Egyptian & Mesoamerican Societies
No, Asia is not predominantly Buddhist. It is predominantly Islamic. There are some Asian countries where Buddhism predominates. We've been through this before. Notwithstanding, Islam is the largest religion in Asia, with approximately 1.3 billion adherents as of 2022. The second largest religion is Hinduism, with about 1.2 billion adherents on the continent. Since the 1970s, the Muslim and Christian share of the Asian population has grown considerably throughout the history. (Source: Wikipedia) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Asia#:~:text=Notwithstanding%2C%20Islam%20is%20the%20largest,grown%20considerably%20throughout%20the%20history.Buddhists do not proselytize in the Western sense as you keep attempting to claim: Aggressive proselytizing is discouraged in the major Buddhist schools and Buddhists do not engage in the practice of proselytization. (Source: Wikipedia) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism#:~:text=Aggressive%20proselytizing%20is%20discouraged%20in,in%20the%20practice%20of%20proselytization.Direct quote: Native peoples in the Americas, as well as Australia, New Zealand, etc., had no such contact, & were left with their hunter-gatherer mindsets. (From your previous post)That sounds rather to me as though you were saying all indigenes of the American continent were hunter-gatherers. They weren't, and the native populations of the Central and Southern Americas (Incan, Aztec, Mayan, et al.) show architectural development easily on a par with Egyptian society, and far in advance of most of the rest of the African continent outside of the Nile delta regions. (BTW, China, for one, was likely far ahead of European society at that time, to a degree we're only becoming aware of due to the decision to keep the country on a mainly insular footing for centuries.) It could be added that there is evidence of a much higher development of Native peoples in the North Americas than had been previously thought: history.stackexchange.com/questions/30692/why-were-north-american-indigenous-peoples-underdevelopedAgain, you insist on a Euro-centered yardstick for measuring 'advanced versus primitive' cultures, terms which are inaccurate in some key respects.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 18, 2024 20:02:01 GMT
Yes, proselytizing goes back millennia, & yes, Buddhist missionaries have spread their beliefs. Otherwise, Asia would not be predominantly Buddhist (as well as Confucianist, etc) today. Buddhist MissionariesBuddhist Proselytizing
Buddhist Missionaries Have Mostly Escaped The Label Of ProselytizersI didn't that Mesoamericans were living in their "hunter-gatherer mindsets." I acknowledged that they were further along than Natives/First Nations peoples further north. I said that they were not as far as Europeans, Asians, etc., at that particular point in history. They were more on par with that as Egyptian society, from thousands of years ago. Similarities Between Egyptian & Mesoamerican Societies
Yes, proselytizing goes back millennia, & yes, Buddhist missionaries have spread their beliefs. Otherwise, Asia would not be predominantly Buddhist (as well as Confucianist, etc) today.
No, Asia is not predominantly Buddhist. It is predominantly Muslim. There are some Asian countries where Buddhism predominates. We've been through this before. Notwithstanding, Islam is the largest religion in Asia, with approximately 1.3 billion adherents as of 2022. The second largest religion is Hinduism, with about 1.2 billion adherents on the continent. Since the 1970s, the Muslim and Christian share of the Asian population has grown considerably throughout the history. (Source: Wikipedia) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Asia#:~:text=Notwithstanding%2C%20Islam%20is%20the%20largest,grown%20considerably%20throughout%20the%20history.Buddhists do not proselytize in the Western sense as you keep attempting to claim: Aggressive proselytizing is discouraged in the major Buddhist schools and Buddhists do not engage in the practice of proselytization. (Source: Wikipedia) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism#:~:text=Aggressive%20proselytizing%20is%20discouraged%20in,in%20the%20practice%20of%20proselytization.Direct quote: Native peoples in the Americas, as well as Australia, New Zealand, etc., had no such contact, & were left with their hunter-gatherer mindsets. (From your previous post)That sounds rather to me as though you were saying all indigenes of the American continent were hunter-gatherers. They weren't, and the native populations of the Southern Americas (Incan, Aztec, Mayan,et al.) show architectural development easily on a par with Egyptian society, and far in advance of most of the rest of the African continent outside of the Nile delta regions. (BTW, China, for one, was likely far ahead of European society at that time, to a degree we're only becoming aware of due to the decision to keep the country on a mainly insular footing for centuries.) It could be added that there is evidence of a much higher development of Native peoples in the North Americas than had been previously thought: history.stackexchange.com/questions/30692/why-were-north-american-indigenous-peoples-underdevelopedAgain, you insist on a Euro-centered yardstick for measuring 'advanced versus primitive' cultures, terms which are inaccurate in some key respects. China, Japan, Thailand, Tibet, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Korea, etc., are predominantly Buddhist & Confucianist. The reason that the Buddhists do not attempt to proselytize to the Americas is because Christians beat them to it. I said that IF Asians had come here first, & discovered Natives, they would have taught Buddhist teachings to them, just as Muslims would have done. Mesoamericans may have been advanced, but, not as advanced as European, Asian, & even African societies were. How Advanced & Civilized Were Aztecs Really?
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 18, 2024 21:13:29 GMT
Clusium is right not to believe the church ordered crimes of genocide or rape in modern times. Some individuals in the church might have done things against the criminal law, thought no actual binding order was issued from modern era religious catholic authorities; The catholic church usually don’t file complaints, neither does disclose things. Bottom line, how would people go on confessing knowing the church would tell everything ? It does not prevent an individual in the church who knows about a crime committed against children to tell. The sun is one of those papers which are not even suited for the bottom of birds cages. It thrives on that fact.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 18, 2024 21:27:51 GMT
People are innocent until proven guilty. Anyone pretending in the modern or contemporary era catholic church issued orders to commit crimes has it really easy to prove it. If it is on the record then there IS a record. Accusation of crimes commanded by the church demand the exhibition of that record. Please, would anyone copy and paste here the record ?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Feb 19, 2024 1:41:01 GMT
No, Asia is not predominantly Buddhist. It is predominantly Muslim. There are some Asian countries where Buddhism predominates. We've been through this before. Notwithstanding, Islam is the largest religion in Asia, with approximately 1.3 billion adherents as of 2022. The second largest religion is Hinduism, with about 1.2 billion adherents on the continent. Since the 1970s, the Muslim and Christian share of the Asian population has grown considerably throughout the history. (Source: Wikipedia) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Asia#:~:text=Notwithstanding%2C%20Islam%20is%20the%20largest,grown%20considerably%20throughout%20the%20history.Buddhists do not proselytize in the Western sense as you keep attempting to claim: Aggressive proselytizing is discouraged in the major Buddhist schools and Buddhists do not engage in the practice of proselytization. (Source: Wikipedia) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism#:~:text=Aggressive%20proselytizing%20is%20discouraged%20in,in%20the%20practice%20of%20proselytization.Direct quote: Native peoples in the Americas, as well as Australia, New Zealand, etc., had no such contact, & were left with their hunter-gatherer mindsets. (From your previous post)That sounds rather to me as though you were saying all indigenes of the American continent were hunter-gatherers. They weren't, and the native populations of the Southern Americas (Incan, Aztec, Mayan,et al.) show architectural development easily on a par with Egyptian society, and far in advance of most of the rest of the African continent outside of the Nile delta regions. (BTW, China, for one, was likely far ahead of European society at that time, to a degree we're only becoming aware of due to the decision to keep the country on a mainly insular footing for centuries.) It could be added that there is evidence of a much higher development of Native peoples in the North Americas than had been previously thought: history.stackexchange.com/questions/30692/why-were-north-american-indigenous-peoples-underdevelopedAgain, you insist on a Euro-centered yardstick for measuring 'advanced versus primitive' cultures, terms which are inaccurate in some key respects. China, Japan, Thailand, Tibet, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Korea, etc., are predominantly Buddhist & Confucianist. The reason that the Buddhists do not attempt to proselytize to the Americas is because Christians beat them to it. I said that IF Asians had come here first, & discovered Natives, they would have taught Buddhist teachings to them, just as Muslims would have done. Mesoamericans may have been advanced, but, not as advanced as European, Asian, & even African societies were. How Advanced & Civilized Were Aztecs Really?Proselytization is expressly forbidden in the Buddhist religious tradition, whether it be in the US or anywhere else. No one 'beat them to it'. They would not have attempted to proselytize or convert Native populations because their religious system does not allow this. Period. Asia is a predominantly Islamic region. We are not discussing sperate countries, we are discussing the Asian region and its people as an entirety. As such, Asia is predominantly Islamic. This is deflection from the main point, and I won't waste time discussing it further here. Mesoamerican society was more advanced than most others on the African continent, apart from societies in the Northern, Nile delta region (i.e. Egypt), and some in the West (Ethiopia, Ghana, and Great Zimbabwe were chief of these). The main sticking point here is that some of those societies had developed metal tools while Mesoamericans were still using stone. But Mesoamerican architecture is hardly at 'stone age' (as you're employing the term) levels, and Mesoamerica was at least at the levels of even these more advanced African societies. I'm not sure if you read that site you linked to (Historum.com). If you had, you must have seen that those answering that question tended to affirm that the Aztecs had a quite high level of civilization and culture--one or two of the respondents tend to suggest that, in some areas, they were more highly developed than their European contemporaries. However, this site doesn't appear to be an academic one, so I'm going to give it less marks than a better credentialed one would get. But it still undercuts your contention that, as compared to Euros, the Aztecs were a backward or 'primitive' culture.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 19, 2024 2:32:16 GMT
Bouddhism was originated in India. Granted, expansion does not always imply conversion, but it did not restricted itself to its original location. And the latest news show that it is not always peaceful. Comparing societies is tricky, risky. Technologies are one way to do it. Who discovered the wheel ? Neither America, neither Europa.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 19, 2024 4:18:44 GMT
China, Japan, Thailand, Tibet, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Korea, etc., are predominantly Buddhist & Confucianist. The reason that the Buddhists do not attempt to proselytize to the Americas is because Christians beat them to it. I said that IF Asians had come here first, & discovered Natives, they would have taught Buddhist teachings to them, just as Muslims would have done. Mesoamericans may have been advanced, but, not as advanced as European, Asian, & even African societies were. How Advanced & Civilized Were Aztecs Really?Proselytization is expressly forbidden in the Buddhist religious tradition, whether it be in the US or anywhere else. No one 'beat them to it'. They would not have attempted to proselytize or convert Native populations because their religious system does not allow this. Period. Asia is a predominantly Islamic region. We are not discussing sperate countries, we are discussing the Asian region and its people as an entirety. As such, Asia is predominantly Islamic. This is deflection from the main point, and I won't waste time discussing it further here. Mesoamerican society was more advanced than most others on the African continent, apart from societies in the Northern, Nile delta region (i.e. Egypt), and some in the West (Ethiopia, Ghana, and Great Zimbabwe were chief of these). The main sticking point here is that some of those societies had developed metal tools while Mesoamericans were still using stone. But Mesoamerican architecture is hardly at 'stone age' (as you're employing the term) levels, and Mesoamerica was at least at the levels of even these more advanced African societies. I'm not sure if you read that site you linked to (Historum.com). If you had, you must have seen that those answering that question tended to affirm that the Aztecs had a quite high level of civilization and culture--one or two of the respondents tend to suggest that, in some areas, they were more highly developed than their European contemporaries. However, this site doesn't appear to be an academic one, so I'm going to give it less marks than a better credentialed one would get. But it still undercuts your contention that, as compared to Euros, the Aztecs were a backward or 'primitive' culture. If that were so, then Buddhists would have never brought their teachings into China or anywhere else in Asia. Yes, Mesoamerican societies may have been more advanced than some places than Africa, with a few notable exceptions that you mentioned, & one of those you mentioned was Egypt, & there are some that believe that ancient Egyptians may have come to the Americas mixed in the the Natives there & brought their culture with them (though there's no concrete evidence for this). Ancient Egypt, Mesoamerica
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Feb 19, 2024 12:43:17 GMT
Proselytization is expressly forbidden in the Buddhist religious tradition, whether it be in the US or anywhere else. No one 'beat them to it'. They would not have attempted to proselytize or convert Native populations because their religious system does not allow this. Period. Asia is a predominantly Islamic region. We are not discussing sperate countries, we are discussing the Asian region and its people as an entirety. As such, Asia is predominantly Islamic. This is deflection from the main point, and I won't waste time discussing it further here. Mesoamerican society was more advanced than most others on the African continent, apart from societies in the Northern, Nile delta region (i.e. Egypt), and some in the West (Ethiopia, Ghana, and Great Zimbabwe were chief of these). The main sticking point here is that some of those societies had developed metal tools while Mesoamericans were still using stone. But Mesoamerican architecture is hardly at 'stone age' (as you're employing the term) levels, and Mesoamerica was at least at the levels of even these more advanced African societies. I'm not sure if you read that site you linked to (Historum.com). If you had, you must have seen that those answering that question tended to affirm that the Aztecs had a quite high level of civilization and culture--one or two of the respondents tend to suggest that, in some areas, they were more highly developed than their European contemporaries. However, this site doesn't appear to be an academic one, so I'm going to give it less marks than a better credentialed one would get. But it still undercuts your contention that, as compared to Euros, the Aztecs were a backward or 'primitive' culture. If that were so, then Buddhists would have never brought their teachings into China or anywhere else in Asia. Yes, Mesoamerican societies may have been more advanced than some places than Africa, with a few notable exceptions that you mentioned, & one of those you mentioned was Egypt, & there are some that believe that ancient Egyptians may have come to the Americas mixed in the the Natives there & brought their culture with them (though there's no concrete evidence for this). Ancient Egypt, MesoamericaYou seem to be unable to separate the notion of 'teaching' from that of 'proselytization' or 'conversion'. I suspect the refusal to make the distinction is deliberate on your part, but I will post these links that may help explain the real difference between the two in religious culture: bahaitext.info/btxt.asp?buk=adv&tgt=16:1+3&wds=~dbahai-library.com/uhj_proselytizing_development_covenant#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20significant%20difference,someone%20to%20change%20his%20Faith. The bedrock difference between the two is well summarized in this statement: It is a significant difference and, in some countries where teaching a religion is permitted, but proselytizing is forbidden, the distinction is made in the law of the land. Proselytizing implies bringing undue pressure to bear upon someone to change his Faith.
Buddhism does not now and has never engaged in this practice; Christianity historically, and to some extent into the present era, does. Christian missionary work is often firmly grounded in proselytization (it's pretty much the chief aim of the missionary philosophy): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism#:~:text=Most%20self%2Ddescribed%20Christian%20groups,sometimes%20other%20variants%20of%20Christianity). I might note that Judaism also forbids proselytization, but exists throughout the world; so to claim Buddhism would have never strayed beyond the confines of India without it is patently nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 19, 2024 14:21:19 GMT
If that were so, then Buddhists would have never brought their teachings into China or anywhere else in Asia. Yes, Mesoamerican societies may have been more advanced than some places than Africa, with a few notable exceptions that you mentioned, & one of those you mentioned was Egypt, & there are some that believe that ancient Egyptians may have come to the Americas mixed in the the Natives there & brought their culture with them (though there's no concrete evidence for this). Ancient Egypt, MesoamericaYou seem to be unable to separate the notion of 'teaching' from that of 'proselytization' or 'conversion'. I suspect the refusal to make the distinction is deliberate on your part, but I will post these links that may help explain the real difference between the two in religious culture: bahaitext.info/btxt.asp?buk=adv&tgt=16:1+3&wds=~dbahai-library.com/uhj_proselytizing_development_covenant#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20significant%20difference,someone%20to%20change%20his%20Faith. The bedrock difference between the two is well summarized in this statement: It is a significant difference and, in some countries where teaching a religion is permitted, but proselytizing is forbidden, the distinction is made in the law of the land. Proselytizing implies bringing undue pressure to bear upon someone to change his Faith.
Buddhism does not now and has never engaged in this practice; Christianity historically, and to some extent into the present era, does. Christian missionary work is often firmly grounded in proselytization (it's pretty much the chief aim of the missionary philosophy): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism#:~:text=Most%20self%2Ddescribed%20Christian%20groups,sometimes%20other%20variants%20of%20Christianity). I might note that Judaism also forbids proselytization, but exists throughout the world; so to claim Buddhism would have never strayed beyond the confines of India without it is patently nonsensical. No, you seem to be unable to realize that whether you call it 'teaching,' or 'proselytization' or 'conversion,' it is still going to other cultures to give them your own spirituality or philosophy. Now, it is worth noting that one of the differences between Buddhism & Christianity is with Buddhism, there is no problem with following more than one religion, whereas with Christianity, there is. Now I admit, some of the ways in which Christians can & do try to spread Christianity can be very obnoxious, & even Christ Himself Condemned proselytizing (St. Matthew chapter 23, verse 15). So how one goes about sharing or teaching the faith is just as important - if not more important - than simply doing it. Judaism - like Hinduism - is a tribal religion. Part of the reason that they do not proselytize is because it became lethal for them to do in during much of their 2,000 year exile from Israel. That said, while they reject proselytizing, they believe that Gentiles should follow the 7 Laws of Noah, & one of those Laws is to worship Only One God. Noahidism Chabad Lubavitch has outreach programmes for other Jewish groups throughout the world, & the Orthodox Jewish community in Hungary, is currently angry with them, for their outreach programmes in their country. Save Hungarian Orthodoxy
|
|